we want to get this bill to the president. we want to have it clear that we've authorized 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 reports was that the probably one of the very first issues that was raised by mr. putin was global magnitsky sanctions how it's so sensitive to him, a clear message against mr. putin is a passage of the reauthorization and as 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 will yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. >> the u.s. senate preparing to gavel in on this thursday morning to begin the legislative day. senators are expected to continue working on the america competes act which focuses on

u.s. competitiveness with china in the chip manufacturing industry. senators voted yesterday to start official debate on the bill. also likely today more votes on judicial nominations. and now live to the floor of the u.s. 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. mighty god, in times of turbulence throughout our history you have answered us. answer us again.

save and strengthen the ukrainian people. lord, deliver them from their peril. grant them the desires of their hearts and make their plans succeed. may they shout for joy when they receive your answers to their many prayers. today, continue to provide our lawmakers with the wisdom to accomplish your purposes on earth. may they refuse to boast about their strength, but instead boast about your matchless might. and, lord, weeing thank you for the life and legacy of former secretary of state madeliene

albright. we pray in your powerful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the clerk : washington, d.c., march 24, 2022. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jacklyn sheryl rosen, a senator from the state of nevada, 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 h.r. 4521, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 282, h.r. 4521, an act to provide for an initiative to ensure continued united states leadership in engineering biology.

here in the nation's capital focusing on insurance and lending discrimination issues. each day in america the value of our neighbors homes determines whether they can use cash for refinancing their homes, to send , start a business, access credit on reasonable terms and ultimately whether their children and their

offspring will benefit from the transfer multigenerational wealth that can occur through homeownership. this is the american dream. sadly, accounts of appraisal by headlines in recent months. yesterday during the launch of the action plan we heard from a black couple in california, in early 2020 they decided to refinance and take advantage of low interest rates to finish the remodel on their home. and appraisal was needed to validate this transaction but came back woefully under market pick value was at $995,000. $995,000. weeks later after the whitewash their home, they asked a friend to come in and pose as the homeowner. this was within weeks the appraisal came back 1.4 8 million, more, more than 50% higher. research has shown their experience is not one off your rather, they're part of a

recurring pattern of racial bias. further validated by freddie mac studies published in 2021 which found appraisals for home purchases in majority black and majority latino neighborhoods were roughly twice as likely to result in the value below the actual contract price compared to appraisal in predominantly white neighborhoods. similarly, fannie mae examined refinance transactions and found that white owned homes are more likely than black owned homes to be appraised at values that exceed algorithmic predictions. as noted in the action plan the compounding effects of undervaluation overtime has the effect of lowering wealth among homeowners, thereby contributing to the expansive wealth gap. for this reason and more on jund the creation of the interagency task force on property appraisal valuation equity, cochaired by hud secretary marcia fudge and white house domestic policy adviser ambassador susan rice.

the task force was directed to accomplish two things. evaluate the cause extent and consequent of racial and ethnic appraisal bias and establish a set of actions to read up bias in the valuation of residential property. immediately the task force convened 13 cabinet level independent agencies and white house offices as members committed to creating meaningful comprehensive administrative and policy action. it is important to know we did not take this journey alone. utilizing holistic approach we engaged in sought input from appraisers, , civil rights leads and people impacted by biased i didn't buy solutions to bring about change with a sense of immediacy. the product is a a blueprint describing the history and impact of persistent missed valuations come on the progress already made toward transforming the industry and 21 concrete actions and commitment to advance equity in the home buying process. member agencies will take the

following actions. make the appraisal industry more accountable, and bowery consumers, prevent algorithmic bias in home valuations, cultivate and appraisal profession that is well-trained and looks like the community it serves, leverage federal data and expertise to inform policy practice and research on appraisal bias. in conclusion, chairman brown, ranking member toomey, and other members, i thank you for the opportunity to share this with you in the public, federal and independent agencies taken all of government approach to address a long-standing wealth gap issue in a way that will create legacies for future generations. we look forward to the partnership and opportunities to further amplify the success of this task force. thank you. >> thank thank you, ms. tay. mr. park, welcome. >> good morning, chairman brown, ranking member tooney, most of the committee. i'm honored to address the committee on banking, housing,

and urban affairs on the important work of the property appraisal and valuation equity task force which was set up by president biden with secretary fudge and ambassador rice leading a first of its kind interagency initiatives to address inequity in home appraisals. i've had the distinct honor as executive director of the appraisal subcommittee of participating on the task force. for millions of americans building intergenerational wealth has meant one thing, homeownership. appraisals and appraisers play a vital role in the multi-trillion dollar financial services market by providing key risk management tools that protect financial institutions and consumers. numerous public accounts of appraisal bias, , coupled with e lack of appraisal diversity in recent studies raise serious concerns about appraisals and lending practices and appraisal governess. shining a light on an industry that needs reform to promote equity. as background, our current appraisal regulatory system was established in 1989, title 11 of

the financial institutions reform recoveries enforcement act mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: well, it was another busy and productive evening here on the senate floor. yesterday we confirmed another six judges to important positions on the federal bench, and all of them, i'm happy to say, with bipartisan support. we now have confirmed 56 -- 56 judges -- under this democratic senate majority. and i thank my colleagues for

their patience and for keeping the pace moving here on the floor last night. there are two judges i'm especially proud to have confirmed. first, we confirmed hector gonzalez to serve as a district judge for the eastern district of new york. mr. gonzalez is a most-deserving, most-qualified, and most-inspiring individual to serve as a judge. born in cuba, raised in queens, he's the embodyiment to the american dream. we also finally confirmed a judge who inspired me for more than a decade. ally natean, circuit judge for the second circuit. when i first met her, i thought she was truly special, and i still believe that to this day. to boot, she increases the diversity of the court as only the second ever openly lesbian to sit on the second circuit -- open lesbian on the second circuit. i believe that's in the whole

federal judiciary, but we'll check that. the second circuit is one of the most consequential courts in the country, calling only for the best of the best on the bench, and ally nathan fits the bill. i'm both nominees were confirmed with bipartisan support. on the legislative front, the senate is pressing ahead on bipartisan competition legislation to lower costs, boost american manufacturing, and fuel another generation of american scientific ingenuity. for the information of all senators, last night i moved to file cloture on both the substitute amendment and the underlying legislation for our competitive legislation. as i've said previously, our plan has been to take up the house-passed version of this legislation and amend it with the exact same language the senate approved last summer with bipartisan support. the u.s. innovation and competition act. once we pass this amended bill, it will go back to the house and they will be able to request a conference question.

as convoluted as the senate process often is, the bottom line is that the train is moving forward when it comes to this bill. a lot of senators from both parties have worked for years to see legislation like this reach the president's desk. if the united states is to thrive in the 21st century, we need to keep our competitive edge in science and innovation, and this bill would do just that. we must continue growing american jobs. we must continue to lower the price of critical technologies, like semiconductors, and this bill would do just that as well. we have a few more steps to take before we reach a conference, but support of this bill is strong and bipartisan, and the process is moving forward. on pntr, negotiations are continuing on passing bipartisan legislation to strip russia of permanent normal trade relations with the united states. this legislation is greatly needed, and timely, as president biden continues meeting with european allies regarding

putin's despicable war on ukraine. the house-passed pntr by 424-8. 424-8. and the senate absolutely should pass it with equally strong bipartisan support. there's no justification to delay a popular policy that would deal a heavy, heavy blow on putin's russia, especially given that it got such strong republican support, including from leader mccarthy, in the house. and yesterday, i'm happy to say, my team and i had a productive series of talks with senators crapo, wyden, manchin, and the white house. we reached an agreement with senator crapo to move forward on pntr as soon as we can, while addressing oil-ban legislation separately. that way it can go right to the -- the pntr legislation can go right to the president's desk. i hope the rest of my colleagues will get with the program quickly so we can send pntr legislation to the president's

desk as soon as possible. we need a little more work, but we're close to passing this urgent legislation. and finally, on scotus. after three marathon days of speeches and questions and answers, judge jackson's public testimony before the senate judiciary committee has concluded. after watching the judge weather three long days before the senate judiciary committee, my respect, my admiration for her has never been higher. there's not a shred of doubt in my mind she merits confirmation to the u.s. supreme court. once again, a handful of members on the other side -- not all, just a handful -- tried to smear the judge with misleading and downright false accusations. but once again, the judge remained poised, thoughtful, and strong in her answers. as senator booker said yesterday, no amount of cynicism and nastiness could overshadow judge jackson -- that judge jackson's nomination is a cause

for celebration. she's not only a historic nominee, she's one of the most qualified nominees to ever come before the judiciary committee. yesterday chairman durbin announced the judiciary committee will meet on monday afternoon to begin the process of reporting judge jackson's nomination out of committee. there is nothing in judge jackson's record suggesting that the committee should have difficulty reporting her nomination out. once the committee concludes its work, i will move to have her nomination come to the floor in short order. the senate is on track to have judge jackson confirmed as justice jackson by the end of this work period. i commend judge jackson for her excellent testimony of the court of this week. it's not easy to endure three days of testimony with the entire nation watching, but judge jackson has erased any doubt that she is brilliant, she is beloved, and she belongs, unquestionably belongs, on the united states supreme court. i yield the floor, and note the

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

racial bias and appraisals. it's not clear to me that there's enough actual substantive data to come to the conclusion that we have systemic racism in the appraisal process.

the paved task force acknowledges in this report that quote valuation bias is difficult to assess end quote. the report recommends establishing metrics identified bias. it does seem strange to suggest widespread or systemic disparities when the government hasn't yet measured or studied the scope of the problem or maybe even decide what metrics would indicate that there is a systemic problem. the report does however reference and base its recommendations primarily on two preliminary studies by fannie and freddie which by the way in some important respects come to contradictory conclusions. so i want to ask about the research upon which the paperport seems to heavily rely. ms. taylor, first of all i'm sure you would acknowledge gses are primarily in the business of buying mortgages and selling mortgage-backed securities and not merely academics, right? >> yes, sir. >> did the task force look at

independent academic research that reached different conclusions than the two gse studies? >> thank you for the question and yes, we did. there were a a number of studs that we evaluated and i just would like to reiterate the study that evaluated millions of appraisals and the data that was used, and we saw in that particular study where appraisers documented the context of a neighborhood -- >> i solve it. these are anecdotes though, and it looks like most of the conclusions and most of the references in the report refer back to these two studies. let me ask you this. the data that the gses relied on for their studies, is that publicly available data? i don't think it is. >> it is not. >> it is not.

