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 back of

time, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the senate vote on the bill if amended, and that h.r. 6968, and finally, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table without further intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. paul: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: reserving the right to object. i think it's incredibly important to read bills before we vote on them, have adequate debate and really understand what we're doing. the mag act was -- the magnitsky act was expanded beyond russia, and now this bailout would expand it further. when you go to sanction people, there has to be an argument about who you're going to sanction. so the original act has in law that you sanction people who have gross violations of internationally recognized human

rights. that sounds good. but the magnitsky act defines gross violations of human rights, including torture, cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, punishment, prolonged detention without charges and trial, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons. a lot of this applies to really what happened to mag ninsky. this was named after him because of what happened to him. other flagrant denials of the right to life, liberty, and security of person. what we're having happen right now is sort of they're trying to pull a fast one, basically. we're going to get rid of all definitions of gross human rights and replace it with not a list of things like torture, murder, indefinite detention, we're going to replace it with the words serious human rights abuse. that still sounds pretty good, but what does that mean? the problem is that many different people have different definitions of rights. the left, including the un,

believes you have a right to abortion, to a house, to the internet, to healthcare. so you can see how if you have wide-open, vague, vastly ambiguous language, someone could be president and say the leader of that country is denying the human right to abortion. so therefore, we must sanction them without any sort of tribunal, without any sort of due process. they would simply sanction them. or what if they're not providing the internet? so the thing is, words are important. you can't have vacuous sort of definitions. where did this definition -- it came from the trump administration. so, basically, what they're trying to do is mirror the trump administration, which gave unlimited authority to the president. kind of surprising for all the superficial opposition to president trump that they're adopting his language now. his language also comes from the biden administration, because the one things presidents have in many do -- in common, they like unlimited power, without checks and balanceses.

if this goes through, it will remove checks and balances and definitions of human rights abuses. it's a terrible mistake. it's rash. we shouldn't do it. i've offered an amendment, i will offer it in a empty mo. my amendment -- in a moment. my amendment includes the definition i just read, gross violation of human rights, torture, cruel and inhumane treatment, indefinite detention. that's what we would put in the bill as the definition. these aren't my words. these are the words of the mostly democrats who wrote the bill. what they're trying to do is take the magninsky act and drive an enormous hole in it to do sanctions on anybody, anywhere in the world based on a vague, ambiguous, and vast definition that is not specific. all i'm asking is that you keep the act. the irony here is the authors, the very authors of the magnitsky act are on the floor saying we don't want the magnitsky act anymore, we want a big, number hole so the

president can sanction anybody in the world anytime. it's a terrible idea. it's rife for abuse from a president. many on the other side had arcs with the -- arguments with the previous president and worried about unlimited power. so they want to give unlimited power to their president because they like him better. guess what -- i'm an equal opportunity, ecumenical type of guy who says no president should have all power. all presidents' powers should be controlled. all i'm asking is we pass the original nag knitsky act -- magnitsky act. this is going to be forever. when we first started into the act, we'd do it for a year or two. this is forever. we're doing it with five minutes of debate, not through a committee, and we're simply going to say do whatever you want, sanction anybody in the entire world. it's a huge mistake. it's a huge expansion of government power, of presidential power, and it will lead to abuse, and i promise

you, the moment there's a republican president back in the white house, the other side will be squawking, saying why is he doing this? why is he doing this? i'd say take a step back. we can talk about this over the next several days. we can come to an agreement. i've even said we can expand the definition. the definition of gross violation of human rights from magnitsky should not be thrown away and we can add to it. if there is corruption you don't think is included, give us words, we'll talk about it, see if we can i don't mice. that's what was offered -- if we can compromise. that's what was offered. we got everybody else agrees on the other side, i should be quiet. this is your language. this is the magnitsky act from the last five years, and you're calling it ar cane? this is a very reasonable request, and it's a very unreasonable request to ram this down the throats of americans to expand presidential power with no checks and balances, and i absolutely object to it.

i will offer as a counter, though, a unanimous consent request that is at the desk to have my amendment pass immediately, and if my amendment is passed immediately, that the remaining request from the senator schumer be passed as well. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. schumer: before i yield to my friend from the state of maryland, the author of the magnitsky act, let me say this to my good friend from kentucky. every senator would like their amendment to be easily inserted into a bill, but in the senate we vote. i am offering the senator a vote on his amendment. if each senator said my way or the highway, we'd have total paralysis, even on important pieces of legislation like this. i yoo eld to the senator from maryland -- i yield to the senator from maryland. the presiding officer: the senior senator from maryland is recognized. mr. cardin: i reserve the right

to object in regards to the senator from kentucky's request. first, let me just correct some of the statements that were made. this bill went through the committee. it was voted in the committee. amendments were offered in the committee. the senator from kentucky was present during the markup in the committee. that's the way legislation should be considered in this body. we're talking about how the senate can work the way it should? let the committees function, and that's exactly what we did in regards to the legislation that's on the floor. it went through the regular process, and the senator's request is, despite the fact that the majority leader has said, well, we'll allow a vote on the floor, and let the members of the senate make the decision as to whether they agree or disagree with the arguments made by the author of the amendment.

that's how a democracy should work. that's how a legislative process should work. so i'm somewhat shocked that the senator would object to the majority leader's request, that would allow the legislation to come to the floor and let the senate work its will by majority vote. that's what the majority of the -- let me give you a little more history on this. the original magnitsky bill was original attached to the pntr for russia. and it was aimed solely at the tragic death of sergei magnitsky. we wanted to hold those responsible for his death accountable. and that's why the language that the senator's referring to was included in the original act. it was aimed at one episode and one set of abusers.

