with china in the semiconductor manufacturing industry. 5:30 p.m. eastern lawmakers will vote to move forward, vote on passage could happen shortly thereafter. this is live coverage here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. mighty god,

whose ears are attentive to our prayers, we acknowledge that you are the source of all goodness. lord, the world belongs to you, for you laid the earth's foundation and built it on the ocean's depths. bring peace to our world, particularly in ukraine. give wisdom to our world leaders so that they will fulfill your purposes for peace in our world. we praise you because of your strength and might. you are invincible in battle, and our times are in your hands.

lord, we trust you with our future, offering this prayer in your sovereign name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in the pledge of allegiance. 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 president pro tempore: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. and 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 the coordinated federal research initiative to ensure continued united states leadership in eveningerring biology. the president pro tempore: the senator from hawaii -- the senator from illinois. i apologize. ms. duckworth: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the president pro tempore: the clerk will call the roll.

that's not right. that's not fair. our budget continuesthe minimum tax because of that. 20 percent minimum tax that applies only to the top 100 of one percent . 100 of one percent of americans willpay this tax . the billionaire minimum tax is fair and raises $64 billionthat can be used for lower cost for families and cut the budget . as i said it ensures

corporations pay their fair share. in 2020 where 50 fortune 500 companies made $40 billion in profits but didn't pay a single solitary sent in federal taxes. my budget raises the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, far lower than the rate was between world war ii and 2017. last year, i rallied more than 100, some of you were overseas. 130 countries to create a global minimum tax for corporations doing business in their countries. to put an end to the rewards multinational incorporation. for shipping jobs and profits overseas and avoiding taxes at home. it's my congress and ask this law this year so i can sign it and we can get to work. the second value of my budget reflects his security . security at home, security abroad . my budget tax security into

key ways. first, it secures our communities at home. this is an issue families in every part of the country face. i've said it before. the answer is not to defund our police departments. it's to fund our police and give them all the tools they need, training and salvation and partners and protectors. the budget puts more police on the streets so they get to know the communities their policing. allows the bureau of alcohol tobacco and firearm's and fbi to hire the agents they need to fight crime in our communities and funds body cameras that make sure police work with our local communities that are accountable to these communities and it funds crime prevention and unity violence intervention. drug treatments, mental health, criminal justice

reform and reentry for people coming home after incarceration . all the multiple ways to reduce crime . security also means national and international security. this budget provides the resources we need to keep americans safe. ensuring our own military remains the best prepared, best trained, best equipped military in the world . this budget also provides additional funding to forcefully respond to putin's aggression against ukraine and economic security consequences. the world has changed. in addition to dealing with terrorist organizations for the second quarter of the 21st century facing increased competition from other nationstates. china and russia which will require investments to make things like space and cyber and other events capabilities completely hypersonic . this would be among the largest investments in our national security in history.

some people don't like the increase butwe're in a different world today. america is more prosperous, more successful and more just when it is more secure . we can restore fiscal responsibility and safeguard our security at home and abroad while meeting the third aspect ofbuilding a better america . lets the cost of childcare, seven percent for family income. like many families that would put the cost of childcare in half. plus it would make college affordable. my budget doubles the pell grant for families making under $15,000 a year, nearly $13,000 and helps with 8 millionstudents rely on pell grants . my budget investment building more homes to keep up with the skyrocketing cost of housing on the middleclass and poor. my budget lowers family

energy costs with tax credits to help them make their homes more efficient, research and development to broaden the reach of solar and build a clean energy future . mybudget invest in other areas of bipartisan common good . i call them community agendas . beating the opioid epidemic, taking on challenges of mental health, supporting our veterans and ending cancer as we know it. this budget includes investments in americans mental health services and eight and when it comes to fighting cancer and other diseases, my budget finds a number of organizations and health and human services department of health. and it stands for advanced research projects for health. it's based on the defense department program led to breakthroughs intechnologies like the internet, gps and so much more . darpa age will take breakthroughs to prevent and treat diseases including alzheimer's, diabetes, cancer and more.

here's what this all adds up to. extraordinary deficit reductions, extraordinary investment in our security at home and abroad bymodernizing our capabilities . and an unprecedented commitment to building an economy where everyone has a chance to succeed . a plan to pay for those investmentsthat we need as a nation that's what we do . i look forward was working with members of congress to deliver this budget and keep delivering for theamerican people . i want to thank you all and god bless you all and god protect our troops. >> kelly o'donnell. >> did you believe what she said that putin can't remain in power or do you now regret saying that because your government has been trying to walk thatback . since does your words complicate matters. >> three different questions and i'll answer them all.

number one on not wanting anything back. the fact of the matter is i was expressing outrage ifelt the way putin is dealing in actions of this man . this brutality house the children of ukraine. i just am comforted being with those families and so i want to make it clear i wasn't then articulating a policy change that i was addressing moraloutrage i felt . my personal feelings. secondly you asked about what was the second part? >> the diplomacy of this moment. >> i don't think it does. the fact is that we're in a situation where what complicates the situation at the moment is the excellent story efforts of putin to continue to engage in the kind of behavior that makes the whole world safe.

my god, when is this goingman going to learn. that's what complicates a great deal. i don't think it complicates it . let me go to steve holland. >> when you say that you're not walking anything back you do feel that vladimir putin should be removed from power, is that what you're saying? >> i was expressing the moral outrage i felt for this man. i wasn't articulating a policy and i think you know, he continues down this course that he's on, he's going to become a variety worldwide. >> are you concerned this remark might escalate the conflict . >> not at all. look, the other thing is that a couple of people have asked me as well my goal but you

know, that othergovernments suggested this isa problem i'm escalating . no . and nato has never ever been as strong as it is today. never. >> i was expressing my outrage. it shouldn't be should remain in power just like that people shouldn't continue to do bad things but it doesn't mean we have afundamental policy doing anything to take putin down in any way . >> that wasn't in your preparedremarks, you were told so what made you at that ? >> i was talking to the russian people. the last part of the speech was talking to the russian people telling them what we thought. i was communicating thisto not only the russian people of the whole world this is just stating a simple fact . that this kind of behavior is

totally unacceptable. totally unacceptable and the way to deal with it is to strengthen and puts, keep nato completely united and help the ukraine where we can. you've got a question. where is he. >> on your budget you said repeatedly at the state of the union that you're not for defining thepolice. i do wonder how much emphasis you think should be put on alternative forms of crime prevention, not justdefunding the police but crime reduction in communities . >> i've laid out in detail in this budget. for example we do know that intervention programswork . we do know what police need , they need psychology in the apartment as much as they need extra rifles. they need people who are in the department who can go with the crisis that the

police are going through as well. dealing with their crisis. there mental status, how they're handling things. any social workers engaging them. i laid out all out and it all works, you see these the intervention programs they work . they reduce crime. they significant the reviews crime b& the pieces. >> is any of it related to political pressure from republicans and democrats are soft on crime, that you guys are leaning to the left? >> it fascinating, when i first gotelected i was being beat up because i supported the police too much . that's what i think. and translate to. [inaudible] >> thank you mister president. are you willing to try to meet with vladimir putin and

i have a quick follow-up. when you last met with him face-to-face in geneva you describe it as a productive conversation . you said you did not want the cold war and do you feel given the actions that have happened over the past few months i guess what has changed in his mind. >> i don't know what's changed his mind, hisbehavior has changed . you when we met remember what youwere talking about . setting up a strategic dialogue and talking about the relationship of nato and russia and facing off in the regions and how we can have more transparency andall the rest . it was a normal discussion i had going all the way back to others hundred years ago when i was a young senator. so what changed was nothing remotely approaching that. remember when we first met he said i have to objectives. this is the second or third time i've met with himhe said i have to objectives . one is to make sure that there never become part of nato.

and two, to make sure there are no long-range missiles in there in ukraine i said we can deal with the second one easily but wecan't close the door on the first . because when we talk about missiles you want to talk about what's on the russian border heading towards europe . and then you notice that demand most of his, not made with others have escalated significantly in terms of what he thinks is necessary. you. >> i know you're going to ask the next question. >> it's an important question i think. are you worried are other leaders in the world are going to start to doubt this america is bad if some of these big things that you say on the worldstage keep getting walked back . >> what's getting walked back? >> in the last couple of days

it sounds like you told us troops they were going to ukraine . it sounded like you said it was possible the us could use a chemical weapon and it sounded like you were calling for regime change in russia and we know. >> none of the three for. you interpret the language that way. i was talking to the troops. we were talking about helping train the troops in that are the ukrainian troops are in poland. that's the context. i sat there withthose guys for a couple of hours. that's what we talked about . >> so when you said you're going to see when we're there . >> i was referring to talking with the ukrainian troops in poland. >> you said chemical weapon use i russia would trigger a response in kind. >> it would trigger a significant response. i'm not going to tell you.

what i tell you, that's silly. >> the world wants to know. >> the world wants to know a lot of things. russia knows the response. i'm going to take 2 more questions. >> mister president, i still want to get back to your original word that he cannot remain in power. can you help us understand, youhave more foreign-policy experience than any president was ever held this office . whether those are your personal feelings or those of the president people would believe you as one of the people commanding one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world saying someone cannot remain in power is a statement of us policy andare you concerned aboutpropaganda use of those remarks by the russians . >> no and no . >> tell me why, you have so much experience .>> it's ridiculous. nobody believes we're talking about taking down putin. nobody believes that. number one, number two, what have i been talking about all since this all began.

the only war that's worse thanone attended is one that's unattended . the last thing i want to do is engage in a land for or a nuclear war. i was expressing my outrage to the behavior of this man. it's outrageous. and it's more an aspiration than anything that he shouldn't be in power. people like this should run their own countries butthey do. it doesn't mean i can't express my outrage . last question. >> you said you confident your comments won't undermine diplomatic efforts but are you confident vladimir putin sees it that way that he will not see this asan eskimo tory ... >> i don't care what he thinks . he's going to do what he's going to do. >> are not concerned you may see your language and view that as a reason for escalation given his recent behavior? >> given his recent behavior, i shouldn't say that to you. given his recent people

should understand he is going to do what he thinks he should do , period. he's not affected by anybody else includingunfortunately apparently his own advisors . >>

not to, and this budget proposal is just the mathematical version of that failure to pivot. the white house is desperately spinning to call this budget centrist, but there's nothing remotely moderate about what's in it. first and foremost, at a dangerous time the president's budget fails -- falls woefully short on defense spending. our commander in chief has again failed to budget for the resources that our armed forces actually need. the biden administration proposes a nominal 4% increase for defense over the bipartisan bill congress just passed for this year.