who could release that data rex it could be anonymized. i'm not suggesting it of identifying information but who has the authority to release that? >> right now that's one of the objectives of the paved action plan data based on even the industry came back to us to recommend that we make data publicly available. >> i think fhfa has the authority to do that. it could release this date and then you could do a peer-reviewed of academic research normally does is allow lots of people to evaluate the same data so that they can come to the right conclusions. and yet that's not possible when the data is not available. let me also ask you about this. on the issue of undervaluation, fannie study of mortgage refinance is found quote the differences observed in

undervaluation between white and black borrowers were similar in rate and not meaningfully different. so fannie concludes that under valuations don't have any evidence of systemic differences, much less systemic bias. now, that's for under valuations. in fannie's research they found over valuations of white owned homes were more likely to occur in majority black neighborhoods than overvaluation of black owned homes. you mentioned that in the report, this observation. but the report does not include, i don't think, another observation that the fannie research comes to, which is quote the difference in frequency of over valuations along race may well be due to factors other than racial bias in appraisals such as gentrification. and there's a clear logic for

why gentrification could create a dynamic where if you would have this, so isn't it -- i guess the question is how do you come to a conclusion that there's systemic bias in appraisals when the two primary sources that -- two seems like a low number of studies, and they contradict each other with respect to under valuations? >> thank you for that, ranking member tooney. a couple of things i would like to just share. so have been a number of studies release over the last several years on this topic and our assessment of all available literature including from academic government entities, nonprofits .2 consistent evidence of inequity in home appraisals with black and latino homeowners more likely to experience this valuation even after accounting for other

factors. what we know is the subjectivity and discretion of the appraisal process and the vast discretion given to appraisers is providing their opinion of value. does create a space for other forms of bias. >> well, you have restated your conclusion. my point is that the data that you presented does not meaningfully support that conclusion, in my view. there's no doubt that are terrible anecdotes of terrible bias in appraisals but if we're going to upend an industry and have the consequence of raising the cost of homeownership for america let's not kid ourselves. these reforms would cost, would increase the cost of the appraisal process, and that means homeowners come home buyers would have to pay that. i think it should be based on reliable data. the reports, there are just two. the data is proprietary so can be evaluated by independent academics. they contradict each other in

important respects and appraisal are an important component of the whole homebuying exercise. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator toomey. senator menendez from new jersey is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. at thank you for holding this hearing. look, there are some who will never see a bias and just presume our systems work, colorblind, efficiently, effectively and without consequences to our communities. i wish that was the case but that is simply not the case. freddie mac published a study last year on the topic of appraisal bias and one of the key findings of that study was that appraisal gaps in my noting since its tracks being driven by a limited number of bad actors but rather that quote a large portion of appraisers are generating statistically significant gaps. ms. taylor can you give a brief overview on standards for

housing appraisers, , particulay whether they are required to go under any kind of bias training? >> thank you for the question, senator. currently there is not a requirement for appraisers to attend fair housing or bias training. although, there are several states that do require it. it is not a requirement for certification. >> well, that appraisal workforce is a shrinking field, with more than 12% decline in appraiser credentials since 2011. at the same time that workforce is becoming less and less representative of the population. a survey from the appraisal foundation found that 68% of appraisers are male, 92% of non-hispanic whites, and two in three or 55 or older.

i understand maybe why some of the appraisals are skewed. not because i said it but because freddie mac said it. i don't think freddie mac is claiming -- when homeowner receives a discriminatory appeal they suffer a tangible financial injury. consumers shouldn't have to bear this cost and in many circumstances they are unable to bear it. brookings estimates the appraisal cap can cause homeowners in majority black neighborhoods an average of $48,000. what legal recourse to victims of discriminatory appraisers -- appraisals have? >> thank you for the question, senator. under the fair housing act individuals who have been discriminated are able to file a complaint through housing and urban, housing and urban development, also equal

opportunity either the department of justice if there's believed to be a pattern or practice in that area, and under the equal credit opportunity act if one would believe that they been violated under that particular purview. >> so they could file a complaint but by the time -- how long does a complaint normally take to get processed? to have any idea? >> by statute we have 100 days under the fair housing act to investigate a complaint of discrimination. >> so 100 days probably puts them outside of the time in which they are trying to bite at home because i don't know too many come having to unrealistic, transaction when i was aware i don't know of to transactions that will allow you to wait 100 days for closing. and so it basically puts the individual in the challenge, and so he or she loses out on one home because of an unfair appraisal, okay, so they file a complaint. now they go to buy another home and maybe they suffer the same

set of circumstances it so it's a ending challenge for that person. and i have also seen that as if appraisal bias that routinely cause black and latino homeowners tens of thousands of dollars wasn't bad enough, these communities are also getting hit with tax bills. research indicates a black d homes are consistently assessed at higher values relative to their share price than white homes. and that combined with the prior administrations changes to this state and local property tax deduction minority families are being hit with higher tax bills on undervalued homes. is this something that your department has observed, and if so, what can be done at the federal level to deal with it? >> thank you for that question. we in the paved action plan speak to tax assessment but we also acknowledge and determine that is a complex set of circumstances that differed from the scope in which we were

evaluating homebuying discrimination and appraisal process and refinance processes your tax assessments are often a very local initiative and controlled by local political processes and, therefore, was something we were unable and the narrow scope of time of this particular report o address and identify but we do have that purpose for future. >> i hope you pursue it. the final question, mr. chairman, in all of this would housing counseling help someone navigate these challenges? >> thank you for that, and absolutely. you will see in the pave action plan that we've identified that appraisal bias training will be part of had maxed operations. >> thank you, mr. chairman objection.

mr. mcconnell: yesterday i said i hoped the second day of judge jackson's responses would provide more clarity on some vital questions. unfortunately, the nominee's answers trended the other way. regarding the court as an institution, the nominee continued to reject the examples of justices ginsburg and breyer. she refused to denounce partisan court-packing. on judicial philosophy, the judge continued to deflect actually basic questions. the lack of candor is especially troubling since the president sent us a nominee with no meaningful written record on constitutional matters. for more than eight of judge jackson's nine years on the federal bemple, she was a trial -- bench, she was a trial judge on the district court. as the nominee herself explained

on tuesday, that role neither requires a particular talent for constitutional interpretation nor gives judges much of a chance to exhibit one. she deflected a question about judicial philosophy by explaining that such questions do not often occur to her on the lower court. district court records alone shed little light on what kind of supreme court justice someone might be. now, judge jackson's current post on the d.c. circuit is much closer -- a much closer analogue. the problem is she's held that position for less than a year and has only published two opinions. justice gorsuch had authored 212 circuit court opinions before he was nominated to the supreme court. justice kavanaugh had written 306. senators had an unbelievably wealth of writings to examine.

as to justice bare r barrett in just three years on the seventh circuit. she already had written 91 appellate opinions not to mention her many academic writings on constitutional law. judge jackson has written a total of two circuit court opinions, just two. the only real body of evidence before the senate is her record as a trial judge. like i mentioned, those rulings communicate very little about a judge's approach to big picture questions of interpretation. but to make matters worse, judge jackson declined to answer basic questions about those rulings. senators asked about clear patterns and the judge's criminal sentencing decisions. the nominee deflected by saying every case is unique. so senators tried to examine one case at a time. then the nominee said she couldn't recall details. so senators tried to supply the details. then the nominee stonewalled and

said no one case can fully capture a judge's record. this little made up an endless sir call -- circle of evasion. judge jackson wouldn't address broad patterns in her rulings because she said it was unfair, unfair for senators to zoom out and she wouldn't discuss specific cases because she said it was unfair for senators to zoom in. since the only real body of evidence before the senate is judge's trial records, senators asked why she consistently imposed weak sentences for certain crimes. the nominee then ducked the question over and over. she blamed congress for giving her that discretion in the first place. both the nominee and chairman durbin kept repeating if senators wanted to have harsher

penalties, we could mandate them. that's true but that's a non sequitur. they asked why she had the decision she did have in the specific ways she chose to use it. the senators were trying to understand what this nominee does with discretion when she has it. but, again, the nominee would not answer. she kept blaming the mere existence of her discretion for her decisions to go soft on criminals. when she could have just as easily used that discretion to be tough. we basically had a nominee saying that if senators want me to be tough on crime, you will have to change the law to force me -- force me to do it. in several egregious instances from child exploiation to foant, the nominee used legal moves that stretched the bounds of the

judicial role. in the nominee's own words, she simply has a, quote, policy disagreement, end quote, with parts of the sentencing law. evidently the judge's personal policy views change how she applies the law. finally, i understand some democratic senators held a press conference yesterday to complain that republican questions were too tough. of course, nobody could have -- to find details of confirmation hearings than our democratic colleagues on the judiciary committee. the last 48 hours were a dry and friendly legal seminar compared to the circus that democrats inflicted on the country just a few years back. the american people know it is not asking too much to ask a federal judge legal questions about her record. i just wish the senate had

gotten more answers. now, on a different matter, today president biden is overseas, meeting with america's closest allies as russia's war in ukraine enters its second month. he's engaging with a europe that has been profoundly changed. nato allies have watched a neighbor invaded by an aggressive russia. some countries, like german, are -- and energy security. i'm glad that as i urged last week the president's eye tin ri will not include -- itinerary will not just be western europe but poland. this will send an important message. of course the most concrete way to support ukraine is with a -- with greater commitments of lethal aid. ukrainian forces can win this

fight. let me say that again. ukrainian forces can win this fight. but they need more weapons, more ammunition, more fuel and they need it all as fast as possible. the allies and partners who are helping equip ukraine need help funding their own arsenals. but there is a short stockpile of critical weapons in munitions and industrial capacity to produce more quickly. as other nato members wakeup to long-term investments in defense, america should lead by example. we have to meet the military requirements that come from being a superpower facing growing threats to our global interests. to sustain increases in defense spending, deeper inventories of critical weapons missions, less red tape, work with our industry to make our development and

production systems more nimble. this will not only help us meet the growing requirements of our military, but also ensure we can be a reliable supplier of weapons and munitions to our allies and our partners. as "the washington post" reported just yesterday, recent events have caught our defense industrial base napping. here was the quote from the post. weapons manufacturers weren't geared up to make antitank and antiaircraft arms at a wartime pace while the u.s. had 1 .300 stingers in its stockpile there was no plan to produce more. military who have given stingers to ukraine now want to refill depleted stocks, creating competition for new units rolling off the assembly line.