it became such a successful tool for diplomacy that working with senator mccain, the two of us worked on making it a global bill, so that it would apply beyond just russia. and that we could use this to advance american foreign policy and we worked, and quite frankly, we didn't have the enthusiastic support of the administration, because, the senator from kentucky is right, administration's like to have their own authority, they don't like to have congress intercede. on magnitsky, we can make recommendations who should be considered for sanctions. so it was a major step forward. and we did -- we were able to pass global magnitsky. in the meantime, president trump worked with us on this. he was a supporter of using this tool, and he passed an executive order, signed an executive order

that included provisions that we asked him to include in the executive order, because we recognized that corruption was the fuel for mr. putin and russia and author taish regimes -- authoritarian regimes. we wanted to make sure we could include corruption. we wanted to make sure we could include the enablers, those who enabled these human rights abusers to do what they do. and that was included in the executive order. and we worked with the trump administration, and we worked with the biden administration, and we now have a workable standard. better than that, as a review of our leadership, we've gotten our countries around the world to come to our tool. the european union has passed

global magnitsky. u.k. has passed global magnitsky. canada has passed global magnitsky. japan is considering it as we speak. it's becoming the standard. so, from a process point of view, what was passed out of our committee, what was passed out of the house committee, both authorizing committees have agreed on this language, which has been signed off by treasury so they know they can use it, which has due process in it, because we are dealing with property rights. so, now let's get to the substance of what the gentleman's amendment would do. the substance of it is that it would not allow us to do what we need to do in regards to mr. putin and russia as a result of his invasion of ukraine. and the sponsor of this amendment is very clear what he's trying to do. he's trying to take back the

current authority under executive order, and would therefore not even be useful at all in regards to going after mr. putin. we'd be taking a step back. it was just a few days ago that president zelenskyy asked us to expand the individual sanctions, and that's what's on the floor right now, and the -- in the majority leader's request, so we can expand it, we can give him the tools we need, so that he can respond and help the people of ukraine. that's what's involved here. but with the amendment being offered by the gentleman from kentucky we would be moving backwards, doing just the opposite. it would weaken where we are today. so, i am really puzzled as to why we can't let the trust -- or trust the judgment of the members of the senate to make this decision. let's argue over the two hours that the majority leader will give us to argue this point.

i look forward to that argument before the senate. i already had that argument in our committee, because the gentleman from kentucky and i, along with the presiding officer, served on the senate foreign relations committee. we had this argument in committee! and if i'm correct, i believe the vote was all but one supporting my position. so, we've had this debate where it should take place, among the experts. and the gentleman's not satisfied with that. mr. president, i'm at a loss here, because i know how important it is for us to move forward to help the people of ukraine. every day we see the bodies on the ground. we see the horrific action by mr. putin. if we really want to do everything we can to help the people of ukraine. the action the majority leader is asking us to take will help the people of ukraine. as i understand it, one senator is going to deny us the

opportunity to take a very positive step to stands up for democracy and standing up for the people of ukraine. i object to the request. the presiding officer: the objection is heard to the modification. is there objection to the original request? mr. paul: mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. wyden: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon is recognized. mr. wyden: mr. president, i'm going to keep my remarks short and simple. america and the world need immediately the toughest possible sanctions against the russian oligarchs who are working constantly to device

bizantine schemes to get around the kind of sanctions that are in this trade bill. we all understand what's at issue here, and that is we need to move quickly. we need to move while the president is mobilizing the collective strength of our allies. and i'm interested in working with all of my colleagues, with the majority leader's leadership, we've been working for days on this, but what's important -- and our friend from maryland has touched on it -- is that we not just relitigate what came up in one committee or another if it's going to hold up the essential task ahead. and that is these ole goshes who -- oligarchs who are putin's best allies and are working with him constantly to figure out

ways to get money to fuel the putin war machine, what they really don't want, what the sanctions will do is rein them in, limit them as they continually to try to devise these schemes. so i would just urge my colleagues, and we're here to continue to work on this, to get this done and get it done now. because to do otherwise allows the oligarchs and all their lawyers and financial managers to look at what is happening in the united states senate. senator cardin. and those oligarchs say doesn't look like there's going to be anything right now. don't have to worry immediately. the senate is better than this. i urge my colleagues to pass this bill which would impose the harshest economic consequences of a generation on the russians

and particularly the oligarchs who have done so much to prop putin up against the odds. pass this bill. pass it now. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio is recognized. mr. brown: i thank the presiding officer. today's powerful new sanctions against hundreds of putin allies are another critical step in u.s. leadership bringing our allies together to ratchet up pressure on russia to halt its brutal invasion of ukraine. i think, mr. president, putin has been shocked by a couple of things. putin has been shocked at the ukrainians -- that the ukrainians have had such furious effective, courageous resistance. he didn't see that coming. the other thing that's shocked putin has been that the skill that -- with which president biden assembled this coalition of countries to stand up to putin to provide assistance to refugees and assistance to ukranians in their country, to provide military assistance, and to put the squeeze on sanctions

against russia. he's assembled this coalition skillfully including countries like germany and sweden and finland and switzerland, countries that never really played here. nobody really expected. and biden has brought them in in a coalition and extracted -- and with the right kind of target of -- sanctions. in addition to sanctioning the banks and oil companies, in addition to sanctioning the oligarchs and putin himself, the president is announcing now sanctioning russian parliamentarians and parliament itself. russia arms merchants and defense firms that enabled this war and cronies including the c.e.o.'s of russia's largest banks. i don't understand opposition to what we're trying to do. i don't -- i don't know. do we have members of the senate perhaps that for whatever reason side with putin or side with the

oligarchs. i don't know. but this is legislation we ought to be able to get moving quickly through this body as it did in the house. as long as putin's invasion goes on, we'll continue to lead the world turning up the heat and weakening russia's war machine. today i come to the floor to support the removal of permanent normal trade relations with russia. it's not, at the presiding officer from maryland knows, it's not the first time a number of us have been concerned about our government's mistakes in large part because of corporate lobbying on permanent normal trade relations with countries around the world, one of the most -- one of the worst decisions ever made in this body or at least in recent history and the damage it did to manufacturing in the industrial midwest and elsewhere was giving permanent normal trade relations to china and the advantages that gave them so they could -- so american -- american companies always in pursuit of cheaper labor.