that's a nominal 4% increase before any of the democrats' historic inflation is taken into account, and inflation right now is about twice that. so even if you accept the white house rosiest predictions about where inflation is headed, this would amount to a flat funding defense with none of the robust growth we need to keep pace with russia and china. even in the best-case scenario for their budget, it would leave our armed forces simply treading water. and what if democrats' historic inflation does not plummet downwards as quickly as they would like? what if the inflation they've caused keeps sticking around? then president biden's budget would actually cut funding for our armed forces in real dollars look, the world is a dangerous

place, and growing more dangerous by the day. putin's escalation in europe has created significant new requirements for the pentagon and our defense industrial base. we have a growing -- growing threats from iran. china is pouring money into high-tech weapons systems. beijing announced they're increasing defense spending again this year by more than 7%. so, amid all this, the white house has proposed no meaningful increase in resources for protecting innocent americans, promoting our interests, supporting our partners, assisting ukraine or replenishing our stockpiles. president biden likes to give speeches about the need for american leadership in the world, but when the rubber meets the road, when it's time to invest so we can rise and meet challenges like russia and china, this president has again decided to do exactly the opposite. putin and xi will sleep more soundly at night if the biden

administration gets its way on defense funding than if republicans get ours. now, let's look at the places where president biden does want to pull out all the stops and hand out massive funding increases. our armed forces may get the short end of the stick from this white house, but plenty, plenty of far-left defense priorities will be literally swimming in cash. while they limit defense to 4% growth before inflation, nondefense spending would get a significantly larger increase. not all domestic spending, however, borders security and department of homeland security barely tread water, just like our troops, but other agencies and departments that are more useful for the far left agenda, i.r.s., e.p.a., congress, h.u.d. and labor make out like band it's, with gigantic, gigantic increases of 20%, and 30%, since

2021. they want to pour money into absurdities like the u.n. green climate fund, borrow from china to fund a global bureaucracy that will hand free money back to china. there's plenty of money for things like antigun regulations, free lawyers for illegal immigrants, and something called environmental justice? this whole far-left feast leaves out the reckless taxing-and-spending sprees democrats failed to pass last year, and are now trying to reserve -- revive. the biden administration wants all that spending too, but they couldn't even budget for it honestly. and all of the bloated liberal nonsense comes paired with the biggest tax hike in american history. a 2.5-plus trillion-dollar bomb of tax hikes dropped on top of an economy that democrats' policies have already hurt

badly, literally the largest tax hike in history. among those increases, president biden wants to use colossal tax hikes to punish domestic producers of american energy. world events are reminding us every day how important american oil and natural gas production is for our national security and for our partners, but president biden would rather grind his ideological axe and escalate his holy war on made-in-america fossil fuel. this, this is the budget request of an administration that is completely disconnected from reality, of a president who's decided not to pivot, of a democrat party that has chosen not to correct course on its own every data point suggests the american people want and need a major course correction.

it appears that, in about seven months, they may have to provide it themselves. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: >> what do you suspect the

white house does as of today and into this week to in response to the president's statements in warsaw considering concerning vladimir putin? >> as you know president biden unexpectedly engaged white house officials with his speech in warsaw about comments that said this man cannot remain in power. that was an ad at the white house quickly thought to backtrack within 15 minutes, a white house official clarified he was trying to clarify biden could not continue to exercise power in the ukraine region so i think we're going to see more of that today in terms of walking back the president's statements. president biden was asked yesterday as he was leaving

his church in georgia, a reporter shouted are you supporting a regime change biden said in one word no today we're going to have our first time to ask in a press briefing white house officials what biden meant by that so i think we're going to continue to hear more of what we've heard as he made hiscomments saturday afternoon .>> that press briefing iswhere you're going to talk . in respect that the president addressed it or any of his foreign policies? >> i think you'll get a chance at 12:40 5 pm you will be announcing his budget which will include a new tax on the wealthiest americans. it's called the billionaire income tax that would put 700 americans who earn $100 million or more and i think there will be a chance for reporters to at least shout questions to him on that topic and i wouldn't be surprised if he did not respond back in some way, we will see.

>> we saw a couple of members of congress talk about these statements and depending on their political positioning taking the appropriate response. would you expect, congress to respond to this and what it does for foreign efforts involved with this ? >> republicans have come out strongly against july and condemned the remarks that say they were unhelpful, that's a impact diplomatic efforts in giving republicans have tried to focus on biden's handling of ukraine in ways to say that he's not handling the job of the presidency well i wouldexpect that to continue . i would expect democrats in a lot of ways to cross over ina little bit . democrats have largely been fairly happy with how the lighting has handled the situation in ukraine and he the aggressive, belligerent remarks were made on an off-the-cuff statements are not really helpful to democratic party.

>> when comes into those foreign-policy folks in congress particularly those that serve on the committee that they responded in the sense of what it does for the statements might do the company foreign-policy efforts ? >> the top republican on the senate foreign relations committee has responded as is rob portman who's played a big role in ukraine again underscoring and it's a setback to diplomatic efforts and in part what it does is divides nato and in another part what it does is has the potential to rile up vladimir putin time when the international community is trying to be a little bit more calling, a little bit less provocative. so that's where the danger lies. >> our guest with us until 8:45. if you want to ask questions on topics we will discuss 742-208-8000 four democrats, 8001 four republicans and 8002 and also text us seven

48,003. siobhan hughes, now that he's back in the united states domestic issues that congress has to deal with. once facing them as far as they want to see particularly before the midterm elections. >> on the domestic front we will see some of that when the budget is released early today and those budget numbers you're going to see biden reverse course from where he was a year ago and talk about more defense spending but it's also in terms of trying to salvage the bill back better agenda as it was formally known. things like they do anything in the area of drug pricing. west virginia democrat has indicated he is willing to reengage on some components of that plan. notably the tax credit for renewable and alternative energy. also combined with some deficit reduction. you heard my usa today probably talk about the tax on billionaires. some of that abuse to finance the agenda item another portion of that deficit reduction so the president

and his democratic allies to see if there's anything they can get done before the midterms. >> how does the white house plan to sell it to members of the senate? how do you expect those bodies will respond? >> it's got a lot of popularity. billionaires are not a sympathetic group in the united states but the problem will be with people potentially like joe manchin who look at this as precedent-setting. because the tax is thought to apply to unrealized gains, just assets you're holding in the re-the implication is that at some point down the line anybody could have attacks on just assets they hold that haven't been sold for any type of profit so that's where it gets unsettling in theory someone like a kristin sinema.

>> you heard jeevan hughes, any sense of how he plans to do that? >> the higher figure on defense spending? it's a four percent increase and i think part of that is going to be a message in terms of what we have going on or not the united states but what's going on in ukraine the main focus is going to be by the unveiling the budget will be focused on the billionaires tax. this is something that is changing the tax code that president biden talks about for the last year and even as a candidate but something he was unable to get through with the bill back better plan but he's going to cast this as an issue of fairness and compare what the tax rates have been for billionaires versus firefighters and teachers . i think were going to propose a 20 percent a slight tax for billionaires and try to point

out that in some cases there's a percent so i think as he said as president has talked about the taxes, he was going to talk about how he's capitalist but he also believes in fairness . i think when we hear about his remarks today it will be reflected in that white. >> you can follow along in our various platforms. the balanced budgets are being made. yvonne hughes, aside from budget matters we saw last week the president's nominee for the supreme court, those weresenate confirmation process. now the work begins as far as the process of the actual vote, where are we in the process ? >> where we are is the senate judiciary later today is going to take those first steps to bring the nominee for a committee vote. republicans on the committee

have a right to hold that vote over for a week we expect that committee vote to be held over until early next week on monday and then chuck schumer has said it looks as if the senate is on track to confirm her before the senate april 11 recess. what we would expect is the senate confirmation vote next week and barring any unforeseen developments we would expect her to be confirmed as a supreme court justice next week. >> as that changed dramatically with senator manchin's support? >> it caused people to breathe a sigh of relief. he had the ultimate meaning in favor and he's been such a wild card for the democratic agenda so it led democrats to say okay, we've got this with democrats exclusively if that's the route we have to go. >> do you sense any republican support? >> at this stage the biggest possibility would be senator stephen collins of maine. she's not up for election.

she doesn't want her reelection. she has voted for the judge in thepast to the appeals court . the other two who have voted for the judge in the past to the appeals court, lindsey graham. he is in the apparent no category. hehasn't officially said that .he's said stay tuned and has offered only reasons to support her and the only real wide wildcard is republican lisa murkowski of alaska. while she did vote for the judge in the past she is up forreelection that can be complicated for . there's thought maybe the people who are retiring might be willing to support her but so far the rhetoric has all been among republicans the reasons they couldn't support her. things like she has not come out and said she would oppose or packing as her mentor stephen breyer did or as ruth bader ginsburg had done. mitch mcconnell endorsed this notion that she was lenient

on child predators something they have set is an unfair campaign tactic so itthis time it seems like the pool of republican supporters is small . >> as far as joey garrison is can concerned, what was the white house reaction for those tough questions that gorman spoke about. >> i think the white house was pleased with how she handled herself. these are questions they expected in terms of the child pornography issue. that is has been telegraphed by republicans in advance that that would be a line of attack as well as other issues brought up by republicans so these days the white house believes they will see how judge jackson performed and it depends how many senators can get those top three and as my colleague said that leaves down one because lindsey graham is not going to vote for her so

really all eyes are now on collins and how the white house would love to get bipartisan support on judge jackson's confirmation but if they don't, they're ready to ask for confirmation 50-50. >>

so he would sit at the kitchen table with his law books all stacked up and judge jackson at the age of four would gather her coloring books and sit next to her daddy. she was going to study, too. she believes that might have been the first time that she thought seriously about becoming a lawyer. after graduating from public high school in miami, she had distinguished herself as president of the student body and as the lead on the high school speech and debate team. she competed nationally successfully and visited the campus of harvard university.