end quote. so president biden already has real power to address this himself. the defense production act was created during a period of tense competition with russia to bolster production of critical military supplies, the exact circumstance we're in right now. ironically the far left has demanded the president invoke the defense production act for everything but -- everything but its central purpose. they don't want to use the defense production act to bolster defenses but to use taxpayer's money into renewable energy schemes that are not ready for prime time. democrats should be using the defense production act to literally produce more defenses, but they want to instead use it to spend on cylinders. of course this is not to throw money into finnicky

technologies, it's to unshackle u.s. energy producers. we can help meet europe's needs by increasing american crude and l and g exports, but our european friends will have to make necessary sacrifices to wean themselves off of reliance on russia. putin's war of aggression reminds us the so-called international order is not self-enforcing. the relative pacs americana that lased for the last century does not sustain itself automatically. american leadership remains in very high demand. putin's unprovoked war has further discredited the small pockets in both of our political parties who want america to pull back from the world stage, who excuse the behavior of tyrants, who think it would be prudent and sensible to cede vast

experience to russia or china. there is nothing prudent of handing over entire regions of the world to these thugs. the national security interest of the united states never stopped at our own borders and they do not today. we are a superpower with worldwide interest requiring a worldwide presence and a worldwide network of allies and partners. american power will not preserve itself. american security will not protect itself. american interests will not uphold themselves and america's partners will not lead themselves. this awesome responsibility falls on the shoulders of the president of the united states, the leader of the free world.

president biden has an opportunity, as soon as he returns from europe, to begin charting the right course for america and the west. on monday, his administration will submit its budget request for the next fiscal year. we will see if the president finally commits to investing in a future of strong american leadership. our global challenges are not partisan issues. they are american issues. i sincerely hope that the commander in chief of our armed forces submits the defense budget request that reflects this reality. the world is dangerous and getting smaller. america must not shrink from the challenge but rise and meet it.

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

the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. thune: madam president, is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. thune none in february u.s. -- mr. thune: encountered 164,973 individuals trying to cross our southern border illegally, it is the highest february number in more than 20 years. madam president, border encounters over the past decade have generally been low with numbers far under 100,000, but not since president biden was inaugurated. almost from the day the president took office, our nation has been experiencing an unprecedented border surge.

fiscal year 2021, the border patrol encountered more than 1.7 million individuals attempting to cross our border, the highest number ever recorded. we had 12 straight months of border crossings in excess of 100,000, and that is those who have succeeded in apprehending. there's no question that many other illegal immigrants have crossed the border in the past year without being apprehend and have disappeared into the united states. the situation at our southern border is out of control. it is a security crisis. it's a humanitarian crisis. and it is an enforcement crisis. our border patrol officers have done heroic work this past year but they are stretched incredibly thin and have had to spend too much time caring for

migrants. this increases the risk of terrorists, drug smugglers to human traffickers will slip across the border and into our country unnoticed. apart from the serious security concerns going on not knowing who is entering our country, allowing this border crisis to continue increases hundred tairn -- humanitarian concerns. there is nothing compassionate about individuals at the border to run the risk of exploitation and disease and exposure. unfortunately, madam president, neither humanitarian nor security concerns have led president biden to address this border crisis. every month we see massive numbers of individuals attempting to cross our bourne border and -- southern border and every month the president doesn't seem to care. the president travels regularly,ing kriewfg --

including regular weekends away from the white house, but he can't seem to visit the border. it is a disturbing abdication of responsibility with the man in charge of defending the nation's security. the president isn't just ignoring this border crisis, he is partly, if not largely, responsible for it. immediately upon taking office, the president took steps that weakened our nation's border security. on his first day in office, very first day in office, president biden rescinded the declaration of a national emergency at our southern border. he halted construction of the border wall. and he revoked a trump administration order that called for the government to faithfully execute our immigration laws. all in the first -- on the first day. and the president's department of homeland security issued guidelines that same day pausing

deportations xeps under -- except under certain conditions. the effect of this was to declare to the world that the united states borders were effectively open, and border patrol numbers ticked up accordingly, not surprisingly. and the president's anti-border security efforts didn't end there. the president has significantly limited the ability of immigrations and customs and border protection to enforce immigration laws. deportations dropped precipitously during fiscal year 2021, as did arrests in the interior of the country. and earlier this week, the administration rescinded a 2019 rule expanding expedited removal for individuals here illegally. the administration's also reportedly expected to end its title 42 covid-19 restrictions, which have provided for the

immediate deportation of those who have crossed the border illegally. the result, madam president, is almost guaranteed to be an even larger surge at our southern border, taking the situation from disaster to utter catastrophe. one media outlet reports that, i quote, department of homeland security intelligence estimates that perhaps 25,000 migrants already are waiting in mexican shelters just south of the border for title 42 to end. end quote. and there is no sign, no sign that the administration has any substantive plan for how to deal with the resulting surge, or how to deal with the enhanced criminal activity from drug smuggling to human trafficking that would likely accompany this influx. madam president, i get that president biden would prefer to pretend this crisis at our

southern border does not exist, but it does exist, and as president he has a responsibility to address it. he needs to get serious about fulfilling that duty, for the sake of our nation's security and for the sake of all those who are being encouraged by his lax immigration policies to undertake the dangerous journey to our southern border. 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:

part of this means ensuring the legacies of racial discrimination aren't coded into the algorithms that have

direct and real impact on families as well . withoutproper guardrails and oversight , avms and force racial disparities in the employee process and actually worsen the racial wealth gap. that's i why i was glad to see the cftc take a step towards issuing rules on combating algorithmic bias in avms. regulators should follow their lead and take the necessary steps to make sure avms are putting home ownership and wealth building evenfurther out of reach for families of color . thank you very much for your work. thank you for being here today and thank you mister chairman for having this meeting >> thank you senator whiting, senator cortez massois with the office . >> thanks to the ranking member for having this hearing. let me follow up on senator warren's comments in

questioning and let me pose this first to the chamber and mister park. with respect to avms, are there limits to the type of housing where avm this may not be well-suited, i'm just curious. >> i'll state that in the task force effort to understand avm, what we did determine is in rural markets it's not the best use of technology because of how properties in comparative sale values happen. but i will defer to my colleagues to provide some clarity there. >> incorporated you for that question senator. avms are extremely data dependent and they need large volumes of data to work effectively and you just

don't have that in rural markets. avms also tend to work best in areas where the housing stock is homogenous. avms make a lot of assumptions about the quality of construction, the condition and so forth of the properties so when you have urban areas or rural areas where the housing stock is very very, avms tend to break down and not be as reliable. >> i appreciate that and let me add to this in the conversation of manufactured homes. we know 20 million americans live inmanufactured homes . many of them are full buyers of latinos in the elderly. we want to improve the evaluation for this housing stock . let me ask you what is the plan for improving the resale

of manufactured homes. if you could touch on that. >> the task force report doesn't talk about manufactured homes the improvements. >> that's my concern. there's a whole market out there of manufactured homes we should also be pulling into the housing market to put a roof over people's heads and give them opportunities to own a home and it's not even included in this . so with your experience and background can you touch on this little bit . how the value of manufactured homes, is it an important product we should be considering here as we look at and incorporate all housing guidelines particularly for bias, who want to own their homes. >> it's somewhat implicit that when you're talking

about rural communities you're also including manufactured homes and the issues associated with manufactured homes. again, having enough appraisers in the community, having appraisers who are properly educated and no how to appraise manufacturedhomes , i have appraised a few manufactured homes myself and they pose a very difficult appraisal problem a lot of times. so you have to know what you're doing. they may not be the most expensive properties in the neighborhood but the difficulty in completing appraisal assignment is not really related to how expensive or how valuable the property is. it's more related to the specific issues within the appraisal assignment. and manufactured homes certainly are an important part of the rural market and as we move forward finding solutions, making sure that the manufactured home

industry and owners, consumers more importantly are part of that discussion. >> i appreciate that and related to data transparency it's so important. i'm listening to you earlier responding to some of my colleagues questions and i do appreciate your comments about appraisers meeting awareness and training removal of certain discretions to address what we see happening in unities where there is disparity . let me ask you this. as somebody who works in the industry, how easy is it going to be to get somebody who's been working in this industry for a sophisticated appraiser to learn new skills . are you willing to recognize the challenges that are faced now with some of the disparity that come out in

this report and being willing to get this trainingor learn about the fair housing act and lending act .i guess what incentives for at the federal level what do we need to help these appraisers the training or the support they need to learn and become aware? >> it there is a challenge in training people who have been in the industry for 30 years and have been doing appraisals. one particular way. i think what we really need, we need to focus on training for them of course we also need to focus on bringing more appraisers, younger appraisers into the profession and more diverse appraisers into the profession particularly in these rural markets. we really have a lack of new expertise coming in to the appraisal profession and i think with having younger people coming in where going

to have more people who appreciate these issues. >> i know my time is up. i do again for the panels discussion today. >> thank you to the witnesses. senator toomeywill be do a short close and i will do a short close . >> i also want to thank the witnesses. we have heard and we know that there are terrible anecdotes of racial bias in appraisals. the question we have to determine is whether this is a systemic problem that requires reforms. in my opinion the conclusion that the paid task force has come to is not supported by data that they have shown us. not to say the data does not exist but i don't see itin their reports . and the reports that their conclusion relies very heavily on two studies.

the studies themselves have serious shortcomings. first of all the preliminary, secondly in important respects they disagree with each other in terms of conclusions. they use proprietary data not available to the public, cannot be nice. they reports themselves acknowledge compounding factors other than racial bias that explain disparities that appear in the data so for these and other reasons i think we should proceed cautiously before we decide to upend an industry in a way that will result in higher costs for homeowners. >> i appreciate the ranking members call for more studyof appraisals . i agree the task force agreed . thank you for that. we benefit always from more data and i look forward to working with the administration and senator tester who also chimed in and any colleagues who want to help. senator smith mentionedany that want to help with the data . two witnesses pointed out we need to tackle those problems. i want to thankthe members of the task force for the work you all get on this report . we know it's cited in a lot

more than two studies and they consulted countless members of the industry regulators, civil rights, i want to applaud the appraisal industry for the steps it's taken. it's already identified to grow and diversify its workforce. we need to do much more to grow the number of appraisers around the country. rural areas especially but other areas to and to make sure the appraiser profession is open to everyone as miss taylor said a number of times that it looks like the communities. thank you for being here for senators who wish to submit questions. they're due to mister park and miss taylor. you have 45 days to respond to any of those questions. thank you again and with that the hearing is adjourned. >> were going to do breakfast . >>

quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. ms. cortez masto: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will resume consideration of the luger nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of justice. andrew m. luger. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. a senator: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be.