if going south wasn't good enough, they'd go to mexico. then they would go to china, close the plants in ohio or western maryland, move to china, open up plants there with cheap labor and with pretty much nonexistent environmental regulations and then ship those jobs back to the united states. that was permanent normal trade relations with china that we gave them some 20 years ago. there was a horrible mistake. but today this is about for a different reason permanent normal trade relations with russia we granted. the president is already committed to ending permanent normal trade relations with russia. the house already has passed a bill ending pntr with russia. what are senate republicans waiting for? russia should not have free and unlimited access to america's economy or the global economy. there should be no place for putin and his cronies to hide. we're trying to get this done in the senate. i was on the floor yesterday hoping we could see this done then. 24 hours more has passed. 24 hours more of putin attacking

using -- attacking as a war criminal people in ukraine, people who are innocent, people who should never have to deal with this. another night in ukraine under fire from an unprovoked -- on villain families. another day of destruction of villian peaceful cities. waiting every day hurts the ukrainian people. we need to do our part to give the president immediate legal authority. he needs to work with our allies on this to shut off access to favorable treatment of russia's goods around the world. senator paul, one republican senator, needs to relent to let us pass this. i mean, i know what liz cheney, a member of the house, daughter of vice president cheney under president bush, i know what she said some time ago. and she's a republican. she talked about the putin wing of the republican party. i have no idea who in this body is in the putin wing of the republican party. but i do know that there's resistance on the other side of

the aisle to doing what we need to do to give president biden even more tools to do even more than he's already done on this. the bill passed the house with a nearly unanimous vote. we need to finalize it in the senate so we can ratchet up the pressure further, cut off russia's ability to finance its unprovoked invasion of another member country in the world trade organization. even before this war, we knew that russia liked china, they cheat on trade. i said it yesterday on the floor. they subsidize their industries. at the pollute the environment to gain that unfair advantage. it's cheaper to make something if you don't dispose of waste or you put contaminants into the air instead of disposing them in another way. ohioans know all too well about being forced to compete with countries that cheat. why have we let another day go by with this still on the books? if we don't remove it now, russia will continue to use the status to position their industries in the global market

hurting american companies in the process. it's not a partisan issue. a couple of weeks ago, maybe almost a month ago, i introduced a bicameral, bipartisan bill with senator cassidy of louisiana to remove russia's normal -- permanent normal trade relations status. there's bipartisan support to do this quickly. i worked with my colleague senator crapo on russian sanctions over the years. i trust him. i snow we -- i know we share the same goals but senator paul speaking for whoever on this not letting this bill through. i'm hopeful there's a path forward. i hope we can work out differences quickly. the majority, overwhelming majority of this body wants to move. we should all stand together saying countries that invade a sovereign nation will not have free and unrestricted access to our economy, period. again, countries that invade another sovereign nation will not, should not have free and unrestricted access to our economy. it's time to come together to end permanent normal trade

relations with russia.

and all of them i'm happy to say with bipartisan support. 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 confirm hector gonzalez to serve as district judge for the eastern district of new york. mr. gonzalez is the most deserving, most qualified and most inspiring individual to serve as a judge. born in cuba, , raised in queen, he is the embodiment to the american dream. we also finally confirmed a judge was inspired me for more than a decade, now confirmed as circuit judge for the second circuit. when i first met her i thought here is someone who is truly special, and i still believe that to this day. and 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 it whole judiciary. will check that. the second circuit is one of the most consequential court in the entire country calling only for the best of the best to sit on the bench. she fits the bill. i'm glad both of these nominees were confirm 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 said previously, our plan has been to take up the house passed version of this legislation and amended with the exact same language the senate approved last summer with bipartisan support, the use 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 committee. as convoluted as the senate process often is, bottom m 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 to pntr by 424 424-eight, 424-eight and the senate absolutely should pass it with equally strong bipartisan support. there is no justification to delay a popular policy that would deal a heavy, 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 senator crapo, senator wyden, senator manchin and senator whitehouse and reach an agreement with senator crapo that would be as soon as we can while addressing oil band legislation separately. that weight they can go right to the president, pntr legislation could 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 are 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 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 u.s. supreme court. once again, i handful of members on the other side, not all, just a handful, try 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, could overshadow judge -- that

judge jackson's nomination is a cause for celebration. she is not only a hostile work nominee come she's one of the most qualified nominees to have 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 up. 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 judge jackson confirmed as justice jackson by the end of this work. mac. i can in judge jackson for excellent testimony over the course of this week. it's that 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 supremer court.

i yield the floor mr. president, vladimir putin has continued to wage horrific war against ukraine and the ukrainian people. this invasion waged upon the profits of russia's oil and gas empire has caused destruction and devastation beyond measure. we must denounce putin's war of choice, but we must call out profiteering and the ricochet effects of that conflict that affects americans and others across the world. this connection to conflict is only possible as a result of the fallacy of american energy independence from oil and gas extraction, a lie that has been sold by the american petroleum institute -- or the american

prevarication institute, as they should be called. for years, the oil and gas industry has sold americans more snake oil than actual oil, promising security and safety in exchange for unlimited drilling, unlimited exports, unlimited profits for big oil and big gas in the united states. and after yet another year of price spikes caused by putin and profiteering, it is time to say, enough is enough with these false promises and crocodile tears from the american petroleum institute, from exxonmobil, from chevron, from all of these companies. president biden was right to follow my spigot act and the consensus in the house and senate to ban owl oil imports from russia.

the only way to end putin's oil and gas-funded wars are to cut off his oil and gas-funded piggy bank, which comes, unfortunately, historically from american consumers at the pump. that has to end. and thankfully, president biden has now made that decision. and i.t. because we have a -- and it's because we have a moral moment here to provide all possible humanitarian aid to the ukrainian people, we have a moral moment here to cut off the money pipeline that the is funding the missiles and the tanks that are destroying the homes of innocent people in ukraine, and we have a moral moment that ensures that we take the action to build a better world that is safe from climate

change-fueled crisis, but our ability to meet this moral moment hinges on what we do next on the floor of the united states senate. what action we take to respond to this obvious crisis that we have on the planet, all related to this oil and gas-fueled military invasion of ukraine -- the tanks, the planes, the soldiers, all paid for by oil and gas money. we could fail-safe to meet this moral moment by accept respecting the bad-faith argument -- by accepting the bad-faith arguments from big oil, using this argument to fuel more profit for big oil at the expense of american pocketbooks, or we can meet the moral moment if the united states is willing to lead with innovation, moving

away from global oil chaos and closer to clean, cheap domestic renewable energy sources, sources that will not fall victim to price hikes from despots, dictators, and criminals overseas. now, we've all heard the big lie from big oil, fox news, and the g.o.p., the gas and oil party. their message is all you need to do is give us a few more leases, you the c a -- cut a few more regulations, provide us with a few more subsidies, and then we'll be on our way to energy independence. trust the oil and gas companies, they say. and fox news says, yes, trust the oil and gas industry. but that argument is leakier than an old oil tanker, and it's been proven again and

again. if big oil wanted to make us energy-independent, they would have already done it. instead they resort to their big lie. so here are the facts -- big oil is sitting on 11,000 unused oil and gas leases. nine thousand of those leases are on federal lands in the united states. they have already been purchased by the oil and gas industry, mostly for $2 an acre. but they've got them. and 2,000 leases offshore in the waters of the united states. and they've all been already approved for drilling. big oil also had 6,000 partially drilled wells that they can use to drill right now. in other words, they've already done the drilling, and they're

still not going there right now on an emergency basis to produce that additional oil and gas. and why is that? because rather than using the resources they already have to drill, they are using this crisis as an excuse to get more leases, more wells, more profit for themselves while sitting on, squatting on the existing leases they already have that could produce the additional oil and gas that they say they want to produce. but of course they don't want to produce that oil or else they would be doing it already. they just want more leases that they can sit on and profit from in the years ahead. but in terms of solving this crisis that we have right now, they can do it if they want, but they don't want to because it might actually drive down the price of oil. it might drive down the price of natural gas if they produce more here. this is not a problem of governmental overreach.