she loved it. she decided that she was going to apply to go to school there. when she went back to her high school in florida, she sat down with her counselor to talk about that option. the counselor discouraged her. she was aiming too high. but she did it anyway, and she was accepted. and then went on to harvard law school. she clerked at every level of the federal judiciary. if you're not a lawyer that may not mean much, but if you're a lawyer it's a big deal. to think that she started off at the lowest federal district court level clerking for a judge, then was accepted to move up a level to the circuit judge position to serve as a clerk as well, and then to finally grab the gold ring of being a supreme court clerk to none other to justice stephen breyer whose vacancy she is hoping to fill. she worked in private practice as a lawyer, and she proved

that she was a consensus builder all the way along. on the benchl, she served as a district court judge and now circuit court in the d.c. circuit. it's no surprise that she's won the admiration and friendship of so many people throughout her career. in fact, she's come before the same senate judiciary committee on three separate occasions with her background carefully reviewed and emerged with the approval of the committee with bipartisan support. in fact, when you look at it, if you watched last week's hearing before the judiciary committee, no one questioned her qualifications, her knowledge, her experience. she really has a platinum resume when it comes to that. on the final day of the hearing, the committee heard from ann williams. ann williams is well known to the presiding officer as well as myself. she served as a district court judge in the northern district of illinois and then as a

circuit judge on the seventh circuit. i believe she was the first african american woman to do so. she's retired at this point, but she's volunteered with the american bar association to do the careful review of judge jackson to make certain that we know every comment that's been made by professionals who have been familiar with her work experience. judge williams is a nominally politically, those who are looking for evidence as to whether she is democrat or republican, she was initially appointed to the district court by president reagan and then to the circuit court by president clinton, a bipartisan nominee all the way. she came to report to the committee that judge ketanji brown jackson, who had been reviewed with careful personal interviews of 250 separate individuals in her legal career, had emerged unanimously well qualified to serve on the

supreme court. judge williams said that in interviewing these lawyers and judges, they asked the hard questions, the ones that you can ask in confidence and in private, and the answers were all the same. judge jackson has a career that has distinguished her as outstanding, excellent, superior, superb. the list of accolades went on and on. the a.b.o. found judge jackson has a sterling reputation for thoughtfulness, collegiality and is exceptional competence. i also asked judge williams, serving as a spokesperson for the a.b.a., to comment on the allegations that judge ketanji brown jackson is somehow soft on crime. it's a common mantra coming from the other side of the aisle. and i said in the course of asking 250 different judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and all the people who worked with and around her, was there

any evidence that she was soft on crime? no, none. none. that's amazing when you think that's the number-one talking point against her from the republican side of the aisle. none whatsoever is exactly what judge williams said. another a.b.a. witness, jean vida said the a.b.a., quote, heard consistently from not only defense counsel, but from prosecutors of how unbiased judge jackson was throughout her career. and just as impressive as her qualifications was her performance and candor before the senate judiciary committee. you ask her a question about stare decisis, she'll start by reciting and defining in plain english to make everyone lawyer or nonlawyer can follow alone. she uses her thinking with surgeon like precision which i'm sure her husband, dr. patrick

jackson who is an actual surgeon at georgetown hospital deeply admires. clarity and impartiality, that is judge jackson. during the hearing several of my colleagues asked her to describe her judicial philosophy. pick a label. are you a liberalist, contextualist, conservative? previous supreme court nominees like chief justice roberts said, quote, they do not have an overarching judicial philosophy they bring to a case. that was a good enough answer for many republicans if it was given by chief justice roberts or justice amy coney barrett. but they complain she won't admit to a label. she did them one better. she gave a thorough step by step explanation about how she decided a case, every case. and she had some 587 written opinions. you don't need an electron microscope to find this judge's judicial philosophy. she's written it down and

published it over and over and over again. she established her independence, she says, by, quote, clearing her mind of any preconceived notions when she gets a case. sets aside her personal views, evaluates the facts, listens to the arguments, then she interprets and applies the law, keeping in mind the limits of judicial authority. what i've just described is what she told the committee and it's exactly what we look for and should look for in every judge. i can't recall ever hearing a nominee give such a clear and thorough explanation of their approach to deciding a case, and judge jackson's evenhanded record on so many different issues -- criminal law, labor relations, executive powers -- shows that it works. finally, the judiciary committee hearing allowed the public to observe judge jackson's incredible judicial temperament. we spend a lot of time as senators with the authority under the constitution to advise and consent, interviewing

nominees for courts, trying to determine just what kind of a judge they will be. what will their temperament be? will they be all swollen and big-headed over this black robe and lifetime appointment, or will they remember the real-life experiences that many people in their courtroom have lived through? well, i can tell you, judge jackson's temperament shone through. frankly, she was tested time and again. you see, i might just go out on a limb and tell you there are some senators that don't show a very good temperament themselves under these circumstances, and they tested her over and over again with baseless, wild charges, some of which were just offensive on their face. i listened to those, and i would look up and think if she stands up at this point and says that's enough, i'm taking my family and i'm going home, nobody would have faulted her for it. some of the questioning was just that bad. but she didn't. my republican colleagues promised a fair and respectful hearing. the majority of them, starting

with senator grassley, did just that. and i commended them for it today in the committee. they set an example of a minority party with a supreme court nominee and how the questioning should come down. unfortunately, others, however, on that side of the table did not. but in the face of constant bad badgering and interruptions, offensive insinuations by a select few republicans, judge jackson never lost her composure. never. she was patient, calm, and dignified. many times the questions were so mean-spirited, and i thought there sits her husband and her daughter listening to these charges of how she's soft on crime and doesn't care about the plight of children. and you can about that, what they must think of to hear those things said about the doctor's wife and the kid's mother. it's just hard to take. she was patient and calm.

she did not lose her temper at one time. some of my colleagues attended the committee's hearing intent on tearing her down. it doesn't work. instead she showed america that she can rise to any challenge as a justice on the supreme court. and despite some of my colleagues' behavior in the committee hearings, last week was an inspiration for so many people across this country. i invited law students from howard university and my alma mater, georgetown law, to come over and sit through the hearings. we invited interns from the congressional black caucus foundation. they wanted to be there at this history-making moment. they watched her prove that through hard work, a commitment to the law, and in the words of senator booker, her grit and grace, she's earned a seat on the highest court in the land. i strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a look at this woman and what she will bring to the court. it's time, america. after all these years, never

having had an african american woman serve on the court, it's going to be a challenge to find somebody who is ready to take on the job and take on the challenge. she can meet that challenge and will successfully. she is the best and deserves our support. on another topic, madam president, last week america and the world lost another trailblazing woman and defender of justice and democracy and a friend. be madeleine korbel came to the united states as a refugee. her family had been driven out of their native czechoslovakia twice by murderous regimes. in 1938 by the mat disease, ten years -- by the nazis, ten years later by the communists. this helped this woman have a lifelong vigilance against dirkts. addict tairts. -- dictators.

her father was keenly aware that this was a land of freedom. he told his daughter many times americans don't know how fragile their democracy is and how resilient it is. she also knew persistent autocracy. it can rise in any age and any nation. we see it today in the leadership of russia. that is why we must protect the rule of law, the most potent defense against dictators. in 1997 she made history. she became america's first woman secretary of state under president clinton, previously serving as our nation's ambassador to the united nations. she was a hard-line critic of tyrants and despots who advocated the policy of assertive, multilatino -- multilateralism. she believed the best hope for a free and peaceful world lay in america exercising leadership and working with the family of democratic nations to protect democracy, just as we are today

in ukraine. she was deeply committed to nato. as secretary of state, she supported nato expansion to include poland, hungary, the czech republic, three nations that lived under the boot heel of soviet oppression. today all three nations are providing a haven for ukrainian civilians, mostly women and children who are fleeing putin's unprovoked and barbaric war on that young democracy. madeleine albright understood any democracy could fall victim to the siren's song of autocracy if citizens were not vigilant. after her historic career in public service, she was chair of an organization called the national democratic institute, helping young democracies build independent court systems and a vibrant civil society. she spoke to me about this important work and understood that for democracies to endure, they must offer more than promises. in one of her last interviews, madeleine albright offered a warning that we in this senate

should be wise to remember. she said, and i quote, what is important is that the democracy has to deliver. people want to vote and eat, and, therefore, it's very important for new democracies and certainly for the world's oldest to understand the rule of law. corruption is the cancer of democracy. the people need to be beneficiaries of the democracy. likely because of her family's own experience fleeing tyranny, madeleine albright was quick, quicker than many in recognizing dictators. she first met vladimir putin inn the year 2000, one year after his meteoric rise from a me i don't -- mediocre k.g.b. over 20 years she wrote putin is small and pale, so cold as to be almost represent -- reptilian. she went on to note presenterly

that putin was, quote, embarrassed about what happened to his country and determined to restore its greatness. the violence vladimir putin is willing to wage is horrifyingly obvious to the entire world. let me say at the outset. i have no quarrel with the people of russia. they are good people and have a great history. there were chapters in there that was oppressive and terrible to the neighbors and those countries that suffered under stalin and the reach of the soviet union, but at their heart i believe the russians are good people. sadly, i cannot say the same about their leader. their brutal assault on ukraine is now in its second month. yesterday, madam president, the water tower in downtown chicago, we had a rally for the ukrainians. it was cold. this time of year it's cold in chicago. it's probably 30 degrees and the wind was blowing. but what a crowd showed up. several hundred people, many bearing ukrainian flags and of course proud of their ukrainian

heritage. but from so many other places as well. a group of people were there who are indian americans who wanted to show support. i was proud you that the baltic americans, lithuanians, latvians and estonians once again were there in force. but i was also proud the polish people came. poland is accepting more refugees from ukraine than any other nation and making great sacrifice to do it, as the polish ambassador told us, when people get off the train for the fist stop out of ukraine, they don't look for soldiers or police to guide them. what they find is that people are in their cars waiting with their doors open waiting to bring them in in. the polish ambassador said you don't see refugee camps. no. the people are going into their

homes and welcomed into their homes. he said the reason we're feeling this way is because when it happened to us, no one would take us in. we remember those days. when the president said he wanted to accept 100,000 refugees from ukraine, i applauded it as did others. a nation of five million, known as ireland, has also agreed to accept 100,000 refugees. so the united states is showing some charity. we can do more and we shouldn't limit it just to refugees from ukraine. there are refugees from wars and calamities around the world who also need an opportunity to be in a safe place. the united states has enjoyed that reputation for almost 80 years and we did it after world war ii. we should return to those days. the u.n. high commission on refugees estimate that almost a fourth of the population have

been driven from their homes and displaced. one in four. another 3.5 million ukrainians have fled to neighboring nations, especially poland. 100,000 ukrainian kids are being accepted every day into poland. joe biden saw that between democracy -- between -- democracy did not end -- i'm sorry. that democracy did not end with the defeat of nazism or the fall of the berlin wall. it continues with this century. contradicts of the president will no doubt fixate on one unscripted line in his speech in poland. i say to those critics, who doubts for one second this world would be more secure without the likes of such a tyrant.