the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 60, the nays are 36, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will immediately be notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you. i've lent my voice with my colleagues here in the united states senate many times here on the senate floor and elsewhere back home in kansas in condemnation of vladimir putin's attack, invasion, the death and destruction that his actions, his sole actions have taken on the people of ukraine,

but those actions have consequences broader than just within the borders of the independent country of ukraine. i want today to bring awareness to a pressing consequences coming out of this invasion, and that's hunger. a month ago russia, the world's largest supplier of wheat, invaded ukraine. ukraine is the fifth-largest supplier of wheat. together they account for about 30% of global exports. this has exacerbated, tremendously exacerbated the already existing global food crisis, and it will only get worse. coming from a state like kansas, coming from kansas, america's largest supplier of wheat, i can tell you the effects of this invasion will have on the stability of our ag markets here in the united states, and it should be

alarming and could prove to be a catastrophic outcome for our global food supply. when there's a shortage of food, one of the things we could do is produce more. i can tell you that while prices of commodities of agriculture commodities we grow in kansas and across the united states have increased, i also would tell you that the input costs, the things a farmer or rancher has to purchase in order to produce that crop, to produce that outcome, has increased even more dramatically. and i would encourage the administration, this congress to do more in regard to the cost of everything. the increasing cost of food for the american consumer and the absence of food for many around the world can be alleviated by increasing the supply, can be addressed at least in part by increasing the supply, and to help do that we need to make

certain that we increase our own production of oil and natural gas and of fertilizer. the cost of fertilizer is a huge input cost for the kansas farmer, and we still have tariffs on phosphates coming from morocco. and the department of commerce is contemplating tariffs on nutrients for fertilizer coming from trinidad and tobago, increasing the cost of the inputs of producing food is a very damaging thing to occur and should stop. we need to reduce the price, slow the increase in the price of diesel fuel and fertilizer, natural gases, the major component of producing fertilizer and diesel fuel is hugely important. we need to increase the supplies of our fossil fuels to help the farmers survive during these times. today i wear on behalf of can sans the sunflower pin, a

symbol of the resistance of putin's invasion. just as kansas is the bread basket of america, ukraine is the brepped basket -- bread basket of europe. ukraine, as i said earlier, is a large producing country not just in wheat but top ten exporter of corn and other commodities. it produces it the not just for europe but vulnerable countries throughout the middle east. according to the economist, the last time egypt raised bread prices the soviet union was intact. food stability is essential to political stability. it was food prices that sparked protests throughout the arab world a decade ago. as we have seen in the humanitarian disaster unfolding in afghanistan and the developing crisis caused by the invasion of ukraine, it is critical to utilize every tool at our disposal to meet these

challenges. and it extends much mutter than countries we -- much further than countries we see in the news each day. 45 million people across 43 countries are on the brink of famine. hunger isn't an isolated issue. it affects each and every one of us. prior to the assault, prior to this assault, afghanistan was facing a dire food shortage with 23 million people going hungry. this will worsen putin's assault continues. in sudan, 87% of the country's wheat comes from russia and ukraine. by the end of this year an expected 20 million people will be food insecure, one in two of every sudanese. in bangladesh, despite progress in recent years, 11 million people are still suffering from acute hunger. in ethiopia 20 million people currently require food support, and this will worsen as putin's assault continues. according to the u.n. agency chiefs, yemen is teetering on the edge of an outright

catastrophe. the number-one driver of hunger on the planet is manmade connell flict according to the world food program. as russia's tyranny continues, this putin-made war, countries around the globe will teeter on the edge falling further into widespread hunger. as the cochair of the senate hunger caucus and member of the agriculture appropriations scht which funds food for peace and the mcgovern-dole program, what i like to call the food for peace and the dole-mcgovern program, combatting any threat of hunger is not only the smart thing to do, it's the morally right thing to do to save lives of not only those living in ukraine, but around the world. in january and again earlier this month i called on usda secretary vilsack and administrator power to release resources in the humanitarian trust in an emergency food

assistance program to combat hunger in times of essential need. the trust was created in 1980 for a moment like this when existing hunger global programs cannot, cannot adequately address the prospects of multiple looming famines. as both the immediate and long-term effects of ukraine's agriculture sector become clearer, the united states should work, the united states with the rest of the world should work to quickly provide the necessary commodities through sale or donation to meet countries unsatisfied food and commodity needs. doing so will help alleviate a greater humanitarian crisis than has already been caused by the unprovoked invasion and will help foster political stability in food insecure countries. we are seeing the worst of evil. putin's invasion of ukraine and the tremendous cost, humanitarian cost, loss of freedom cost by that invasion. we could also see the best in humanity, helping a starving world to be fed.

mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ecoterrorist. quorum call: we're joined once again by the

founder of george mason law national security institute, also senior vice president at ironnet cybersecurity. i want to start with the cyber side first. can you assess the state of the cyber battle deal right now? have we seen russia change its cyber strategy with the past four weeks as we seem to change in ground war strategy? >> guest: russia has been very active in the domain in cyberspace. they have been deploying a variety of forms of malware, and particular wiper viruses. they been using them like in the past in both ukraine and other parts of eastern europe. these are viruses designed to go in systems and delete amounts of data. we've seen that already if the concern is the russians will increasingly get more aggressive on that front particularly, after critical infrastructure in ukraine but also potentially come after the us and our allies here to you seen the president

and last week warned about the threat of cyber attack by the russians against the united states. he worn the private sector to be on guard. the cyber infrastructure security agency at dhs has been talking about this. they need to partner with the government, quote-unquote get your shields up and get protected. there's an active conversation going on within the government with the public and with the private sector about the need to be prepared for the russians to upscale this war both in ukraine but here and yes also against our private industry in an effort to pressure us and pressure ukrainians into concessions and pressure us to stop supporting ukraine extrema that warning from both the president and in white house briefing room from white house deputy national security adviser anne neuberger. here's about a minute of her statement from monday. >> there is no evidence of any specific cyber attack with

anticipating. there is some preparatory activities we are seeing and that is what we shared in a in a classified context with companies who we thought might be affected and they where listing off a broader awareness in this warning. >> would you say, a call to action many hear you say that might believe something is imminent. is it? >> so first a call to action is because there are cyber attacks that occur every day. hundreds of millions of dollars were paid in ransom by u.s. companies. just last year against criminal activity happening in the u.s. today. every single day there should be a call to action. we are using the opportunity of this evolving threat intelligence regarding potential cyber attacks against critical infrastructure to reiterate those with additional focus specifically to critical infrastructure owners and operators to say you have the responsibility to take the steps to protect the critical services americans rely on. >> host: jamil jaffer, what

sectors were you the most -- worries you the most? >> guest: what i i heard her y was interesting, one we don't have indication of specific attack that we see preparatory activities. what that needs is a russians are putting in place capabilities if they want to attack that means they're getting access to systems. what we've seen in the past and this indicates, critical infrastructure industry can use, energy sector, oil and gas sector, the banking sector and the like the defense of the government. russia understands crossing that line going after american interest in a big way could be crossing a line with u.s. feels the need to respond. they will act carefully. at the same time there's lots of things russians can do. they can use proxies like the often do using criminal hackers groups when is designed to correct the national. i think the thing to do is be prepared and respond but also

the government, at the podium yesterday said look, the industry has responsibility but the reality is that american industry can't possibly protect itself from standing alone against a mass attack by the russian government. they have hundreds of thousands of soldiers, cyber diploid, folks were given the stuff. there are tons of money to spend on. no private company can spend their way out of this problem. it's got to be copies working together and working together with the government and the context of a larger -- the government has responsibility take action to protect the private sector as it would indicates that a russian obama coming over the horizon. there is no reason why in the cyber context it should be any different and so the government and industry is got to work together to make this thing and defend ourselves except effectively in the cyber domain. >> host: jamil jaffer with us this for next half hour so. phone lines 202-748-8000 democrat. 202-748-8001 for republicans. staying on cyber as folks are

calling in and the state of the battlefield, can you talk about the role that nonstate actors are playing here when it comes to responding to russia, groups, hacking groups come this group we know anonymous and others. the target of russia has become for these groups. >> guest: it's interesting in a lot of ways you see more nonstate actors getting more active against the russians then use state actors. they ukrainians are doing a heroic job on a battlefield pushing back russian forces around key have. really stalling the russian attacks on the ground in the cyber domain you see a lot of activist getting out there like anonymous going up against the russians. you see pro-ukrainian freedom groups going up against the russians also in cyber domain. there's a lot going on in this space but a lot tends to be of the messaging -- defacing websites and the like. nonetheless it engages the

battle so you see this playing out and what is particularly interesting is you don't see the governments going toe to toe other than we know about the russian attacks against ukraine directly and we know what the ukrainian defensive efforts and potential for russian threat against u.s. and our allies. more to come in cyber domain because if vladimir putin wants to step this campaign up he will go much more aggressive after civilians which is only done and get more in the cyber domain. there's been a lot of talk about chemical and nuclear weapons. it's hard to see him using nuclear weapons in this conflict because he realizes the consequences would be catastrophic. chemical and biological also highly problematic would be very difficult for the u.s. and europe not respond. doesn't mean he won't use them but it's less likely. cyber, attacks on civilians ramping that up on the more likely way he's likely to go which is bad for ukraine because it's likely get worse before it gets better. >> host: in your mind what has been the most interesting or

perhaps successful cyber attack either against russia or ukraine or other nations in this conflict? >> guest: in this conflict just been a lot of small-scale cyber attacks by the russians against ukrainians. they ukrainians like we're talking about are pushing back online in almost what i would call a nuisance way but what's interesting is the russians could get more aggressive in a big way. remember that the attack designed to look like ransomware. in fact, it was wiper malware aimed at the ukrainian government in 2017. that cost $10 billion of damage worldwide including $500 million of damage to individual western companies not the targets of attack. the take away is the russians can get very aggressive in ukraine and also cause significant damage outside of ukraine either intentionally or collaterally or hide behind the idea of its collateral damage if they choose to do so. recent evidence just five years back in 2017 of this happening

with that attack trimer let's take calls. this is stephen in connecticut. independent. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i would like to expand just on the cyber and talk about the second phase in war. i read a paper on the fall about ba bl expeditionary based operations and it was a justification of why the marines were dumping for missiles. you see those columns a burned-out tanks. i think you were right on the ball. and i think the management of the war, like mariupol looks like he alamo. our management from our side is, looks like national security is doing it. i think we need to step up the management for the second phase of this war. personally if it was me i would train 50,000 or five division of ukrainians.