if you don't trust me on this, how about trusting the oil executives themselves? in a recent survey, 60% of oil executives said investors are keeping them from drilling. just 10% pointed to regulations. these are the oil company executives. they say it's the investors, the millionaires and their company who don't want to drill. not federal regulations. remember keystone pipeline, the pipeline that republicans wanted to shekd -- they could be energy independent? in 2015, every single republican on the floor of the united states senate voted against my amendment to ban the exports of that oil from the keystone pipeline. they kept saying then it will lead to energy independence. and when i said, fine, let's have an amendment that says it cannot be exported. every single republican said no, allow it to be exported out

of our country. these crocodile tears from the republican party, from the g.o.p., gas and oil party, it's just so predictable, and it comes back every single time. big oil has kept up their export shenanigans. in 2021 we imported 8.4 million barrels a day of oil. last year we imported on average 600,000 barrels of oil a day from russia. at the same time we is exported the same amount to china. that's what the republican party and the gas and oil industry got in 2015 when we lifted the ban on the export of gas and oil. that's not energy independence. it's profit dependence of the american people on the agenda of big oil and big gas. the gas and oil party doesn't want to drill for oil here in

america to protect americans from economic harm. they want to do it for their own economic benefit. big oil has a need for greed. the republican party, we just heard in the confirmation hearing, they keep talking about crime in the streets. the big problem is crime in the suites, crime in the oil and gas executive suites of our country, and the republican party inability to stand up to them so that we have true energy independence in our country. in 2021, while consumers sacrifice at the pump with gas prices increasing by 50%, big oil made over -- get this number -- $200 billion in profits. that's what's happening. that's why they don't want to drill, because the price of oil might come down, and, therefore, their profits might come down. but they've got all the leases they need right now. this isn't about energy supply for consumers.

it's about big oil's demand for profits for their shareholders and for their executives. that's what the agenda of the oil and gas industry in america is all about, not american security, not american consumers, not american environmental and health care issues. but the profits of their executives. we don't need sacrifice in our country. we need innovation. we need a way to ensure that we unleash all of the potential which we have in our country in order to tap into all of our rich natural gas resources. so instead of supporting energy independence and getting out of the way of a real domestic clean energy boon, big oil would rather force consumers to sacrifice with high prices at the gas pump. we don't need american sacrifice by paying high gas prices. instead we need to innovate and

install clean energy solutions. this is our short-term and our long-term solution to price disruptions, climate chaos, environmental injustice and wars paid for with oil and gas profits, much of it war profiteering. and here are some more facts -- an additional 16 million electric vehicles on the road would replace all of the oil that we currently import from russia. let me say that again. if we just deploy 16 million all-electric vehicles, we back out all the oil from russia. the next 16 million all-electric vehicles would back out all the saudi oil that we import into the united states. e.v.'s just doesn't stand for electric vehicles. it also stands for ending violence, getting the united states tied up into situations around the world because of all the money that these wealthy oil

states get from the united states. so here's another way to break it down. we can put five million electric vehicles on the road, five million heat pumps in homes and replace 75% of our public bus fleet with electric buses, and still back out all the oil we import from russia. in the time it would take to implement these measures, we can release already congressionally mandated sales of the stij petroleum reserve -- of the strategic petroleum reserve to give consumers relief at the gas pump. we can accomplish all of this by passing my save consumers act with senator heinrich, which would grant the president additional authority to implement energy efficiency standards and release another 265 million barrels of oil from the strategic petroleum reserve by the end of 2023. we can do this.

we can deploy the strategic petroleum right now, invest in a renewable clean energy agenda, and actually produce enough energy that substitutes for all the russian oil, and do so in a very brief period of time. but we have to commit to destroying the demand by putin's dirty energy business model by powering our own country with clean american-made renewable energy. we can power our way to peace. we can power our way to stopping the most dangerous effects of greenhouse gases creating climate change on our planet. putin banked on divisions in the west. what he nownd instead is our -- what he found instead is our complete sore darty with the people of ukraine. imagine if we were to channel that same spirit of unity to

unlock a safe, healthy future and untether ourselves from putin's dirty profits. we should agree that no country continues to have a veto on our energy security or of our friends and allies. the future lies not in the extracted fossil fuels of the industrial revolution, but technologies that will power the clean energy revolution. it is in our interest to build a well-trained, well-paid battalion of american union workers to lead countries to look to their energy needs from the red, white, and blue of the united states instead of putin's cronies who finance russia's repression at home and adventurism abroad. by passing a $555 billion investment in clean energy and climate justice, we can build a made in america clean economy that delivers real energy

independence for our country, and we can export those technologies around the world with tax credits and rebates in wind and solar, all-electric vehicles, offshore wind, battery storage technologies, heat pumps, advanced domestic manufacturing. we can cut costs at home while cutting off putin's money line from oil and natural gas gas. these investments would reduce our depends on global omnibus -l markets and instead power our country through localized clean energy. the solar from our deserts, the solar power from those states that have near year-round sun, the wind off of our coast from massachusetts massachusetts down to maryland where the presiding officer represents, the wind off of the west coast, the hydropower from our southeast,

the geothermal from our northwest, all of it can be tapped, and we can end an era where our country is held hostage by the need to import more oil. our federal climate policies are exactly what we need. this national security moment, this environmental moment, this health care moment, this moral moment for our country and for the planet. there is no quick solution to this quagmire that big oil has drilled the united states into. there are only better and worse solutions, moral and immoral solutions. we can innovate and install clean energy that produces all of the energy which we need and protects us, protects our allies, protects our planet at the very same time. or we can continue down the pathway of false promises and