the russian people have to make that decision and if given the truth, they will make the right decision. the russian people will decide for themselves whether putin stays or goes. the duty of democracy is to make sure that people have the final word as to their own destiny within their own borders. president biden is leading an historic effort of the nato alliance. i salute her leadership. and with that, i yield the floor.

mr. schumer: so this morning, president biden released his budget for fiscal year 2023. when compare the president's agenda, republican proposals like the one from the senator from florida, it's clear that the contrast between the two parties is stark and glaring. one budget is for the ultra rich and the other budget for the middle class and those working to get there. president biden's vision for america is bold, responsible, and taps into our nation's greatest strength, the american people themselves. it's a good, strong budget that will build on the budget of the last year. it zeros in on fighting inflation and increasing domestic manufacturing and relieving supply chain bottle next, especially at our -- bottlenecks, especially at our

ports, and it provides more funding for our schools with the academic and mental health resources to help students thrive. it builds on the president's promise to expand health care and supports efforts to lower prescription drug costs. this is one of the highest priorities of senate democrats and we're eager and ready to work with the administration on this issue. and after years of the trump budget that never mentioned the environment, we will lower energy for low-income emissions and clean cars made here in america that will include thousands of good-paying jobs. we'll make sure that the richest americans pay their fair share. most americans think that it's unacceptable for those at the top to pay less in taxes than teachers and firefighters. god bless the rich.

i have nothing against them. i applaud the president's proposal for the rich to chip in to grow our country. i commend the president for honoring our nation's promise to ukraine while keeping americans safe from harm. compare president biden's budget to the bewildering vision laid out by senate republicans in recent weeks. while democrats want to lower costs for american families, republicans are openly calling on raising taxes on most americans. yesterday the junior senator from florida went on fox news sunday to deny this part of his plan. only for the anchor, the fox anchor to remind everyone watching, no, it's in the plan. while democrats want to strengthen medicare and make health care move affordable -- more affordable, republicans have resurrected calls to repeal health care and possibly put medicare on the chopping block.

lest anyone forget, a few months ago the junior senator from florida in another example openly said inflation was a gold mine, a gold mine for the republican party, a gold mine. people are hurt. it's a gold mine for the republican party. just how callous, how retro grade, how backwards is the republican vision for america? raising taxes on working people, cheerleading inflation, stoking divisions and even putting things like medicare at risk while pushing tax breaks for the ultrarich? if that is their pitch to the american people, god help republicans. in the meantime i thank president biden for releasing a strong optimistic and responsible plan that will build on the historic recovery our nation has seen in the past year. senate democrats will work with the administration to put these proposals into concrete legislation in the weeks and months to come. now on the competition bill, it

is an important day here on the senate floor. in a few hours we'll hold a vote on final passage for the bipartisan jobs and competitiveness legislation many of us have worked on for over a year. for the information of all, today's action will come in two steps. we will first vote on cloture on the substitute amendment which contains the text of the senate-passed united states innovation and competition act. then we will proceed to final passage. both votes are set at a 60-vote threshold. i'm confident that we'll wrap up this important work by the end of the day. as i have said since the beginning of this process, the actions we're taking on the senate floor will enable us to enter a conference committee with the house which we need in order to finalize our competitiveness bill. i believe we can see a conference committee initiated by the end of this work period. if enacted i believe this legislation will be one of the

most important accomplishments of the 117th congress. this bill for all of its provisions is really about two big things, creating more american jobs and lowering costs for american families. it will help lowering costs by making it easier to produce critical technologies here at home, like semiconductors. it will create more jobs by bringing manufacturing back from overseas. and just as importantly, this legislation will fuel another generation of american innovation. whichever nation is the first to master the technologies of tomorrow, we'll reshape the world in its image. america cannot afford to come in second place when it comes to technologies, like 5gai, bioengineering and so much more. this bill is a necessary step towards securing the bright future of american ingenuity which has always helped us lead the way. i want to thank my colleagues

from both sides of the aisle for everything they've done to help us reach this moment. it's been a long, hard road but almost every member of this chamber has had a hand in putting this bill together. it was a blend of various proposals across various committees. and it was a product of a healthy amendment process both in committee and on the floor. we're hopefully just a few hours away from reaching the next important step in the process, putting us on a glide path to initiating a conference committee with the house. on covid, over the past few weeks our country has made major strides in the fight against covid. cases, deaths, hospitalizations are coming down and staying down. schools and communities are opening up and staying open. but in order to preserve this congress, congress must now act to make sure that our communities, our health care workers, and our families have the resources they need to keep our country open.

sadly, public funding for covid relief is in -- is in critical danger of actually running out. that's why right now i'm working with my republican colleagues to reach a bipartisan agreement on another covid-19 package. the white house has been unambiguous in saying they need more funding with all due haste so that's what we're working to secure asap. a new bipartisan bill will pay for all the tools we know work best against new variants. it will ensure we have enough vaccinations, enough testing, enough therapeutics which do amazing things if you get them in time. and support our schools to stay open in a safe way. we also need to do more to boost global vaccination efforts and support cutting-edge research into new vaccines. we already know what to do in order to keep life going as normally as possible should another variant threaten to unravel our progress. now we simp will i need to secure -- simply need to secure the funding to make sure we can

keep schools open and our communities safe as possible. if you don't go for the funding and a new variant hits and it gets bad, shame on you. everyone should be for this. over the next few days we'll keep negotiating with our republican colleagues in good faith. while we're not there yet, the talks have been encouraging and i hope we can reach an agreement very soon. and now, madam president, i understand that there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading en bloc. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bills for the second time. the clerk: h.r. 6968, an act to prohibit the importation of 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. schumer: in order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i would object to further proceeding en bloc.

the presiding officer: objections having been heard, the bills will be placed on the calendar. mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. tuberville: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: madam president, during the first few months of president biden's term, he's tried to brush off the surge of illegal immigrant apprehensions as nothing more than a seasonal trend. but after month six, seasonal migration was no longer a valid explanation for what turned out to be a record breaking year.

this border surge was -- wasn't by accident. president biden pledged to enact an open border agenda by halting border wall construction, reversing successful trump-era immigration policies and hamstringing our law enforcement officers. it is one promise he has kept. and over a year into the biden administration we're seeing the consequences of that promise. just last year nearly two million illegal immigrants were apprehended at our southern border for more than 160 -- from more than 160 different countries. and for 2022, it looks like we're on track to exceed that record as this february was the 12th, the 12th consecutive month with over 100,000 illegal immigrant apprehensions.

and if president biden's administration stops invoking title 42 and it doesn't secure the border, the crisis is going to get dramatically different. a lot of attention is paid to who is coming across the border and rightfully so, but it's time we all turn our attention to what is coming across the bo border. and it's called deadly fentanyl. just as our border continues to be overwhelmed by illegal immigrants, our communities are overwhelmed with this lethal drug. i've been to border, and i've seen firsthand the impact of president biden's open border policies and agenda. at a check point in mcallen, texas, i saw a truck bed filled with fentanyl, filled to the brim, a deadly synthetic opioid.

thankfully our border patrol officers stopped this particular truck from making it across the border, but for that one being stopped, there's several more that get across the border. thankfully our border patrol officers stopped this truck and stopped it from making it across the border and it saved many lives. but for every truck of fentanyl, many, many mortin to come across -- more -- many, many more continue to come across. it's hard to understand the significance of a truck bed full of fentanyl, so just let me break it down. and look at my chart. 2 milligrams of fentanyl is considered a lethal dose. 2 milligrams is the weight of a mosquito. ten pennies weigh one ounce. one ounce of fentanyl can kill

nearly 30,000 people. a football weighs one pound. just one pound of fentanyl can kill over 200,000 people. in october of last year in south alabama, the sheriff deputy seized 14 rounds of fentanyl. that's enough to kill upwards of 7,000 people. and of course in any arrest, sometimes you have problems with fentanyl. one of them is deputies just happened to touch fentanyl and was immediately put into the hospital. we're seizing these deadly drugs across america every day. last year in san diego, a trucker was arrested after attempting to smuggle more than 389 pounds of fentanyl which is

enough to kill 88 million people. the connection between president biden's open border policies and the rise of fentanyl is clear. and the american people are paying a heavy, heavy price. since president biden's inaguration, custom and border patrol protection seized nearly 3,000 pounds of illicit fen fentanyl. that's a 41% increase from last year. so over the last year, opioids took the lives of over a hundred thousand americans. to put that in perspective, that is half the size of our capital city in the state of alabama, which would be almost wiped off the map. this is bone chilling. but these numbers are more important than a stat. they are the sons and daughters,

the mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, they're all taken too soon. bright futures darkened by deadly drug addiction. and i spent 40 years traveling across this country visiting young athletes and their families from every walk of life. i had players who battled addiction or who had close friends who battle addiction. it is a heartbreaking procedure to watch a student worry about stepping in a -- in for parents who are suffering from addi addiction. that happens daily. when they should only be worrying about studying or getting ready for a game, they're also covering for parents that are addicted to drugs. it's true that drug addiction has plagued our country for decades.