there's a ton ton of videos coming out where there are like amateurs and then there's really highly professional trades, and it's a complete mess. what can we do to up our game on the second phase? >> guest: stephen, to raise a really good point and john what he's pointing out is the u.s. has done a lot come supply weapons as our allies. we done a lot training early on but there's a lot more to be done. the ukrainians have done a heroic job in pushing back but look at the end of the date if the russians want to triple down on this they have longer staying power, a lot of forces, a lot more weaponry, they can stay, stick and eventually when this conflict we've got to enable the europeans to do more. a lot more weaponry, a lot more training. stephen is right but there's also other things people talk about your talk about the potential need or use of a no-fly zone. i tend to be supportive of that. people are concerned if your

institute a no-fly zone will be in direct conflict with the russians but the fact of the met is the russians don't want a war with the united states as much as we don't want a war with them but the other piece of this is they can stick it in and stay in for a lot longer and make this very painful. we've seen confirmed casualties of over 2000, with nearly 1000 civilians killed, 3.5 million refugees outside the country. 10 million displaced inside the country. this is likely to get worse before it gets better. we have to get putin to the table. estimates in a bright had to negotiate. a u.s. no-fly zone support a buyer allies can with that. the reality is this war is expanding and without, the one thing putin response to is forced. we haven't been prepared to do that yet. he's getting more aggressive. we have to say look, enough is enough. >> host: lancaster, california, this is glenn. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i'd like to talk about when the

invasion first happen in crimea. right before that we sent a bunch of money, planeloads in the dark to iran, and that helped fund crimea because they bought weapons from russia. and now we're in this again. biden is back in there again. the corrupt nonrepresentative -- he doesn't even take a question from our press that's right in bed with him. here's another thing, mr. biden is over there pushing the green new deal. he doesn't even really care about the ukrainian people. he doesn't care about the american people. he's enriching himself through the green new deal, and all his friends tried what you bring up president biden's trip overseas. it's nato heads of state meeting right now. he will be addressing the g7 leaders in about an hours time.

there is the photo of the arrival of the various leaders. that was from very early this morning in u.s. time. that was about 9 a.m. this morning brussels time, and meeting threat the day. what does president biden need to do over the course of these meetings, do you think? >> guest: i think glenn raises an important point which is when crimea happened back in 2013-2014 the u.s. response was largely what it is today. it was sanctions and that was ineffective. it didn't deter vladimir putin from going to crimea. it hasn't -- the same is true. we talk about economic sanctions. we've gone further than anybody expected in terms of imposing sanctions and doing it consistent with our allies in getting everybody in the world to join us. the biden administration should be credited for that. that being said it didn't do the job. it didn't deter putin from going in and it hasn't deterred him from killing hundreds and now

over thousands of civilians. the question becomes what more do we need to do to bring this war to a close if what we're doing is not effective? the challenge is we have begun pouring weapon to the conflict but we're not willing to do what we know it would take to really bring this war to rapid close which is to engage militarily. the president has warned vladimir putin might use chemical weapons but he has a a set what we'll do. we know jake sullivan talk to the national security adviser of russia. it's not clear what relayed debt. at the end of the day john, glenn is right. for deterrence to work you got to stay with the consequences, be credible and they have to believe you impose a consequent and with a line is crossed you have to impose them. unfortunately we are not prepared yet to see what our lines are, what were going to do and how far we going to go and be credible in terms of stopping this and happening and as result it's no surprise vladimir putin can press the envelope in ukraine. >> host: to that, this paragraph are and "washington post" about the nato meetings

happening come some nato policy makers in your worry there's been too much public messaging about what the alliance will do and it won't send it to troops and you can know for months and fighter jets for which he had has been campaigning, the unwise decision to keep saying what we won't do tragic that's exactly right. it's interesting to see our nato allies pressuring us to do more. in a lot of ways people were critical of president obama for pursuing a red lime akin to chemical weapons and then even more critical when that red line was crossed and wasn't enforced and it cost us to lose a tremendous amount of credibility worldwide when we stepped his red light. president mine has been hesitant to set a red link but he's done the exact opposite which effectively works the same way by setting a red line and saint will not put troops in ukraine meaning the russians have free reign to do whatever they want in ukraine. that's not a good message either. that's the real fundamental challenge in a lot of ways you

set a red line configure across this will do that this company had to do it. we will never go in, then you can do almost anything. neither is good and yet here are and the problem is the russians are taking advantage of that concession. >> host: to new hampshire, cutler, good morning. >> caller: yes, hello. a few weeks ago you had a lady from the ukrainian parliament on, and she requested planes. and i don't understand why we haven't made them available. poland offered its planes and the administration declined that. you had a lady on, melinda, who was very knowledgeable about the situation over there, and she had the feeling that the administration is afraid of putin. the other thing is now the president is talking about the

use of chemical warfare. well, that's a fear tactic, i believe, and there is nothing to fear but fear itself. i mean, this is not a war. this is not a conflict. this is genocide. armies fight armies. nobody said that. armies fight armies, not civilians. so this man has to be stopped. >> host: jamil jaffer. >> guest: your caller makes three really good point. the first one about these mig fighters. they want us to be part of that. we said no and the biden administration as leica two mean reasons. one, they said the mig 29 will make a big difference difference and number two it might raise the pressure of the u.s. supplying and the race, suggested the u.s. is more

engaged and we want. the problem is we're always supplying weapons. the russians know. if ukraine's believe they could have an impact which they do it seems odd to supply the javelin missiles and stinger missiles and not say mig 29 won't help it if that we should give them to them. your call is light and it's an odd situation to say that's the line too far. that's a bridge too far. in a lot of ways it's the same with chemical weapons. the russians are seeing if we can cross ukraine, what will u.s. do. they say we might use can't chemical weapons. the u.s. says we will respond but we're not saying how which the russians vladimir putin again been a despot and former kgb officer he response to power. he sees the usa were not sure what we're going to do, he reads at me we are not going to do anything so he's more likely to use chemical weapons. in a lot of ways are in the build to be clear and say we

will not accept this and we will engage militarily is causing the war to get worse toward civilians. as your caller points out wars are supposed to be fought between militaries not against civilians but our lack of clarity we will respond if you start getting more civilians, responded to use chemical weapons, and his lack of belief we will do it, right, even if we set red light is what is causing this war to get worse, not better. >> host: on killing civilians, this headline from the "wall street journal", the u.s. formally accusing russia of war crimes in ukraine. here's a portion of the announcement from yesterday from the state department. >> today, secretary blinken issued a statement announcing that based on information that is currently available, the u.s. government assesses that russia's forces are committing war crimes in ukraine. i want to provide you with some additional information underlying this assessment. we have all seen really horrific

images and accounts from the extensive and unrelenting attacks on civilians and civilian sites being conducted by russian forces in ukraine. there have been numerous, credible reports of hospitals, schools, theaters, et cetera, being intentionally attacked as well as indiscriminate attacks. russia's forces have destroyed apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, other elements of the critical civilian infrastructure. we have been shocked by images of russian forces and strikes hitting civilian sites in mariupol including the maternity hospital and museum and an art school. the united nations and other credible observers have confirmed hundreds of civilian deaths and we believe the exact civilian death toll will be in the thousands. last week secretary blinken expressed his view that some of russia's reported attacks did, in fact, constitute war crimes. he emphasize the department of state and other u.s. department will be documenting and

assessing the facts and the law surrounding these reports. the assessment has now concluded with a careful review of currently available information both public and from intelligence sources. this review underpins the assessment that the secretary announced today, that russian forces are indeed committing war crimes in ukraine. >> host: that from the state department yesterday. jamil jaffer on that investment tragic the biden administration is correct. i think it said what was obvious to all of us which is the russians are attacking civilians in significant numbers, doing it intentionally in order to break the will of ukrainian people and that by definition is a war crime than a vladimir putin and his government are war criminals. the question becomes what it was going to do about that? are we going to intervene like we did in boston when we determined that slobodan milosevic was a war criminal? are we going to protect civilians are simply say he's a war criminal, it's terrible, and

the fighting continues. that i think is a real challenge to the administration is what do we do about it now? that's a a question our nato allies want to talk about at the upcoming summit at the g7. >> host: pawtucket rhode island brenda independent, good morning. >> caller: i was thinking about what i heard reported, that putin has tonight people that he's associated with closely. what a topline physicist and secondly biblical mysticism. and looking like in this talk, in his action may be what is in his head is more of a spiritual war rather than a material war. if so, if you follow like the logic of newtonian, you know, like how he was, newton hit majority of his research and spiritual mysticism but was a topline physicist turned what renda, tough to get into vladimir putin said, but you want to take a crack at it traffic brenda raises a question

what is going on with vladimir putin? why use in the conflict so invested? a lot of this turns on his psyche, his belief that russia's no longer needs to become the longest powerful as it was when the soviet union was in existence. party wants to gain back credibility. we seem to get more aggressive in syria over the past few years. we've seen about invade ukraine for the second time. we have seen him sell weapons to countries, nato countries like turkey. vladimir putin is trying to reestablish russia's role in the world and that is a very much a pride mission and it's why at least right now we see the russian people while they are concern that they've lost tens of thousands of soldiers in ukraine a conflict there still support back home. the question becomes how do we change his calculus in his head? in my mind that includes engaging the russians directly and making it clear they will lose a lot more forces, a lot

more costly than they thought if they don't bring this thing to a close sooner rather than later. >> host: fredericksburg, virginia. sam, republican good morning, thank you for taking my call. i have two questions for your guest and a comment. my comment is, where in the united states constitution does it say that the president can unilaterally declare war and send men and women to war? i hope you'll let your guest answer the question. and my second question is, how many of his kids is he willing to send to go and fight? because as far as i know, congress is the one that declares war. so if he really wants united states to go into this war with russia, i think he need to focus his attention on congress and not president biden and his administration. they are doing their best, and your guest i don't think if he