profiteering. it is our moral moment. let's stand in solidarity with those affected by oil and gas wars and seize this chance for a cleaner, safer, more affordable future for americans, fo our allies, and for the world. and there are doubters, doubters that we can make this transition, people who say, wind and solar, all-electric vehicles, battery storage technologies, that sounds fine but it just won't solve the problem. they are the same people who said that we could not deploy the spectrum, which i was the author of the bill that accomplished, that made it possible for everyone by 1995 to have a flip phone in their pocket at ten cents a minute, and then using that very same spectrum ten years later a young guy, steve jobs, invented a phone which is a computer, the

same power as the computers on the apollo mission to the moon. we innovated, we moved, and we can actually see people fleeing ukraine all holding a smartphone invented in the united states because we put together the policies that change us from black rotary dial phones to these powerful computers in everyone's pockets. we can do the same thing with energy. we can create a revolution. we just have to get big oil and big gas out of the way and allow our young people to innovate, allow our entrepreneurs to innovate, allow for the deployment of all of these technologies, and then children will have to look to the history to find if there ever was such crisis that we are living

through today. so my hope is that the senate will respond, that they understand how much of this conflict is created by the globe's dependence upon oil and gas. putin is proving that to us once again. and if we look at the middle east, we can see that hole that we dug for ourselves. we have the solution. it's innovation. it's optimism. it's unleashing the entrepreneurial spirit of our country. that will be the challenge, will we have the ability to take on those energy titans that the ewe reached an agreement -- that the ukrainian people are showing us every day.

the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: there is no press ebbs of a quorum. the presiding officer: -- presence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: >> yesterday i said i hopethe

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 core institution, the nominee continued to reject 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 troubling since the nominee has no meaningful written record unconstitutional matters . for more than eight of judge jackson's nine years on the federal bench she was a trial judge on the district court . as the nominee herself explained on tuesday that rolled 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 a question should 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 dc circuit is much closer. a much closer animal. the problem is she's held that position for less than a year and has only published 2 opinions . gorsuch offered 212 positions before he was nominated to the supreme court. justice cavanagh had written 306. senators had an unbelievable wealth of writings to examine. as for justice berries in three years on the seventh circuit she had written 91 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 our record as a trial judge. like i mentioned thoserulings communicate little about the judges approach to big picture questions of interpretation . to make matters worse judge jackson declined to answer basic questions about those rulings. senators ask about clear patterns in the judge criminalsentencing decisions. the nominee deflected by saying every case is unique . so senators tried to examine one case of time . then the nominee said she couldn't recall the sales. so senators tried to supply the details and then the nominee said no one case can fully capture ajudges 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 week sentences for certain crimes. the nominee then ducked the question over and over. she blamed congress giving her that discretion in the first place. both the nominee and chairman durbin kept repeating that if senators wanted to guarantee harsher penalties , we could mandate it. that's true, but it's a non sequitur . if senators wanted to know why judge jackson used the discussion she actually 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 existence of her discretion for her decision to go soft on criminals when she could have just as easily use that discretion to be tough. we basically have a nominee saying if senators want me to be tough on crimebill 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 moves that stretched the bounds of the judicial role. in the nominees own words she simply has a, policy disagreement. with parts of the sentencing law. evidently the judges personal policy he was change how she applies the law.

some senators held a press conference to explain that republican questions were too tough. of course nobody could have less credibility police to police the fine details of confirmation hearings thatare democratic colleagues on the judiciary . 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 's overseas meeting with america's closest european allies as vladimir putin's war in ukraine enters its second month. he is engaging with a europe

that's been profoundly changed. nato allies have watched a neighbor invaded by an aggressive russia. some like germany are ending 30 years of post-cold war neglect for military modernization and energy security. i'm glad that as i urged last week presidents itinerary will include not just western europe but alsopoland . his presence on the eastern flank will send an important message. course the most concrete way to support ukraine with greater commitments of 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.

the allies and partners who are helping equip ukraine also need replenishing their own arsenals. but the fight has highlighted shortcomings in both our current stockpiles of critical weapons and munitions and our industrial capacity to produce more quickly. as other nato members wake up to the importance of long-term investments in defense, america should lead byexample . we have to meet the military requirements that come from being a superpower facing growing threats to our global interest . sustained increases in defense spending, deeper inventories of critical weapons systems , ammunitions , less red tape. work with industry to make our element and production systems more. 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 is the quote from the post. weapons manufacturers weren't geared up to make antitank and antiaircraft arms at the wartime pace. while the us had 13,000 stingers in its stockpile before the invasion. there were no plans to produce more en masse. militaries in europe have given their stingers and antitank missiles to ukraine now wants to refill depleted stock, creating competition for new units rolling off the assembly line.". so president biden alreadyhad 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 where

in right now. ironically they demanded the president invoke the defense production act for everything but its essential purpose. they don't want to use the defense production asked to bolster defenses but to force taxpayer money into renewable energy schemes that are not ready for prime time . democrats should be using the defense production to literally produce more defenses. but they want to instead use it to set up some more cylinders. course the real solution for global energy concerns is not throwing money into finicky technologies themselves rely on russia and angina supply chains. it's to unshackle us energy producers. we can help meet europe'sneed by increasing american crude . and lng exports but our european friends will have to make necessary sacrifices to

win wean themselves off of reliance on russia. putin's war of aggression reminds us of the so-called international order is not self enforcing . the relative packs of americana that lasted for the better part of the 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. excuse the behavior of tyrants. who think it would be prudent or sensible to see vast spheres of influence to russia and china. there's nothing remotely prudent or sensible about handing over entire regions of the world to these thugs. the national security interests of the united states never stopped at our

own borders and they certainly do not today. we are a superpower with worldwide interests 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 the 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 commits 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.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the president pro tempore: the distinguished majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding -- the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that

notwithstanding rule 22, the cloture motion on amendments 5002 and h.r. 4521 ripen at 5: 30:00 p.m. monday, mariupol 28. that -- march 28. if cloture is invoked, all post-cloture time be considered expired, the remaining pending amendments be withdrawn, no further amendments in order, the substitute agreed to, the cloture motion be withdrawn, the bill 4521 be considered read third time and the senate vote on passage as amended with 60 affirmative votes required for passage. all without further intervening action or debate. the president pro tempore: is there objection? hearing none -- mr. sanders: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermtd. -- from vermont. mr. sanders: reserving the right to object. the president pro tempore: the senator is recognized. mr. sanders: i am requesting

votes on two very important issues regarding this competition bill. number one, to put the senate on record in opposition to providing $53 billion in corporate welfare to the highly profitable microchip industry with no protections for the american taxpayer. and two, to eliminate the $10 billion bailout included in this bill for blue origin, a space company owned by jeff bezos, the second wealthiest person in this country, who is now worth over $180 billion. so, mr. president, i ask the majority leader, will you now give me your commitment to receive two roll call votes next week on each of these motions to instruct and a simple majority threshold? mr. schumer: mr. president. the president pro tempore: majority leader. mr. schumer: yes, i give the senator from vermont my firm commitment to do whatever i can to get an agreement to have votes on his two motions to instruct. when the message comes back from the house on this measure.