, but we've seen a sharp rise since the 3578d. isolation, -- since the pandemic. isolation, loss of work, depression, all making the problem worse. and the data confirms this. so it only makes sense to do all we can to help americans. that would include cutting off the drugs at the primary source which is the southern border. yet the president refuses to take decisive action to stop these deadly substances from flooding into the country. in fact, the answer from the biden administration is there will be a strategy for dealing with addiction and fentanyl crisis coming soon. when president biden's drug czar dr. gupta was asked about the administration's plans to address the addiction crisis, he responded that the drug control strategy was, quote, in its advanced stages of being

finalized. to that i say americans are losing their lives right now. lives are being lost every day when we're coming up with a strategy. we don't need a bureaucrat talking point or a bureaucrat wasting our time. we need a plan, and we need a plan now to stop these drugs. since president biden has been in office, he has failed to take charge in every situation, sadly , the drug overdose epidemic is no different. while the folks at 1600 pennsylvania avenue continue to work on their strategy, i propose president biden take a logical and long overdue first step today -- enforce our immigration laws at the border. that would be a great start. end the free flow of fentanyl.

stop the loss of innocent lives. for a white house that is so laser focused on the health of americans as it relates to the pandemic -- masks, six feet apart, airports -- the same emphasis should be cast out on the lost people of the lives that we're losing and the deadly drugs coming into our country illegally. by creating and then failing to address this the disastrous situation at the southern border, president biden has fueled another crisis as fentanyl ravages our communities. you know, we all watched this weekend as president biden gave a great speech in poland. he put the wrath down on the russian people, the military,

and the president of russia, vladimir putin. he showed anger, and he should have, of the destruction that's going on in ukraine and innocent lives lost. president biden needs to show the same anger. we'll lose more people in the next six months than they will lose in this war in ukraine. people in our country. and it's being overlooked. it's not being worked on. the problem is not trying to be answered. it's like we're having to just deal with it. we got a problem here, mr. president, and we need to address it. the president has the tools and the authority to act quickly and save lives. i just hope sooner or later somebody recognizes it and does something about it, because, as we speak, we're not answering this problem.

i yield the floor. mr. young: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. young: in may of 23013, one of my -- in may of 2013, one of my constituents, bob he havance, was -- evans, was placed on the kidney transplant list. bob was left waiting for someone, someone to step forward unbeknownst to bob, an acquaintance, ray lindsey, quietly went to get tested. now, ray took several days off work traveling three hours roundtrip to i understand 23457 list -- to indianapolis to see if i'd he'd be a -- if he'd be a

match. he was h in the sum of 2014, ray donated a kidney. yesterday ray passed ad way behalf a courageous battle with cancer. ray was a humble and unassuming family man with a sense of humor. on his facebook page he called himself a part-time hillbilly. ray worked hard and, by the way, didn't get any compensation whatsoever for the weeks he had to take off while recuperating from surgery. ray sacrifice -- ray's sacrifice has made a lasting impact on policy. his story informed my interest in donation policy. in 2018 the trump administration

created a program called kidney "x." we know ray saved one life, but his story and selfless impact potentially impacted thousands more. bob, by the way, is still going strong today, eight years after the transplant surgery. ray was a man of deep faith, and i can think of no better tribute to ray than words found in john, chapter 15. my command is this -- love each other as i have loved you. greater love has no one than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends. ray lived those words, and i and countless others am going to miss him deeply. i offer my condolences to all who loved ray, including his wife, debbie, three children and eight grandchildren. ray's incredible life and impact will never be forgotten.

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

mrs. blackburn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam president. i ask that we dispense with the quorum call. per officer without objection. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. blackburn: thank you. well before we gaveled into last week's supreme court confirmation hearing, our friends in the mainstream media had made it clear what the approved narrative was going to be. according to them, we were supposed to talk about what an historic moment it was and what

an historic nominee judge jackson is. my democratic colleagues on the judiciary committee spent most of their time focusing on the approved talking points memo, but those of us who didn't play along were punished in print. but back home in tennessee, these unhinged attacks by the media went over like a lead balloon, and i think my democratic colleagues would benefit from listening to what people outside of washington, d.c., have to say. because they, the people, are the ones who will bear the practical consequences of what happens here in d.c. now, on thursday, my democratic colleagues declared victory for judge jackson, but tennesseans i talked to this weekend still have a lot of questions.

they expected more from her. they don't appreciate being called racist for saying they expected more. they wanted her to answer tough questions about the constitution. they wanted assurance that a justice jackson would protect their constitutional rights. they have no problem with having a former public defender on the court. that could even be a good thing. but they wanted her to account for her record of granting life sentences -- light sentences to dangerous criminals. why did she choose to let some of them out of jail on compassionate release? i asked those questions, and i commend to all of my colleagues on the committee who dug in and did the same thing. many of my democratic

colleagues, on the other hand, accused us of tarnishing their historic moment. but tennesseans didn't see it that way. they say it was the democrats who tarnished the proceedings by ignoring their duty to vet judge jackson, who is up for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. they feel it was the media who tarnished the moment by politicizing -- politicizing the hearings. now, i cannot support judge jackson's nomination to the supreme court, but i'm withholding my support for reasons my democratic colleagues and the media have chosen to ignore. for all the focus my colleagues placed on judicial philosophy in previous confirmation hearings, i had hoped that judge jackson would come ready to tell us

about hers. but she didn't. instead, she came armed with a methodology that spoke to the thoroughness of her process but said very little about her approach to constitutional interpretation. after the hysteria that broke out during justice bears' hearings about the so-called dangers of original i am, i thought we might discover what sort of jurist my democratic colleagues might think would be more effective than a constitutionalist. but, oh, no ... to ask that, you're not supposed to do that. but suddenly judicial philosophy meant nothing. as i said, don't ask that question. what role the constitution plays in judge jackson's methodology meant nothing to them.

don't ask that question. well, i hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this is not a subject the american people are willing to ignore. they want you to ask the questions and get answers. they don't expect to agree with the justice 100% of the time, but they do expect those nominees to adhere to a standard. they want a constitutionalist, not a judicial activist. and at this point they have no idea what rules she'll follow if, indeed, she is confirmed. all we can do is look at her record. judge jackson spent a lot of time defending her work. tennesseans are just as worried about what she was trying to distance herself from. what did she want us to not

know? associations are important. you can tell a lot about a person by looking at who their friends are. and, as it turns out, judge jackson has some pretty controversial friends. over the past few years, we've seen progressive activists use critical race theory to try and redefine our history and change the way americans view their place in the world. it's a pernicious philosophical lens, and the affect it has on kids in the classroom is weighing heavily on the hearts of tennessee parents. now, in her hearing, judge jackson brushed aside my questions about her views on c.r.t. she wrote it off as an academic theory, which it is. but my questions were about how she may or may not apply that academic theory to her decisions.

why does she choose to give that academic theory the same weight as administrative law or constitutional law when she is making those decisions? one particular item she tried to distance herself from is her praise for the so-called progressive curriculum at georgetown day school, where she sits on the board. here's what she said in the winter 2019 edition of the school's magazine, and i quote -- since becoming a part of the g.d.s. community seven years ago, i have witnessed the transformative power of a rigorous progressive education -- end quote. georgetown day is a private school, an elite private school. they can teach what they want and parents can choose to take their kids out and go elsewhere if they don't like it.

but here's the wrinkle. it's getting harder for parents in tennessee to do that because so-called progressive education is taking over public schools also. and part of that progressive education requires getting in between parents and their children. here's why it was so important to air this out during a confirmation hearing. we were examining a nominee who has spent nearly a decade on the bench, yet cannot describe her fundamental approach to the law. not her approach to deciding cases or sentencing criminals, but to reading and interpreting the constitution. so when tennesseans hear a nominee refuse to answer these questions, when she gives an opening statement and talks about how she makes decisions by

starting from a point of neutrality, by looking at the facts of the case, by looking at precedent, you have to say where does the constitution fit in to your decision? at the same time that she is practicing that methodology of deciding cases, she's associating herself with philosophies meant to divide children from their parents. they feel entitled to know what role these associations are going to play in her decision matrix. questions are not attacks, and that is a point that needs to be made. to ask questions is not an

attack. how do we keep our nation free and strong? we do it by robust, respectful debate that requires that you ask questions of individuals that come before you, that you ask questions of individuals that have a different opinion than you have or that hold a different political or governmental philosophy than you hold. questions are not attacks. challenging the application of c.r.t. in elementary school classrooms is not racism. standing firm on the definition of woman is not trance -- transphobia. this isn't personal. we're talking about a lifetime

appointment, and the people deserve to know who this nominee is and what she believes. thought it was so interesting that so regularly through the hearing people would reference her background and her family and the strong connections as part of what makes her who she is and informs her decision making and how important that is. the letters of support to her, i'll mention that, but if you question some of this, then the media, then my democratic colleagues say that is an attack. no, my friends, it is not. it is not an attack because words have meaning. you know, you don't lead words

like parenthood and womanhood up for interpretation. you know what they mean. madam president, judge jackson had three days to convince this country that her methodology -- not her judicial philosophy, but her methodology can help her answer these questions. in my opinion, she failed at that task. in this building, i don't speak for myself. i speak for the people of the great state of tennessee, and i cannot in good conscience give their endorsement to a nominee who by all accounts is legally and constitutionally adrift. what's her standard? we still don't know. what keeps her grounded in the law? we're not sure about that one either. what keeps her from infusing politics into her rulings?

we don't have an answer for that. those are things this weekend tennesseans would say, i want to know this. my democratic colleagues don't want to talk about this. neither does the media. they spent their time exipg up people -- spent their time whipping up people, looking for outrage, looking for click bait, but here's what i would say in conclusion. every single you have judge jackson's contemporaries have been more than happy to answer these questions. they do regularly as they have come before us for supreme court confirmation hearings. so why will not judge jackson? i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa.