has the intelligence on what is actually going on. >> host: we will let jamil jaffer respond. >> guest: he's out absolutet that the constitution provides that congress declared war. we have declared war since world war ii that congress has authorized use of military force in a number of conflicts including in the war on terrorism, the two iraq wars wars and the like. sam is right, it is congress is role to declare war or authorize use military force. the constitution provides the president's commander-in-chief of the armed forces. presidents including this president and every president before him have taken the view that that allows the the prt to deploy u.s. forces overseas including in conflicts for some period of time before congress needs to act, often by providing funding for conflict rather than authorizing the conflict directly and there some tension here. serve in the chief counsel had a foreign relations committee we

debated and work with the obama administration on giving them authority to go into the conflict in syria ultimately the president said he didn't need that authority because he made a deal with the russians to bring chemical weapons out of syria but your call is right congress has role to play and even playing the role with respect to sanctions. if we do get into a conflict it is critical that both congress and the present come together and decide this is what's right for the nation. my view is now is the time for american leadership, now is a time for the president to get engaged,, to get engaged and say enough is enough. we don't want a war with you. we will come in. >> host: you mention you work on the senate foreign relations committee and as we wind down on the segment can you briefly explain your efforts when it comes to guantánamo bay detainees? >> guest: sure. the senate foreign relations committee is responsible for like the house foreign affairs committee working with the government to figure out what the president needs in terms of foreign affairs and the like but

to authorize conflict. when is at the foreign relations committee one of the things we look at was guantánamo bay detainees. today there are limited number of detainees remaining on the guantánamo bay detention camp. the challenge becomes what do you do with these detainees? do you prosecute them? some are eligible, some are not. and then because women ongoing conflict with the war on terror, al-qaeda, isis, you want to attack americans and use what is become a problem if we release these detainees and the return to the fight as have some to date. >> some of that debate playing out yesterday in the confirmation hearings, or on tuesday when it took place in the confirmation and for judge ketanji brown jackson for the supreme court. want to play about a minute and a half of that debate and come back to you on it. >> on the issue of guantánamo there are currently 39 guantánamo detainees remaining. the and your budget for

guantánamo is $540 million per year, which means each of these detainees he's being held at the expense of 12 or $13 million per year. if they were incarcerated in colorado at the super max prison, federal prison in that would be dramatically dramatically less. since 9/11 nearly 1000 convicted in the united states on terrorism charges come since 2009 beginning with the obama administration the recidivism rate of guantánamo detainees is 5%. >> according to director of national intelligence, 31%. somebody is wrong. if you're going to talk about what i said i'm going to respond to what you said. if we close gitmo and moved into colorado do support indefinite detention for these detainees? >> i would say i am giving the facts -- >> the answer is no. >> i want to make clear that 31% you referred to goes back to the

year 2009? 2003. >> what doesn't matter when it goes back to? we have them and a compass and a compass and it started killing people. >> i would just say -- >> doesn't matter to you when we release them? >> i'm suggesting the president of your own party release them. >> i suggesting it has failed miserably and advocates to change the system like she was advocating would destroy a bill to protect this country. we are at war. we're not fighting a try. they said that some passage of time to today. as long as it dangerous, i hope you all die in jail if you're going to go back and kill americans. it will not bother me one bit of 39 of them die in prison. that's a better better outcome than letting them go. if it costs 500 million to keep them and she'll keep them in jail because it'll they wk to the fight. look at the afghan government. it's made up of former detainees at gitmo. this whole thing by the left about this war ain't working. >> host: jamil jaffer, your thoughts on how that played a trick it obviously heated debate

between senator graham and senator durbin about what to do about the detainees of guantánamo bay, all playing up in the context of the hearing on judge ketanji brown jackson at her nomination to the supreme court. the reason why came up during that hearing is during her time as a public defender and later on in private practice she represented a number of these detainees, as have many law firms. look, this is an awkward debate. i was at a hearing earlier this year before that same committee on the same issues and the question is i think i'm going to graze the war on terror continues. al-qaeda and isis to want to attack americans and the united states under allies. the question becomes is a cost effective to keep these 39 detainees at guantánamo bay? ..

>> looks like jackson is something that with her prior presentation of the these detainees. >> he is the founder of the george mason university national security institute and its national security at gnu. edu, it's easy enough tofind. will talk to you again down the road .

confirmed another six judges to important positions on the federal bench and all of them i'm happy to say with bipartisan support. we now have confirmed 56 judges under this democratic senate majority and i thank my colleagues for their patients and for keeping the pace moving on the floor last night. there were two judges i'm especially proud to have confirmed . first we confirmed doctor gonzalez to serve as district judge for the eastern district of new york. mister gonzalez is a most deserving, most qualified and most inspiring individual to serve as a judge. born into blood,raised in queens, he the embodiment of the american dream . we also can finally confirm the judge who has inspired me for a decade, ali maven.

when i first met her i thought she was someone who was truly special and i believe that to this day and to boot increases the diversity support as only the second ever openly lesbian to sit on the second circuit, open lesbian on the second circuit. i believe that's in the whole federal judiciary. the second circuit is one of the most consequential courts inthe country . calling only for the best of the best to sit on the bench. miss allie nathan sit fits the bill. i'm glad both of these were confirmed with bipartisan support. the senate is pressing ahead on bipartisan legislation to lower costs, first manufacturing and fuelanother generation of american scientific ingenuity . silly the information of all senators last month i moved to file cloture on the subject amendment and underlying legislation for our competitive legislation.

as i said previously our plan has been to take up the house version of this legislation amended with the exact same language that senate approved with bipartisan support. the us innovation and competition act. once we passed this amended bill we will go back to the house and they will be able to request a conference committee. as convoluted as the senate process often is the bottom line is that train is moving forward when itcomes to this bill . a lot of senators from both parties have worked for years to see legislation this reach the president'sdesk . the united states is to thrive in the 21st century we need to keep our competitive edge in science and innovation and this bill will do just that. we must throw american jobs. we must lower the price of critical technologies like conductors and this bill would do just that as well.

we have a few more steps to take before we reach conference support of this bill is strong and bipartisan and the process is moving forward. on pnpr, negotiations are continuing to strip russia a permanent normal trade relations with the united states . this legislation is greatly needed and timely as president by and continues meeting with european allies regarding putin's despicable war on ukraine. the house passed pnpr by 224 to 8. 424 to 8 and the senate absolutely should pass it with equally strong bipartisan support. there is no justification due to delay ocular policy that would be a heavy blow on putin's russia especially given that it got strong republican support including from leader mccarthy in the house. and yesterday i'm happy to say my team and i had a productive series of talks with senators crapo and the

white house. we reached an agreement with senator crapo to move forward as soon as we can while addressing oil than legislation separately . that way we can go to the pnpr legislation can go to the president's desk. i hope the rest of my colleagues will get with the program quickly so we can send pnpr legislation to the president's desk. we need more work but were close to passing this legislation and finally on scopes, after three maritime days of speaking of questions and answers judge jackson public testimony for the senate judiciary committee has concluded. after watching the judge whether three long days before the senate judiciary committee i respect, my admiration for her has never been higher. there's not a shred of doubt in my mind she merits confirmation to the us supreme court. once again, i handful of members on the other side,

not all tried to smear the judge with misleading and downright false accusations but once again, the judge remained poised, thoughtful and strong in her answers. as senator booker said yesterday the amount of cynicism and nastiness overshadow judge jackson's nomination as a cause for celebration. she's not only a historic nominee, she's one of the most qualified nominees to ever come before the judiciary committee. yesterday german durbin announced the judiciary will meet monday afternoon to begin the process of recording judge jackson's nomination committee. there is nothing in judge jackson's record suggesting the committee should have difficulty recording her nomination. once the committee concludes it's work i will move to have her nomination come to the floor in short order. the senate is on track to have judge jackson confirmed as justice jackson by the end

of this work period. i commend judge jackson for her testimony on the course of this week. it's not easy to endure three days of testimony with the entire nation walks and watching but judge jackson has erased any doubt he is brilliant, she is below and she belongs unquestionably belongs on the united states supreme court. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. >> yesterday i sent out a vote the second day of judge jackson's responses would provide more clarity on some vital questions. unfortunately the nominees answers trended the other way. regarding the court and as an institution the nominee continued toreject the examples of justice ginsburg and breyer .she refused to denounce partisan court packing. on judicial philosophy, the

judge continued to deflect actually basic questions. the lack of candor is especially troubling is the president sent a nominee with no meaningful written record on constitutional matters . for more than eight of judge jackson's nine years on the federal bench she was a trial judgedistrict court . as the nominee herself explained on tuesday, that role neither requires a particular talent for constitutional interpretation nor gives judges much of a chance to exhibit 1. she deflected a question about judicial philosophy by explaining that such questions do not often occur to her on the lower court. district court records alone shed little light on what kind of supreme court justice someone might be. now, judge jackson's current post on the judiciary is much as her. and a much closer animal.

the problem is she's held that position for less than a year and it's only published two opinions . justice gore such had authored 212 circuit court opinions before he was nominated to the supreme court. justice cavanaugh had written 306. senators have an unbelievably wealth of writings to examine. as for justice barrett in three years on the seventh circuit she had already written 91 appellate opinions . not to mention her many academic writings on constitutional law. judge jackson's written a total of two circuit court opinions. just two. the only real body of evidence for the senate is a record as a trial judge. like i mentioned those were to indicate little about the judge's approach to big picture questions of interpretation .