having made that commitment, i ask the senator from vermont whether he might allow the senate to agree to my original unanimous consent request. the presiding officer:the presie senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president. , i appreciate the commitment from the majority leader to ensure i receive roll call votes on these two issues. having received the firm commitment, i will not object and i ask unanimous consent to address the body for ten minutes. the president pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, the senator from vermont is recognized for up to ten minutes. mr. sanders: thank you, mr. president. let me thank the majority leader for his willingness to put my two motions to instruct on the floor next week for a vote. and i want to take a minute to explain to my colleagues and the american people what these amendments are about. as i think most americans understand, half of the people

in our country are living paycheck to paycheck. they cannot afford the high cost of health care. they are often spending more than they can afford for hou housing. if they are fort fat enough to be able -- fortunate enough to be able to have gotten a higher education, it's more likely than not that they are struggling with significant student debt. if they are young parents, they are probably finding it hard to locate quality, affordable child care or pre-k. if they are older americans, it is likely they are having a hard time paying for the dental care, the hearing aids, the eyeglasses, or the home health care that they desperately need. meanwhile, mr. president, as many middle class and working class americans fall further and further behind, there is another

economic reality taking place in our country. we don't talk about it enough, but we should. and that is that the people on top, the very wealthiest people in our country, are doing phenomenally well and in fact have never had it so good. today in america, we have more income and wealth inequality than ever before. we talk a lot about russian oligarchy and that is certainly true but anybody who thinks we don't have an oligarchy in this country is surely mistaken. in our country today, we have two people who own more wealth than the bottom 40% of the american population and the top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 92%. and unbelievably during this terrible pandemic which has cost us almost one million lives, when thousands of essential

workers died, they died because they had to go to their jobs and going to their jobs, they contracted the virus. during that same period of time the billionaire class became much, much wealthier. in fact, over 700 billionaires in america became nearly $2 trillion richer during the pandemic. in other words, for the people on top, the pandemic has been a very, very good time economically. but it is not just the increased wealth of the very rich that we are seeing. corporate profits are at an all-time high, and c.e.o.'s have seen huge increases in their compensation packages. and a lot of thiss happening because of the unprecedented level of corporate greed, corporate greed that we are seeing. let me just give you a few

examples, a few examples of the corporate greed that is taking place right now. everybody knows that the price of gas is soaring. last i saw it's averaging about $4.25 a gallon. meanwhile, exxonmobil, chevron, bp, and shell made nearly $30 billion in profit last quarter alone. the price of gas soaring. major oil companies making huge, huge profits. amazon recently raised the price of its prime membership by 16.8%. meanwhile it increased its profits by 75% to a record breaking $35 billion. terms of food, everybody knows food prices are going up. the price of beef is up 32%. price of chicken is up 20%. price of pork is up 13%. meanwhile tysons food, a major

producer of chicken, beef, and hot dogs increased its profits by 140% last quarter to $1.1 billion. price of food soaring, food companies enjoying huge profits. while americans are finding it harder and harder to pay for the outrageous costs of prescription drugs, we pay the highest prices in the world for our medicine, last year pfizer, johnson & johnson and abbvie, three major pharmaceutical companies increased their profits by over 90% to $54 billion. people can't afford the price of prescription drugs. the pharmaceutical industry profits are soaring, all of which kind of takes me to the legislation that is on the floor right now, the so-called competitiveness act.

do we need to increase computer chip production in the united states? yes, we do. but we need to do it in a way that does not provide massive amounts of corporate welfare to an already enormously profitable industry. in my view it makes zero sense to provide $53 billion in corporate welfare. that is a blank check. here it is, microchip industry. no strings attached. no protections for the american taxpayer to the microchip industry. and as part of this legislation in addition -- i don't know how many people know this. some may think i'm actually kidding when i saw this, but this legislation provides $10

billion in bailout to jeff be bezos, the second wealthiest person in america who's worth over $180 billion so that his company blue origin can launch a rocket ship to the moon. a word about the microchip industry. we are talking about an industry that has shut down over 780 manufacturing plants in the united states and eliminated 150,000 american jobs over the last 20 years while moving most of its production overseas. got that? so this is an industry that said hey, we're making money, but we can make even more money by going to low-wage countries. let's do that. let's throw 150,000 american workers out on the street. we're going to go abroad. now, in terms of this $53

billion bailout, nobody knows exactly who will be receiving that money. my guess is that the bulk of that money will go to five major semiconductor companies, and that is intel, texas instrument, micron technology, global foundries, and samsung. these five companies in line for tens of billions of dollars in corporate welfare, mr. president, made over $75 billion in profit last year. the american people are sick and tired of our government working for wealthy campaign contributors and for the big money interests. i know it is a radical concept to suggest, but maybe, just maybe we might want to be working for ordinary working class and middle-class

americans. and let me talk a little bit about what our amendments would do. our amendments are very simple. the first amendment obviously would prevent microchip companies from receiving taxpayer assistance unless they agree to issue warrants or equity stakes in the federal government. if private companies are going to benefit from over $53 billion in taxpayer subsidies, the financial gains made by these companies must be shared with the american people, not just wealthy shareholders. in other words, all this amendment says is that if these companies want taxpayer assistance, we are not going to socialize all of the risks and privatize all of the profits. if these investments turn out to be profitable as a direct result