mr. grassley: today senator johnson and i begin a series of speeches on our investigations into the biden family financial deals. we'll make these presentations with two themes. first, we'll refruit and we'll dis -- we'll refute and we'll dismantle the talking points that the liberal media and our democrat colleagues pushed on to the american people. their talking points said that our investigation over the years advanced and spread disinformation. on november 29, 2021; may 11, 2021; march 18, 2021; december

14, 2020; december 10, 2020; october 19, 2020; and december 9, 2020, i came to the senate floor to rebut those false charges. now, or at least then the liberal media and my democrat colleagues ought to be ashamed of themselves for the outright lies that they peddled about our investigative work. as a result, senator johnson and i did what any good investigator would do. we gathered even more records to prove all these people wrong, which brings me to the second theme. senator johnson and i will

produce new records to show additional connections between the biden family and the communist chinese regime. before we get to those records, i'm going to discuss the background of our investigation. we started this investigation last congress. then i was chairman of the finance committee, and at that time senator johnson was chairman of the homeland security and governmental affairs committee. it began in august 2019. i started at that time an inquiry into a transaction involving hunter biden that was reviewed by the federal government's committee on foreign investment. on september 23, 2020, senator johnson and i released our

report. on november 18, 2020, we released our supplement to that report. those reports were based in large part on obama administration government records and also almost a dozen transcribed interviews of government officials. in both reports senator johnson and i made financial information public that hadn't ever been known before. our report exposed extensive financial relationships between hunter and james biden and chinese nationals connected to the communist regime. more precisely, these were

chinese nationals connected to the chinese government's military and intelligence's service. one of those individuals was a person by the name of patrick hull. according to reports, hunter biden said of patrick ho, quote, i have another "new york times" reporter calling about my representation of patrick ho. then hunter biden says the f word denoting a spy chief of china who started a company that my partner who is worth $323 billion founded and is now missing. end of that quote. we'll get into more detail with respect to patrick ho in future

speeches. we'll do the same with gon wen dong, another close associate of hunter biden who is connected to the communist regime. hunter biden's reference to, quote, my partner, end quote, is an parent reference to yi jinming. yi had connections to the people's liberation army. yi had a company called cefc, which had multiple variations. today and in future speeches, senator johnson and i will simply refer to that company as cefc. documents show that cefc's corporate mission was, quote, to

expand cooperation in international energy economy and contribute to national development, end of quote. now let me emphasize that word national in that quote -- national development. cefc existed for the communist state. indeed, records show that cefc is dedicated itself to serve china's national energy strategy, developing national strategic reserves for oil, and now i quote, partnering with centrally administered and state-owned enterprises, end of quote. records prepared by one of

hunter and james biden's business associates, a james gilear, say the following about this company's cefc -- quote, at the time china was hungry for crude, but its state-backed companies were having difficulty closing some deals abroad. the optics of china's state-backed giants marching into a country to buy and extract oil weren't great for central asian politicians. this paved the way for private firms like cefc, which can strike oil deals in europe and the middle east, where chinese state-owned enterprises could bring political liabilities, end of quote.

documents also show that cefc, quote, is building an energy storage and logistic system in europe, end of quote, to connect china, europe, and the middle east. you may ask why. plainly, to serve, quote, china's ambitions to have over seas storage locations connected with world markets, end of quote. the document further states that cefc's investments and their bank division has investments in the energy sector, quote, which are in tandem with the government's $4 trillion one belt, one road foreign investment program, end of quote.

so, then cefc operated under the guise of a private company, but for all intents and purposes, to, as an arm of the chinese government. hunter biden and james biden served as a perfect vehicle by which the chinese communist government could gain inroads here in the united states through cefc and its affiliates. and these inroads were focused on chinese advancement into the global and u.s. energy sector. hunter and james biden were more than happy to go along, of

course, for the right price. so now let's turn to the first poster which shows bank records that hasn't beene public before now. this is a portion of a document that we, meaning senator johnson and i, will release in full. the topic of this poster shows a wire trans action, august 4, 2017, from cefc to wells fargo clearing services for $100,000. now look at the bottom of the poster. this is the underlying data of this trans action. it states, quote, further credit to owasco, end of quote.

owasco is hunter biden's firm. now, there is no middle man in this trans action. -- transaction, this is $100,000 of what is effectively arm of the chinese communist government direct to hunter biden. so a second question. question to the liberal media and my democratic colleagues who accused us over the last two years of distributing russian disinformation. is this official bank document russian disinformation? now, beyond this document, in future speeches, senator johnson and i will show you more

transfers between and among such companies as cefc, northern international capital, hudson west iii, hunter biden's owasco and james lyons group. keep in mind, hunter biden, james biden, ye jin, going on wen dong and patrick ho, to name a few -- going on wen dong and patrick ho, to name a few. they have operated over a period of years and with respect to millions of dollars. now, the next poster.

those connections are illustrated by the second poster which i made public last november. it's an original bank record with one typographical error in all. here you have hunter biden, gongwen dong and mer mervin jiang exercising an an signment together -- assignment, so especially to the liberal media, who ought to be plifsing our -- policing our government system, they shouldn't have to have members of congress giving all this information out, but is

this official record russian disinformation? in our next speeches we'll show you more records that haven't been seen before. records that undeniably show strong links between biden family and communist china. today is just a small taste. i'd like to know one thing before senator johnson takes over. he's going to describe to you the ridiculous attacks that we received claiming that our reports were russian disinformation. on march 16 of this year, "the new york times" unwittingly substantiated our reports by reporting on hunter biden's connection to foreign corporations and his potential

criminal exposure. so what senator johnson and i made public last congress is now a prevailing fact pattern that even the liberal media can't ignore any longer and falsely label russian disinformation. i'll turn it over to senator johnson to provide additional examples of the media's attack last congress. i yield the floor. mr. johnson: thanks, senator grassley. i want to thank the senator from iowa for pursuing the truth and leveling all of the false attacks against us during our multiyears of investigation into corruption at the highest levels of the federal government. both of us have been first-hand

witnesses and victims of the dishonesty of our democratic colleagues and their willing accomplices into the media. when it comes to the investigation of the vast web of the foreign entanglements of the biden family, it was to cover up to an extent president biden might be and almost certainly is compromised. over the course of our investigation how hunter biden used his father's position and name, the dishonest press reported countness stories that -- countless stories that senator grassley and i had misinformation. our reports were -- the reports were on documents, the media

largely ignored it. when they did write a story, they declared our reports found nothing new, a classic media coverup. i've always said the bias in the media is revealed far more in what they don't report than what they actually do report. but all the false attacks it did not deter us. we have continued to uncover the truth and fortunately our reports also serve as a catalyst for others to come forward and for more investigative journalists to keep digging. the american people deserve the truth. that's why we're presenting additional evidence today and over the next few days. for example, this is the first time this document is being made public.

as senator grassley described in detail that money from cefc, which is money from the communist government went directly to hunter biden. bank records like this piece of evidence are pretty hard to deny and sweep under the rug of the our reports were full of irrefutable evidence like this and yet the media buried those details in an attempt to keep it hidden from the american people. because the mainstream media and our democratic colleagues had no substance to refute our reports, they reverted to their time-honored tradition of lying, making false acting associations against us and engaging in the politics of personal destruction. again, their goal was to destroy the credibility of our reports

before the american people even had a chance to read them. they were fully aware that the lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put on its shoes. for example, listen to what "new york times" journalist nicholas fandos said about our report. quote, lack of meaningful new information, unquote. and, again, quote, overlap with the russian disinformation campaign, unquote. the then-democrat minority leader was quoted saying about the report, quote, as if putin wrote it, not united states senators. a democrat senator described our investigation as being, quote, rooted in disinformation, end quote. from russian operatives. separately a democratic senator also said about a report, bottom line, the johnson-grassley is

baseless, it is laundering russian pop laition. -- population. all those quotes were disinformation to distract us from the truth. senator grassley reported that it came from government records from the obama administration and transcribed interviews of government officials. so how did the democrats and the media liberal allies carry out this false attack on us. we described part of what they did in our september 10, 2020, report. their disinformation an smear campaign against us -- and smear campaign against us was extensive, but in the interest of time, i will give you a shorter cliff notes version.

then-minority leader schumer, senator warner, speaker pelosi sent a letter to the f.b.i. on the reported belief that congress was the subject of a foreign disinformation campaign. the letter included a classified attachment that attempted to tie senator grassley and my work to a russian agent. the democrats speculated based on this unclassified information, senator grassley and i received materials from the russian agent. this was false. nothing could be further from the truth. this information purportedly linking senator grassley and i to durkosh was to start a false narrative to smear us. until news about this false allegation surfaced, i had never heard of andre durkosh.

we denied the allegation, but democrats in the media continued to spread the lie. to this day no one has ever apologized to either of us for spreading that lie even though it has been proven exclusively to be a lie and disinformation. next, my staff and senator grassley's staff did a transcribed interview with george kent. during that interview, democrat staff members introduced durkosh's papers into our record. when he was asked about it, he stated, quote, what you're asking me to interpret is disinformation and maligned influence. asked -- they asked mr. kent about the disinformation that democrats were spreading that they entered into our record. the actual truth of the matter

is that democrats, not senator grassley nor i introduced known russian disinformation into our investigate ri record. they did the exact same -- they did the exact thing they were falsely accusing us of doing. again, not my staff, not senator grassley staff, democrats were disseminating russian information, just like they did with the steele dossier. and then ranking members wyden and peters asked for an intelligence briefing relating to our investigation. now, such a briefing was -- briefing was completely unnecessary, but it was an effort by our democrat colleagues to further falsely taint our investigation hoping to discredit it and discredit the truth. on july 28, 2020, senator

grassley and i reminded them that the f.b.i. and relevant members of the intelligence community had already briefed the committees in march of 2020 and assured us that there was no reason to discontinue our investigation. then in august 2020 senator grassley and i were provided a briefing from the f.b.i., a briefing that we did not request, that was also leaked to the press to further smear us. this unsolicited f.b.i. briefing was also not necessary and was completely irrelevant to the substance of our investigation. the f.b.i. briefers did tell us that they weren't there to, quote, quash, curtail or interfere, unquote, in our investigation in any way. no government entity ever warned us their investigation into the biden family's financial deals was connected to any kind of russian disinformation campaign because it wasn't.

but again the substance of that f.b.i. briefing was later leaked and contorted to smear us which was exactly why we suspect we were given the unsolicited briefing in the first place. those briefers promised confidentiality. clearly that confidentiality was breached and resulted in another smear operation on senator grassley and i to deflect allegations of corruption and conflict of interest that could compromise a president biden. to date we do not know who all was involved in this smear campaign, but even after repeated requests, dir director i.r.a. and director -- director wray and director hanes refused to say who directed and directed this briefing and why it was

provided. i think we know why it was provided. so to review, senior democrats and liberal media cooperated to smear me and senator grassley with false accusations of receiving and spreading russian disinformation. they created documents, leaked them, asked for briefings, and then leaked those, too. and then they themselves disseminated russian disinformation. you can't make this up. fortunately, they failed to discredit our investigation because we stayed true to government records. we stayed true to the facts and the evidence. and the evidence is stunning, and it is growing. over the next few days senator grassley and i will come to the floor to present additional evidence that's not yet been made public. these records show extensive

connections between the biden family and elements of the communist chinese regime. we're talking h high-dollar transactions, some of which we've already highlighted in our september and november 2020 reports. but our speeches will introduce new financial documents into the record for all to see. now, we expect democrats in the media to continue to use their power to smear us and cover up for the bidens, but the truth has a power of its own and we intend to continue to reveal the 2r50u9 -- reveal the truth. madam president, i yield the floor.