but to make matters worse judge jackson declined to answer basic questions about those rulings. senators asked about clear patterns in the judges criminal sentencing decisions . the she deflected by saying every case is unique. so senators tried to examine one case at a time. then the nominee said she couldn't recall details . so senators tried to supply the details. then the nominee stonewalled and said no one case can fully capture a judges record. this made up an endless circle of evasion. judge jackson wouldn't address broad patterns in her rulings because she said it was unfair for senators to zoom out and she wouldn't discuss specific cases because she said it was unfair forsenators to zoom in . since the only real body of

evidence before the senate is judge jackson's trial records, senators asked why she consistently imposed weak sentences for certain crimes. the nominee then ducked a question over and over and blamed congress for giving her that discretion in the first place. both the nominee and german durbin kept repeating that senators wanted to guarantee harsher penalties, we could mandate them. that's true but it's a non sequitur. senators wanted to know why judge jackson used the discretion she actually did have, in the specific waysshe chose to use them . when senators were trying to understand what this nominee does with discretion when she has it but then again the nominee would not answer. she kept blaming the very existence of her discretion for her decision to go soft

on criminals. when she couldhave just as easily used that discretion to be tough . she basically had a nominee saying if senators want me to be tough on crime you'll have to change the law to force me to do it. in several egregious instances from child exploitation to fentanyl trafficking the nominee used especially unusual and creative legal maneuvers that stretched the bounds of the judicial role . in the nominees own words she simply has a quote, policy disagreement with hearts of the sentencing laws. evidently the judges personal policy views change how she applies the law. i understand some democratic senators held a press conference yesterday to complain that republican questions were too tough .

of course, nobody could have less credibility to police the fine details of confirmation hearings that are democratic colleagues on the judiciary committee. the last 48 hours were a dry and friendly legal seminar prepared for the circus democrats inflicted on the country just a few years back . the american people know it is not asking too much to ask a federal judge legal questions about her record. i just wish the senate andgot more answers . now on a different matter today president biden's overseas meeting with america's closest european allies as vladimir putin's war in ukraine enters its second month. she was engaging with a europe that and profoundly changed. nato allies have watched our neighbor invaded by an aggressive russia. some like germany are ending 30 years of post-cold war neglect from military modernization and energy security.

i'm glad that as i heard last week the presidents tenure will include not just europe but also poland. this presidents presence on the eastern flank will send an important message. of course the most concrete way to support ukraine is with a greater commitment of legal legal aid. ukrainian forces can win this fight. let me say that again. ukrainian forces can win this fight. but they need more weapons. more ammunition, more fuel and they need it all as fast as possible.

adolfo, who i think it's been the 31st season leading vikings. and the fact that this is such a great accomplishment for the women of western washington. i hope that we will continue to figure out ways to promote women's basketball in the ncaa tournament. i watched this game last night and saw a few people from our

state who had made there to cheer on the vikings. but the actual pavilion looked pretty empty. yet i guarantee you, it was great basketball. so we need to continue to encourage the ncaa to figure out ways to promote women's ncaa march madness. they're great players, great teams. and they deserve to have the same kind of attention. so we look forward to cheering them on in that final ncaa tournament division ii game. now, mr. president, i'd like to come to the floor and talk about a continuation of our supply chain challenges that we're facing in the united states of america, particularly around the issues facing us in the high cost of cars, electronics, appliances. actually, you can say that our chip supply chain issues actually impact just about everything because yesterday we had a hearing with major

producers of chips, ask unanimous consents in the united states and -- semiconductors in the united states and one of the women who happens to be in the freight business because they produce trucks that are moving freight throughout the united states of america. they said the fact that they can't get these new-generation trucks out the door because of the semiconductor shortage means it impacting the cost of freight of every product. so i implore my colleagues to come to the floor and support sending the bill back to the house, telling this emthat we want to go to conference -- telling them that we want to go to conference and get into conference as soon as possible. those who want to delay this are just delaying the united states and our competition with the world in producing and manufacturing great products. if you don't have the best chips, if you don't have the manufacturing, you're not going to lead. we already know that in 2021 we needed 1.2 trillion chips per

year. that is going to be 2 trillion chips in 2031. we in that this shortage is is going to continue far into the future unless we act. why is this so important? obviously there are sectors like energy, transportation, high tech communications, national security, they all depend on us acting. but, believe it or not, there are companies all throughout the united states right now who are looking at this issue on supply chain and saying, are we going to make moves to take the supply chain back into the united states right now? i'm saying, they are making these decisions this month. they are making these decisions next month. but there are some here who think that we can dillly dale a long and maybe take -- dillydally along and maybe take months and the months and months to reconcile these two bills. they are absolutely wrong. i think guarantee you, the

europeans are not waiting. they have decided that they are going to fund this investment. they are going to continue to move faster than the united states of america to decide to do the next-level investment in semi-kirks. so are we just basically saying to the u.s. manufacturers and other companies, well, if you want the next-generation chips, maybe you could locate in europe? do not think this is an idle issue? it is not. there is great competition for the demand for these semiconductors. but some here want to wait months and months and months before we get to the resolution of this issue. we need to send a signal not market that the united states is determined to be a leader in this area, that we're determined for our national security and manufacturing competitiveness that we're going to build the best chips in the world, and for the supply chain we want that supply chain here in the united states of america. but again, some of our

colleagues here would like to wait months and months and months to have that debate. well, we've already waited 286 days since the senate passed in a bipartisan measure this particular proposal, and now again people want to hold up this process because they don't quite understand the pain at the pump. well, mr. president, this is the demand increase that we're going to see in semiconductors by 2030o there is a demand increase, 200%. there is a demand increase in the wireless sector, 60% by 2030. consumer electronics, 60% by 2030. what are we waiting for? what are we waiting for? we know there's demand. we know that we can make these chips. we know, as one of my colleagues said, if something happened with taiwan where they're making a lot of the leading-edge chips,

the tables could be turned on the united states. what would we do then? not like a little situation like we're talking about now with shortages and huge price increases. what we would do if the major supply coming out of taiwan was affected? so we have to get busy here and work on this legislation and start focusing on the fact that it is affecting our consumers right now. the price increase for our consumers is 41% increase in the cost of a car, for a used car today. that's about, if you think about it, we estimated a car -- a used card or truck that costs $5,000 a year ago now costs $7,000. so a 41% increase. that's $2,000 that a young family that could be going on a vacation or taking care of something in the house or maybe making a down payment on a home

or buying groceries or taking care of rent, now they have an extra $2,000 if they just want to get a car to take them to and from work. some here are cavalier about these costs. they think this is all about how long are they going to wait until they give the president of the united states another victory? and that is a wrong approach. the approach should be, what are we going to do to deal with the high cost of products that we now don't have because of supply chain disruptions and what are we going to do to resolve these issues. now, i will debate anybody on either side of the aisle who do not want to move forward on this bill because they don't like the approach. maybe they don't like the concept of the united states making an investment here. but i will tell you, it's very clear the united states has fallen behind. it's very clear we went from 36%

of the market down to 12% and if we don't doing is, the supply chain will be located elsewhere. the american people get this. the information age is run by semiconductors that increase their capacity to translate more, to translate in the automobile, voice-activated commands, to do the intricacies of communications. as i know the presiding officer knows the issues of communication and national security, we have to depend on these for our national security. so we need to quit wasting our time here. these issues are -- and my colleagues know well. come an make your vote. make your vote. but quit holding up a bipartisan discussion by both houses on facing a supply chain shortage that is affecting americans every single day. and if you do nothing, this

demand is going to continue to increase and we are going to continually be falling behind. so i plead with my colleagues, put this aside and vote the way you want to vote. but let's get to conference. let's show the american people that we can collaborate on solving our supply chain problems. on trying to be serious about sending signals to the automotive industry, to the communications sector, to the national security sector. bring the supply chain back, put it here in the united states of america, and let's get busy doing what we know how to do best, and that's innovate and make america competitive. i thank the president, and i yield the floor. ... [inaudible]

>> senatecommittee on banking, housing and urban affairs will come to order . thank you for your public service. today's hearing is a hybrid format. i appreciate the witnesses being here in person. members have the option as you know . a home is so much more than 4 walls and a roof. it's the refuge you returned to after a long hard day at work and what keeps you safe at night.

it's where you make memories with your children watching them take their first steps, taking first day of school pictures. for a middle-class family home is their single biggest source of wealth, more than bank savings or retirement homes . for those who aspire to the banking class it's the way to get there. it's not just physical security, economic security. families count on the value of their home as they think about sending their kids to college or how theywill afford retirement and how much your home is worth matters . for decades from the black codes to jim crow this country lacks black americans out of one opportunity after another. the opportunity to vote, opportunity to get an equal education, opportunity to have a basic dignity of being able to pick your seat on the bus or train. 1933 when america was a very segregated country by law in many places the federal government created the home owners loan corporation, h olc essentially setting up what would become the 30 year

mortgage for more families to own their homes. soon after federal policy followed the lead of local communities looking in discrimination and locking out black families. with redlining maps our government cut off mortgage access and withaccess to affordable homeownership in neighborhoods where black and brown families live . the more than 30 years from 1934 to 1968, 1968 federal government endorsed the idea that homes and neighborhoods were worth less because of the race of the people who lived there. but the fair housing act was passed to change that and slowly began to. 1968 we affirmed no one should be denied housing or discriminate against based on their color of their skin. in case it wasn't clear the courts and congress made it clear that using race to determine a home's value would finally be the legal discrimination.

but just because it's legal doesn't mean it doesn't happen. look at home values across neighborhoods today, it's obvious redlining of the past has not been undone . i know that in my own neighborhood. talk to black families who have their own praise, listen to the stories they tell you . discrimination is still happening. look what happened to the parkers, an african-american family in loveland ohio. just last year after their appraisal came in far lower than their realtor expected, the parkers took down their family photos, took them off the wall. had a white friendmeet a new appraiser. their home was suddenly worth $92,000 more , 20 percent more than the appraisal when it looked like a black family lived there. that's about as clear-cut an example of how this discrimination works is you can find it was last year. when a black family owns a home it's worth one price and

when a white family owns a home it's very likely worth a different price. in this case 20 percent higher. ms. parker said in an interview she had to tell her daughter, this black girl walking around with her parents as her mom and dad took down family pictures off the wall.she told her daughter sometimes because of the color of our skin we get treated differently. that's something no parent should have to say, no child should have to here. when andre perry of the book of brookings looked at home values he found majority black neighborhoods for 23 percent less than homes and neighborhoods with few black residents even when they had the same access to the same quality schools, same access to business. 23 percent. that means 23 percent less for college tuition, 23 percent less for retirement to put a down payment on the next. 23 percent less to pass on to your children and grandchildren. appraisals determine the value of your home based on how much your neighbors homes

sold for so the devaluation of homes today means the homes down the street will sell for less. that means the next hole come in lower and on it goes for years and years, decades and decades for generations. and the cycle continues unless we ended. that's the reason for this hearing and the fudge report, the hud report. last year the demonstration took the first step and announced an initiative headed by secretary fudge to address biased in-home appraisals. she formed interagency task force led bymelanie taylor who joined us today that released an action plan and tackle this problem . the plan focuses on actions that federal agencies can take today. identify and address systemic issues in the appraisal process, grow and the divers apply theworkforce, consumers tools to report bias . aimed at them. today we will hear from jeff