of these federal grants, the taxpayers of this country have a right to get a return on this investment. mr. president, this is not a radical idea. these exact conditions were imposed on corporations that receive taxpayer assistance in the bipartisan cares act which passed the senate 96-0. not a radical idea. i believe in industrial policy. that means the government works with the private sector. it does not mean that the government simply gives the private sector everything they want with no protection to the taxpayer. so if as a result of these $53 billion in grants, these companies make money, that's good. that's good. but the taxpayers who helped invest in these new production facilities should be able to enjoy some of those profits as

well and get some of ■thatmone returned to them. and the second amendment is really a very, very simple one. it asks why in god's name would we be giving $10 billion to a company owned by the second wealthiest person in this country, jeff bezos. now, mr. bezos wants to go to the moon, he wants to go to mars, saturn, that's his business. he has every right in the world to do that, but he does not have a right to ask the taxpayers of this country for $10 billion to help him make his trip to outer space. so this second amendment simply eliminates that $10 billion grant that goes to mr. bezos. so, mr. president, with that i look forward to winning the support for these two important amendments which i think are strongly supported by the

american people. and with that i would yield the floor. .

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: we're

not. mr. schumer: mr. president, i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 725. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion the agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nani a. coloretti of california to be deputy director of the office of management and budget. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 725, nani a. coloretti of california to be deputy director of the office of management and budget, signed by 16 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 791. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: department of state, c.s. elliott kang of new jersey to be assistant secretary international security and nonproliferation. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 791, c.s. elliott kang

of new jersey to be an assistant secretary of state international security and nonproliferation, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: finally, i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today, march 24, be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session, be in a period of morning business, with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the veterans' affairs committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 2102 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 2102, a bill to amend title 38, united states code and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the boozman substitute amendment be

considered and agreed to and that the bill as amended be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. there is no further debate? the question on passage of the bill as amended. all those in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the bill as amended is passed. mr. schumer: i further ask that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on judiciary be discharged from further consideration of s. 253 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 253, a bill to expand research on the canaboid oil and marijuana. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed to the

measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the feinstein amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i understand that there is a bill at the desk that's due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the build for a second time. the clerk: h.r. 4373 an act making appropriations fosh the department of state, foreign operations and related programs for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2022 and for other purposes. mr. schumer: in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i would object to further proceeding. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. schumer: mr. president, i have four requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: the judiciary committee has completed its hearing for judge ketanji brown jackson. i enjoyed meeting the nominee. i went into the senate process

with an open mind, but after studying the nominee's record and watching her performance this week, i cannot and will not support judge jackson for a lifetime appointment to the supreme court. first, judge jackson refuses to reject the fringe position that democrats should try to pack the supreme court. justice ginsburg and justice breyer had no problem denouncing this unpopular view and defending their institution. i assumed this would be an easy softball for judge jackson, but it wasn't. the nominee suggested there are two legitimate sides to the

issue. she testified she has a view on the matter but would not share it. she inaccurately compared her nonanswer to a different, narrower question that a prior nominee was asked, but judge jackson seemingly actually tipped her hand. she said she would be, quote, thrilled to be one of however many. however many. the opposite of ginsburg and breyer's sentiment. the most radical pro-court packing fringe groups badly wanted this nominee for this vacancy. judge jackson was the court packer's pick, and she testified like it. second, for decades activist judges have hurt the country by trying to make policy from the

bench. this has made judicial philosophy a key qualification that senators must consider. president biden stated he would only appoint a supreme court justice with a specific approach that is neither textualist or originalist. no strict constructionist need apply. and that president picked judge jackson. if the nominee had a paper trail on a constitutional issue, perhaps it could reassure us, but she doesn't. when justice gorsuch was nominated to the supreme court, he had written more than 200 circuit court opinions that senators could actually study. justice kavanaugh had written more than 300. justice barrett outpaced them both. she wrote almost 100 appellate opinions in just three years, plus years of scholarship as a

star professor that senators could actually examine. judge jackson has been on the d.c. circuit for less than a year. she's published only two opinions. beforehand, judge jackson served as a trial judge on the district court. she testified on tuesday that that role did not provide many opportunities to think about constitutional interpretation. yet when senators tried to dig in on judicial philosophy, the judge deflected and pointed back to the same record she acknowledged would not shed much light. one senator simply asked the judge to summarize, summarize well-known dimpses -- differences between the approaches of some current judges. the nominee replied that two-weeks notice had not been enough to prepare an answer. president biden said he would only nominate a judicial activist. unfortunately, we saw no reason

to suspect that he accidentally did the opposite. third, and relatedly, we're in the midst of a national violent crime wave and exploding illegal immigration. unbelievably the biden administration has neverthelesses launched a national campaign to make the federal bench systemically softer on crime. "the new york times" calls this a, quote, sea change, end quote. this is more likely the administration chose a supreme court nominee who would push against their big campaign or somebody who would be its crowning jewel. this is one area where judge jackson's trial court record could provide a wealth of information, and it is troubling indeed. the judge regularly gave certain terrible kinds of criminals light sentences that were beneath the sentencing

guidelines and beneath the prosecutor's request. the judge herself used the phrase policy disagreement to describe this subject. the issue isn't just the sentences. it's also the judge's rhetoric in trial transcript and the creative ways she actually bent the law. in one instance judge jackson used covids a a pretext to essentially rewrite, rewrite a criminal justice reform law from the bench and make it retro active, which congress, of course, had declined to do. she did so to cut the sentence of a fentanyl trafficker while americans died in huge numbers from overdoses. judge jackson declined to walk senators through the merits of her reasoning in specific cases. she just kept repeating that it was her discretion, and if

congress didn't like it, it was our fault for giving her the discretion. that is hardly an explanation as to why she uses her discretion the way she does. it was not reassuring to hear judge jackson essentially say that if senators want her to be tough on crime, we need to change the law, take away her discretion and force her to do it. that response seems to confirm that deeply held personal policy views seep into her jurisprudence, and that is exactly what the record suggests. i'll conclude with this -- late on tuesday after hours of questioning, i believe we may have witnessed a telling moment.