>> the budgets and the statements and indeed they can be in the white house request that president biden published

, offers the clearest possible reminder, the biden administration furnace values fundamentally disconnected from what american families actually need . i mentioned, around president biden state of the union, that the give the president a chance to pivot, and had a chance to assess the poll numbers, and make a dramatic course correction back to the where the americans would like for him to be, but he chose not to, and this proposal is just a mathematical version, that failure to pivot in the white house desperately spending to call his budget disinterested, but there's nothing remotely moderate about what his and it and first and foremost , at a dangerous time, residence in

budget fails locally short on defense spending, and again the field budget for the resources, that the armed forces drastically needed the pose a nominal, 4 percent increase with the defense, the bipartisan bill that congress just passed for this year. that's before any of the historic inflation is taken into account in inflation right now, his about twice that. and even if you had set the white house rosie his predictions about where the inflation is headed, this would amount to a funding it defense, was another robust that we need to keep pace with russia and china even the best case

scenario for the budget it would leave our armed forces simply treading water, one of the democrats historic inflation does not plummet downwards as quickly as they would like. but if the inflation they cost. able to complete my remarks before the vote. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: thank you. madam president, i come to the floor tonight happy that the senate is going to move forward on substituting what is originally the senate-passed schumer-young bill on the u.s. innovation and competition act. that's what we're going to be voting on. and then sending that over to the house of representatives to basically convey that that is our desire here in the senate and hopefully get this process of going to conference in a --

in a response back from the house of representatives so we can move forward on reinvigorating america's supply chain. madam president, i know you know how important this is, but the senate bill, again brought to us by senators schumer and young, i think was quite press yents on the problems we were going to face as it relates to supply chains, but i don't think that everybody really understands the senate position is really about the fact that we need to have technology transfer happen at a faster rate, that other countries, because the united states has been such prolific publishers of information and content actually have taken that content information and been able to turn it into actual commercial applications. so in the united states we want to do something to create while still protecting n.s.f., the national science foundation, on basic research and advanced research and the department of energy on research, also work

faster at translating the successes of our science into true application and translating that into helping our manufacturers here in the united states of america. this is so important because we know that in various sectors of our economy, we are seeing much of the supply chain controlled in other parts of the world. we've seen asia now controls much of the supply chain for pharmaceuticals. we're having a big debate about how we're going to drive down the cost of pharmaceuticals. we're going to invest here in the united states i think in more biotechnology and synthetic biology to find new ways to discover and make lifesaving drugs. and that's very important that we do that research here in the senate bill. we're very focused on what areas do we want to do faster translational science to help bring the supply chain back to

the united states. as we talked last week, we see that taiwan makes more than 90% of the world's leading edge chips which drive our national security and our economic security, and we want to do the research here in the united states through the acceleration with the tech directorate to invent the next generation of chips and build them here domestically. and we've heard about the risk of americans falling behind on advanced communications like 5g or 6g. and so we have ideas here about how to translate that into faster deployment of technology that could help our manufacturing base. so, madam president, i'm actually very excited about all of that innovation because if we all work together, we collaborate, we've done the r&d, we actually work harder at getting it translated, i think there's lots of solutions that we can put before our manufacturers here to help them

with their competitiveness on a worldwide basis. that is what the tech directorate does. the manufacturing u.s.a. institutes, the technology hubs, and the technology centers are all parts of this legislation that would help us move technology out into the world in a faster pace and work collaboratively to solve these problems that again would bring the manufacturing and the supply chain back into the united states of america. i get really excited about the issues related to the automobile sector and the grid. coming from a state that's had cheap electricity for a long time, it's built our economy over and over and over again. that is, that people want to locate there because the electricity is so affordable. it's one of the reasons why we have one of the highest deployments of electric vehicles

in the country because it really only costs you about a dollar a gallon to fill up vary surs the rising well above $4 a gallon that we're seeing today. so people are very excited about an electricity grid and a supply chain here in the united states that would build here. the battery technology, implement this faster, integration into our economy, and get a grid that works and enables that kind of electrification of the transportation sector. i guarantee you the united states could be world leaders in the deployment of this if we get this legislation passed and we continue to make investments in the national science foundation and the tech directorate. now, i know some of our colleagues have been concerned that this somehow takes away from the national science foundation's focus on basic research. i would tell you that it does both. the senate bill that we will be

voting on does both. it basically continues to invest in the n.s.f. and their traditional role and also gets this idea of a tech directorate which focuses on the translational science again to help us get more of the supply chain back in the united states. it does both. it also, this underlying bill as i said, is the senate version which made the same investment in the department of energy which was so important because the department of energy plays such an important aspect of this. it also does something that my colleague senator wicker and i and others worked on which is trying to make sure that we are getting more technology development in a variety of places. that is, that we are building on stem and the amount of investment in stem education. the fact that we want to have innovation everywhere so that

opportunity is also anywhere. and we also make more investments in the idea of our epscor program which is helping areas of the united states that may not have as much tech investment to continue to increase the investment in their institutions. i hope this is something my colleagues understand, that this is about growing the capacity for us to innovate in many different parts of the united states and across many different sectors of our economy with increasing the capacity of women and minorities to also participate in the kinds of programs that will help america be competitive. so, madam president, i encourage my colleagues to support the underlying senate bill, help us get it moved forward and to also

send this over tonight on the second vote to the house and continue the process to get us to real negotiations and get us working on these supply chain issues. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on amendment number 5002 to calendar number 282, h.r. 4521, an act to provide for a coordinated federal research initiative to ensure continued united states leadership in engineering, biology signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on amendment number 5002, offered by the senator from new york, to

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

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 68, the nays

are 28, three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted -- having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: can we have some order, mr. president, please. okay, in a few minutes, the senate's going to take a final vote on a major bipartisan jobs and competitive legislation, as we all know it's been a long road to reach this point. i want to thank my democratic and republican colleagues for working in good faith on the bill. nearly every member of this chamber's had a hand in shaping this legislation. there are three important reasons for passing the bill -- it will create more american jobs, it will lower costs for american families, it will help ignite another generation of american scientific research and innovation. after we pass this bill, we'll be one step closer to initiating a conference committee so we can resolve the house and senate bills. i am hopeful we'll be able to reach a conference committee before the end of this work

period. i thank all my colleagues for their good work on this bill. and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: cloture having been invoked, the motion to economy falls as inconsistent with cloture, and up the previous order the remaining amendments are withdrawn. amendment number 5002 is agreed to. the cloture motion on the bill is withdrawn and the bill as amended is considered read a third time. get occurs on passage of the bill as amended. yeas and nays have been requested. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 68, the nays are 28, requiring 60 votes for the passage of this bill, the bill, as amended, is passed. ms. sinema: i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. portman: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: are we in a quorum call, mr. president? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. portman: mr. president, i come to the floor again today to stand in solidarity with the people of ukraine. this is the seventh week in a row i've come out here to talk about the atrocities being committed by russia and what more the united states and this congress can do to support ukraine in its fight for survival. it's been more than a month on an independent, sovereign, democracy, a democracy that just wants to live in peace. earlier today, russia continued

its brutal bombing attacks on civilian targets in ukraine. some civilians like those trapped in mar -- mariupol, they are -- fleeing the conflict and for lifesaving humanitarian aid to come in to those who can't get out. you may recall the theater in mariupol, where people took refuge in the basement, using it as a bomb shelter. the words children in russian were emblazed with huge letters, clear enough to see from the sky, so that it would not be a target. but it was. we just learned friday that roughly 300 ukrainian civilians were killed in that basement when the theater was hit by a russian bomb about a week ago. mostly women and children. vladimir putin's war has resulted in death and destruction not seen in europe

since world war ii. thousands of civilians have been killed. roughly 10 million people displaced from their homes, 3.6 million refugees, almost all women, children, and elderly women, children, and elderly resulting in death and destruction not seen since world war ii. thousands of civilians have been killed wasn't in million have been displaced from sth thr homes three.6 million refugees almost all women and children and the elderly have fled the country they love zens of refuge. through their tears they spoke of apartments or houses destroyed, they spoke about friends or family members injured or even killed. they talked about the pain of being separated from their husbands or fathers or brothers who had stayed behind to fight, not knowing their fate. they pleaded for us to do more, to stop the missiles, stop the bombs, and they all said they wanted to return to their homeland as soon as they possibly could. president biden is just back from the region where he too met with refugees, and i'm glad he went. he was clearly moved by what he