taylor and jim park, the appraisal regulatory process about what enteral agencies will do to put this plan into action and hear what we can do to help them do their work. this isn't theoretical. this is an issue that has consequences for the millions of families we serve in montana and pennsylvania and ohio . i look forward to what we can do to make sure americans like ms. parker never have to settle for less . >> thank you mister chairman. almost a year ago we held a hearing on discrimination in housing and i'll say again today what i said then. racialdiscrimination is real andsad part of our nation's history . it's a fact . sadly it's also a fact that the government policies have contributed to this discrimination. in my view history shows us when it comes to housing in america including housing discrimination , government is often been the problem,

not the solution. first, we should ask ourselves why the government is micromanaging the appraisal process. as long as taxpayers are not on the hook for risk-taking and subject to existing consumer protection and antidiscrimination laws, each private-sector market participant should be free to develop its own approach to underwriting its loans and applicability should permit discretion to experiment with new technologies like automated valuation models or other alternatives to full appraisals of loan collateral . for example when there are bids for all, the best appraisals probably the market itself but unfortunately that's not the system we have today and instead taxpayers behind two thirds of our mortgage loans and federal appraisal regulation extends even much of the small remaining portion is not backed by the government . government intervention begets more government intervention and here we are today with my colleagues advocating a action plan that will air yet more regulation

on top of an already byzantine and antiquated set of appraisal regulations. thankfully there are laws against discrimination for real estate transactions including appraisals . as a result most institutions have long since abandoned explicit racial discrimination, even the president's nominee for god's office ofpolicy development and research has acknowledged that . as an appraisal industry avoided this law . this administration seems to believe despite the progress we've made to eliminate discrimination in housing the appraisal industry remains systemically racist. yesterday the administration's task force on property appraisal and valuation equity released a report alleging systemic racial bias and home appraisals. this comes as a bit of a surprise. the report recommends an action plan to address this alleged systemic racism before the government has sufficiently established that a systemic problem exists in the first place . the report admits that quote,

the exact number of instances of valuation bias is difficult to assess " and one of the reports recommended actions was to establish metrics to identify appraisal bias. that certainly calls into question whether the office has enough data to know whether their conclusion is correct . now of course we should not ignore incidents of appraisals that appear to be attributable to race if this happens. there have been news reports of homes being appraised for more when black owners when people stand in for them as the chairman has relayed an anecdote to that effect. and fha reviewed millions of appraisals and found some instances where the appraiser included references to race or another protective class. these things are not right. but as bad as theseanecdotes are , do they prove there are systemic problems? and should the government up and the appraisal regime and in the process impose significantly higher costs on people buying homes without confirmation that there is a

systemic problem. it isn't at all clear we have a systemic problem of appraisers undervaluing homes based on borrowers race. the pay task force relied on two studies that have questionable analysis and failed to control for other factors other than race as one considered disparities. other studies disclose their limitations and note the results are not conclusive evidence of racial bias. even fannie mae's study, the one relied upon by the task force found and i quote the differences observed in undervaluation between white and black borrowers were similar in race and not meaningfully different.". that's from fannie mae. and another recent academic study which the favor report failed to cite found racial appraisal bias and margin mortgage refinance transactions either uncommon

or to have relatively minor effect on valuations yet we are still holding a hearing today to address what we are told is a systemic problem of racial bias in-home appraisals. i'm concerned the report devotes half a page to a discussion of the risks of overvaluing homes. instead the report recommends studying alternatives to a comparative approach and range of value estimates instead of a single value estimate for appraisals. but rather than increasing the accuracy of appraisals these ejections increase the risk of overvaluation. under that risk is exacerbated for rural properties which already can be challenging to appraise. i don't think we should be doing anything to make appraisals of rural housing more difficult. nor should we adopt recommendations that in general could undermine appraisals and ultimately reduce the availability of credit for all borrowers . the overvaluation of homes arms taxpayers on the hook for underwater mortgages and harms borrowers. in many cases minority borrowers who been told sold

overvaluing homes. i hope we reject any changes that end up increasing the risk of overvaluation and as i said before one of the lessons we should learn and apply is that when it comes to housing in america, government has often been the problem, not the solution. >> thank you senator. on what melanie taylor is executive director of the property appraisal and valuation equity interagency task force which senator to me and i mentioned and serves as a regional director for the mid-atlantic office of opportunity at hud.ms. taylor's work includes 20 years of experience in fair housing. welcome to the committee. mister jim park is executive director of appraisals subcommittee and member of the paid interagency task force with over 23 years of appraisal mortgage banking experience including serving as director of research and technical issues at the appraisal foundation and is also a certified general appraiserand in virginia, mister park, welcome.

ms. taylor please begin . >> thank you chairman brown. and good morning. chairman brown ranking member to me and other members, and extremely honored to have been invited to address the committee on banking housing and urban affairs. as appointed by secretary marshall fudge in july 2021 i served as the executive director of the property appraisal and valuation equity task force and as a regional director for office of fair housing equal opportunity. my contributions and commitment to fair housing and civil rights spans over 20 years as a career civil servant with god and the department of justice. i've also had the privilege of working with local governments and leading fair housing groups here in the nation's capital both focusing on insuranceand lending discrimination . each day in america the value of our neighbors homes determines whether they can use cash for refinancing their homes to send their children to college, start a business access credit on

reasonable terms and ultimately whether their children and offspring will benefit from the transfer of multigenerational wealth that can occur through homeownership. this is the american dream . sadly accounts of appraisal captured national headlines in recent months. yesterday during the launch of the action plan we heard from the austin's, a black couple in marin city california in early 2020 they decided to refinance and take advantage of low interest rates to finish the remodel on their homes and appraisal was needed to validate this transaction that came back locally under market value was at $995,000 weeks later after they whitewashed their home, they asked the friend to come in and pose as the homeowner and this was within weeks, the appraisal came back 114 8 million, more than

50 percent higher. research has shown their experiences are not one off. rather they are part of a reoccurring pattern of racial bias. further validated by freddie mac's study published in 2021 which found appraisals for home purchases and majority black and latino neighborhoods were roughly twice as likely to result in a value below the actual contract price compared to appraisals in predominantly white neighborhoods. similarly fannie mae examines refinance transactions and found white owned homes are more likely than black owned homes to the appraised values that exceed algorithmic predictions. as noted in the paybacks action plan this compounding effective undervaluation over time as the effect of lowering wealth among homeowners thereby contributing to the expensive wealth gap. for this reason and more on june 1 president biden announced creation of the interagency task force on property appraisal valuation equity cochaired by hud

secretary marshall fudge and whitehouse domestic policy advisor and ambassador susan wright, the task force directed to accomplish two things . evaluate the cost extent and consequences of racial and ethnic appraisal bias and established a set of actions to root out bias in the valuation of residential properties. immediately the task force convened 13 cabinet level agency and white house offices as members committed to creating meaningful comprehensive administrative and powerful action. it is important to know we did not take this journey alone. utilizing a holisticapproach we engaged in sought input from realtors , appraisers, philanthropy, academics, civil rights leaders and people impacted by bias to identify solutions to bring about change with a sense of immediacy. the product is the blueprint describing the history and impact of consistent miss valuation, early progress

wins always made towards transforming the industry in 21 concreteactions and commitments to advance equity in the home buying process . member agencies will take the following actions . make the appraisal industry more accountable, empower consumers, prevent algorithmic bias and home valuation, cultivate and appraisal profession that is well-trained and looks like the communities it serves. leverage federal expertise to inform policy dissing research on bias. in conclusion chairman brown, ranking member to meand other members , i thank you for the opportunity to share this with you on public and federal agencies taking the whole of government approach to address a long-standing wealth gap issue in a waythat will create legacies for future generations . we look forward to the partnership and opportunities to further amplify the success of this taskforce . thank you. >> mister park, welcome

schumer mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, as i've said all week long, there's been an imperative for the senate to unite and quickly pass legislation stripping normal -- stripping russia of permanent normal trade relations status with the united states. the hues acted, the -- the house has acted, the white house supports it. as the president meets with our allies in europe, it's very important that we send a message to the world that we are united

making sure that putin pays a heavy price. after the house passed the nb by -- the pntr by 428-8, it is unreasonable for the senate not do the same especially while the president is abroad. so we are seeking consent to move this legislation forward asap. after a day of long negotiations yesterday, i reached an agreement with senator crapo with concurrence from senators wyden and manchin, to move forward on pntr while also taking action on oil ban legislation separately. now i understand that senator paul has further objection and is demanding we amend this agreement with a major change to the legislation. senator paul appears to be the lone senator demanding this. i believe that all other 99

senators are in agreement to proceed. look, all of us want to see this bill move quickly because it's so very much needed and it's so bipartisan. so i am willing to include as part of our unanimous consent right now that senator paul be entitled to have his amendment with a majority vote threshold. so the question before senator paul is, even though the vote was 424-8 in the house and is very bipartisan near the senate, is he going tank pntr because his interpretation is not forced into the bill? can senator paul take yes for an answer? can he let us move forward today to hold putin accountable? every senator would -- every senator would like his proposal or her proposal put in the bill, but in the senate we vote and we're willing to give the

senator a vote even though we greatly disagree with his interpretation of the law that's here. so i truly, i earnestly and strongly hope that my republican colleague does not object to bipartisan legislation that would deal a heavy blow on putin's russia, especially after the house of representatives acted with overwhelming bipartisan support. many of our republican colleagues have criticized the biden administration for supposedly not a acting quickly -- not acting quickly enough on putin but now one senator is is holding up this strongly bipartisan bill. i hope my republican colleagues can get senator paul to accept this legislation. let us be resolute in fighting against putin's brutal war by passing pntr in the senate right

away. mr. 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 en bloc consideration of h.r. 6968, the russian oil ban and h.r. 8 -- that there be two hours for debate on the bills en bloc, equally divided between the two leaders or designees, that it be in order for senator crapo or designee to offer the crapo-wyden amendment at the desk to h.r. 6968, that there be two hours of debate on the bill, and that it be in order for senator paul to offer an amendment at the desk, that there be two hours of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form prior to the paul amendment and these be the only amendments in the bill. upon use or yield being b