under questioning about judicial activism, judge jackson bluntly said this -- quote, judge jackson said, well any time the supreme court has five votes, they may have a majority for whatever opinion they determine, end quote. that isn't just a factual observation, it is a clear echo of a famous quotation from perhaps the most famous judicial activist of all time, the arch liberal william brennan. the late justice brennan told people the most important rule in constitutional law was the rule of five. with five votes, the majority can do whatever it wants. that's a perfect summary of judicial activism. it's a recipe for courts to wander into policy making and

prevent healthy democratic compromise. this is the misunderstanding of the separation of powers that i've spent my entire career fighting against. but president biden made that misunderstanding his litmus test. and nothing we saw this week convinced me that president biden's or judge jackson's far-left fan club has been censured. i will vote against this nominee on the senate floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: i ask the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i was disappointed but not surprised that senator mcconnell said he would not support the nomination of judge jackson. just this morning or early afternoon, we wrapped up the four-day process in the senate

judiciary committee considering her nomination and that's why some of the statements which the senator made and just -- in justifying his opposition, i believe need to be addressed. i'll be brief in doing so but i wanted to make a record of it quickly. it seems he is as concerned as many republicans are with the notion of packing the court. packing the court. the notion behind that is the democrats are inspired to appoint some number of new justices to that court and thereby tip the balance the democratic side. and so the question obviously before us is, where does that idea come from. and i'll be honest with you, even as chairman of that committee, i don't know. i suppose there are some academics and theorists and researchers who believe that's well worthy of conversation, but let's be honest about this issue which seems to consume the

republicans in the senate. there is only one united states senator who has had a direct impact on the composition of the united states supreme court in modern memory. who was that senator? senator mitch mcconnell of kentucky. because he decided to keep the court at eight judges for a year. he refused to give president obama his legal obligation of filling the vacancy of justice slea and for a -- scalia and mitch mcconnell kept the justices at eight. when it comes to justices, he has retired the trophy in modern times because he is the one who did it. when he speculates maybe they'll add one, two, three, four or more justices if the democrats get the opportunity. i happen to know, and you do as

well, that nothing is going to happen changing the composition of the court unless it passes the united states, which under current rules, requires 60 votes. there are currently 50 democrats and 50 republicans. so the likelihood of, quote, packing the court is very unlikely in the near future unless there's some decision made by the electorate that dramatically changes that. in the meantime we're in a situation with a vacancy on the court in which we are trying to fill with a very competent person. and this packing the court is the number one issue he cited is beyond me. there is no sinister conspiracy that i'm aware of that suggests this is an agenda item for the democrats. of course we would like to see the court more sympathetic to our point of view but there is no plan for that to happen. the constitution of the united states, i usually kept a copy in my desk here, the constitution

of the united states does not mandate the number of supreme court justices. we arrived at the number of nine and it has been a tradition since that time. ketanji brown jackson, the d. circuit judge, was the obvious answer. when asked if she wanted to pack the court, she said, senator, that is not my judge, you're a legislator, you would have the authority to change the composition of the court. i don't have that authority. to make that the number one reason for not supporting her nomination is not compelling. and he brought up, what is your judicial philosophy? we want to make sure we know. there are different schools of thought when it comes to

constitution. justice scalia was an originalist and supreme court justice kavanaugh is a tectallist, i did textualist, i believe, and there may be other schools of thought. she said that i have published 3,073 written opinions. so if you want to know how she rules and what she thinks, she can represent whatever she wishes but her words speak for themselves and provides 12,000 pages from her time on the sentencing commission that also reflect her views on very important topics. there's also the old saw, we knew it was coming. the republicans are testing their messages for the november election. i bet you've heard some of them. one of them is democrats are soft on crime.

they said that about judge jackson, but they've got a problem. judge jackson has been endorsed by the fraternal order of police, the international association of chiefs of police, and noble, the black-elected law enforcement officials across the united states in addition to other law enforcement leaders. she has a history in her family of brothers and son -- and a son -- i should say brothers and others, uncles, who have been in law enforcement, risking their lives over and over and one uncle was the chief of police in miami, florida. this is part of what she grew up in. to argue she is soft on crime ignores the obvious. she has got it in her blood. she will be fair, i'm sure when she is on the supreme court. she has no prejudice when it comes to police groups. it's part of her family history. there is the question of light

sentences. we spent more time on this than one could imagine. three or four republican senators were dwelling on her sentences in a handful of cases and wouldn't let go of it and they refused to acknowledge and her reality is that her choice of sentencing guidelines were within the same limits and boundaries of 70% of federal judges, in some regions 80%. she was not in the -- she was in the mainstream. when you look at these facts and realize that here's our opportunity to put the first african-american woman on the united states supreme court and these are the best arguments they can come -- can come up with against her, it really troubles me. i sincerely hope, i really hope not just because i want to make sure she's on the court, that we will have a bipartisan support for her nominations.

if this turns out would be a strictly partisan vote with this historic opportunity, it will be sad. sad for our country and sad as a commentary with where we are as a country. i hope and i'm still hoping that several republicans will step up and support her nomination. i'm disappointed by senator mcconnell's position, but i'm not surprised. mr. president, i believe i have some works to do here. i understand there are two bills at the desk and i ask for their first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bill for the first time. the clerk: an act to prohibit the importation of the energy products of the russian federation and for other purposes. h.r. 7108, an act to suspend normal trade relations treatment for the russian federation and the republic of belarus and for other purposes. mr. durbin: i ask for a second

reading and in order to place the bills on the calendar under the rules of provision 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objections having been heard, the bills will receive their second reading on the next legislative day. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session and the e.p.w. commission be -- of pn-96, chris saunders and the senate considering the following nominations en bloc, pn-60, 793, 791, 462, 788, 812, and 813 and all nominations on the coast guard and foreign service, that the senate vote on the nominations without intervening action or debate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record and that the president be

immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session rsm. the presiding officer: without objection. the question occurs on the nominations en bloc. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nominations are confirmed en bloc. mr. durbin: you did that much better than i could. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to s. res. 557 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 557 recognizing the week of march 20 through march 26, 2022, as national poison prevention week and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3:00 p.m. on monday, march 28 and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved if their use later in the day and morning business be closed. upon conclusion of morning business, the senate resume consideration of calendar number 282, h.r. 4521, america competes act. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until

not available for preorder in the c-span shop, c-span 2022 congressional directory. order a copy of the congressional directory. this spiral-bound book is your guide to the federal government with contact information for every member of congress including bios and committee assignments. contact information for state governors and the biden administration. order your copy today at c-spanshop.org. every purchase helps support c-span's nonprofit operations. ♪♪

a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google place, download free today. c-span now, front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. ♪♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more including cox. >> cox is committed to providing eligible families access to affordable internet through the connect to complete program bridging the digital divide