saw and heard. i thought his speech in poland saturday was a powerful indictment of russia's invasion and a strong statement of support for ukraine, as well as a reminder that this battle in ukraine is about the larger issue of freedom and democracy versus tyranny and authoritarianism. unfortunately, a compelling speech was overshadowed by an off-the-cuff remark at the end, saying putin, this man cannot stay in power. this was read as supporting renl eem change in russia -- regime change in russia. no question, the world would be better and safer without vladimir putin as president of russia. this played into russia's prop grande -- prop grande -- propaganda efforts from the start, that these are all threats to russia and attempt to overthrow the russian government with. none of that is true, of course. all ukraine wants to do is live in peace with its neighbor. nato is a purely defensive poct, not offensive in any -- pact,

not offensive in any respect, simply countries pledging to defend one another from attacks. regime change is neither our policy in this instance or broader strategic objective. i can imagine having met with the refugees, and having heard their heartbreaking stories, that the president was expressing his frustration. i get it. but the president's words and reaction to them reminds us that this is a true national security crisis and in this sensitive moment, it requires the united states to speak with clarity and to speak, wherever possible, in unity with our allies, in nato and beyond. unfortunately, that did not always happen on this trip, whether it was the president talking about our response to the use of chemical weapons, u.s. troops that may end up in ukraine or regime change. tonight, i want to focus on another positive aspect of the president's trips that relate to sanctions and offer a few ideas. with regard to sanctions on russia, i believe there are a

number of additional steps we can and should take. i was glad to hear on march 24 that the treasury department issued sanctions against dozens of defense companies, 328 members of the duma legislative body, and the chief executive of if sberbank. gold-related transactions may be sanctionable, the treasury department say in a statement. we should do that. but we should also expand full blocking sanctions to all russian banks, revoking international tax and trade agreements that give russia privileges not appropriate for a pariah country, seizing, not just freezing, assets from kremlin supporters, keeping oligarchs from laundering money through expensive art and more. i've introduced legislation on these ideas and advocated for all of them here on the floor and elsewhere and will continue to do so. but tonight, i want to focus on what i think is the single most important sanction, the one that could make the biggest difference. our top priority should be

cutting off russia's number one source of income that fuels the war machine, and that is receipts from energy. energy is by far russia's biggest export and accounts for roughly half of russia's entire federal budget. over the past year, the average oil revenues going back to russia from exports to the united states alone was about $50 million a day. under pressure from congress, the administration changed its view and chose to block that russian oil, natural gas, and coal imports, and that's good. it made no sense for us to help fund the russian war effort, especially when we have our own natural resoars in north -- resources in north america that we can gain access to and are better for the environment than russian oil that that emits co2 and causes more emissions. i recognize that sanctioning russian energy is far more difficulty for some of our allies in europe who are far

more dependent on russian energy than we were. we can't be funding this brutal war. i welcome the announcement during the president's trip on the creation of a joint u.s.-e.u. task force to strengthen europe's energy security. specifically, this initiative will help provide at least 50 billion cubic meters, b.c.m.'s firefighter l.n.g. exports from the -- of l.n.g. exports from the united states this year, with the goal of shipping 50 b.c.m.'s of l.n.g. to europe annually through at least 2030. this a very positive step forward, because it's telling the europeans you can cut your dependency on russia and stop spending money that goes into the war machine and we'll back you up. the united states has plenty of natural gas, produced in a cleaner way, and we're happy to back you up. this agreement is not a silver

bullet, but it is a step in the right direction. it is smart to support our domestic energy producers. but also as a way to support our allies in europe. in light of this russian invasion, the importance of the united states having a robust all-of-the-above approach to power our nation, including fossil fuels, renewable energies, carbon capture technologies, nuclear power, hydrogen, that cannot be overstated. for context, europe imported approximately 155 b.c.m.'s of gas from russia in 2021. and approximately 22 b.c.m.'s from the united states through l.n.g. so 50 b.c.m.'s from the united states on top of that will lead to a significant increase in u.s. l.n.g. exports and really help europe. but if this is to work, the administration has to follow through on these commitments to help get more hydrocarbons on the global market to consumers in europe. if the price is higher in

europe, as predicted, some of the l.n.g. supply will go to europe instead of asia, and that will help. that will be based on market forces. but in order to ensure we meet this increased supply to europe, we have to increase product at home, and develop pipelines and terminals to get that natural gas to market. unfortunately, we aren't off to a great start. the president's tack proposals released with their f.y.-23 budget eliminates important tack tax de, dids, like for i.d.c.'s which allows natural gas and oil producers to deduct costs for the drilling and preparation of wells. this includes wages, fuel, survey work, taxpayers get to deduct cost of doing business. i.d.c.'s are one such cost for energy producers, and that discourage domestic energy

production at a time we need it. on friday, i spoke at a natural gas seminar in ohio. i met with energy producers who are working in the marcelle is and utica shale ohio. we're now a major gas-producing state thanks to those shell finds, and the producers in ohio had a loft thoughts about what was -- a lot of thoughts about what was going on that day in europe. they were glad about the agreement between the e.u. and united states, but drove home the key point we have energy here in the ground, but the current administration's policies made it very difficult to get that product to market, both domestically and internationally. unfortunately, the biden administration has consistently sent a message to these producers and others that one of the goals is to phase out the use of fossil fuels altogether. this rhetoric, imaind with canceling the keystone -- combined with canceling the keystone x.l. pipeline, redefining waters of the u.s.,

which makes it harder to permit energy projects, has led to a lot of uncertainty within the oil and gas industry, which has had a chilling effect on domestic energy production. again, at a time when we need it. we need all of the above. in light of this new l.cxfing n.g. in-- l.n.g. initiative it the biden administration actions must meet its commitments. an important part of building out the domestic energy struck for gas, renewables, and everything in between is streamlining the federal permitting process, whether a wind power project, solar power project, or natural gas project. historically, it can take a decade or more for the federal government to issue pipelines to build pipelines -- permits to build pipelines. i coauthored a law to improve the permitting process to require agencies to work together to set out a timeline for permitting projects. it also created the federal permitting steering council to resolve disputes over the

process and get a green light more quickly. it's helped saved billions of dollars and years of time, all while upholding environmental standards. the bipartisan infrastructure bill expanded the council's authorities and made it permanent, and the recent f.y. 2022 bill included $10 million to support the council's operations. i urge the biden administration to use this 41 process to reduce bureaucratic red tape in permitting these projects so we can deliver this liquefied natural gas to europe, as promised, in a timely fashion so we can begin to reduce their dependency on russian oil and stop sending billions of dollars to fund the russian war machine. this is where energy security and national security come together. we need to lead our european allies in doing all we can to sanction russia's energy sector. we talked a lot about cutting off the natural gas and revenue that fuels the war machine in

russia, but we need to tighten up the bang sankss. it is -- bank sanctions. it is unacceptable that sanctions against the biggest banks, including v.t.b. bierchg do not apply until june 24. while in poland, president biden inside ukraine, russian missiles were striking cities, including lviv, not far from the polish border. president biden must lead the alliance to redouble their efforts to stop this madness, to ensure russia is not rewarded for its war crimes. it is one thing to keep the alliance together. it is another to lead the alliance out of its comfort zone to a more aggressive stance to actually win this war. so in addition to the energy, and other sanctions we've discussed tonight, what more can we and our allies do to help ukraine win this war? note i say win this war.

because if we act swiftly, i think we can help ukraine win and keep ukraine as a viable democracy and save thousands of lives. but they need our help, especially to stop the missiles and artillery raining down on civilians every day and every night. as we talk here tonight, this is happening in ukraine. the ukrainians have made is very clear they desperately need more air defense. president zelenskyy talked about it again in the last 24 hours. based on the news media reports, the united states is providing s.a.-8's, an older soviet-era defense system to ukraine. i was glad to here that. but the media reports say the more capable soviet air systems in our inventory are not being sense. if this is true, this is a big disappointment and shows a lack of urgency. while i commend the president for the strong speech he delivered over the weekend, the actions of the administration have to match that rhetoric.

there are additional weapons they desperately need we're not providing, particularly antiair systems and more munitions for their own systems. often it's us facilitating the transfer of these from former warsaw wact countries -- pact countries along the border, that are close to ukraine and can provide incredibly important military antiair systems, but we need to help them. we need to facilitate that and backfill their needs at home. they've asked for our help across the board. but specifically, for tanks, antiship systems, which is really important right now, because so many of these missiles are coming from these ships in the black sea. president zelenskyy needs to be listened to. he knows what they need. he says we need more, and we need it more quickly. we must also keep sending stinger missiles, which are effective at shooting down russian helicopters and planes at lower altitudes.

we must find ways to provide more armed drones such as the turk itch tb-2 -- the turk itch tb-2's, which the ukrainians know how to use. they've -- two weeks ago we were going to send loitering munitions. we need to send more and we need to send them quickly. to our israeli friends, i would ask them to sell us or other countries, and we should agree to buy their herop drones, which ukraine could really use right now. the bottom line is we need to flood the zone when it comes to providing ukraine with military assistance. they are not asking us to fight for them but they are asking for the tools to be able to defend themselves, particularly with regard to this endless bombing. and they have a chance to win if we do that. there should be no gaps in our weapons transfers. we need to lead the nato allies when it comes to providing and

coordinating support. there are loopholes in the sanctions we talked about tonight. we need to do more to ensure that those are closed. we need to do more to ensure that the weapons are being received. we should act fast to let the people of ukraine know with certainty that we do stand with them. the popular ukrainian natural lig cry, slava ukraini, when translated into english is glory to ukraine. the response to it is glory to the heroes. in the midst of this atrocity, there are so many heroes, and we need to back them up. there are so many heroes to glorify in ukraine, the soldiers, professionals and civilians, doctors and volunteers providing food, water and blankets. we pray for them all, and we pray for their families. godspeed to them and their simple quest, a battle for a free and independent ukraine, a

country that can chart its own course. america needs to stand with the people of ukraine. we must show the world, both our adversaries and our allies, that we stand with ukraine. thank you. i yield my time.

mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. schumer: madam president, in a few moments i'll file a discharge petition to move forward on the nomination of lisa cook to serve on the federal reserve board of governors. not long ago a nominee like ms. cook would have sailed toward final confirmation. she serves on the advisory boards of the federal reserve bank of chicago, is a professor of economics at michigan state, and has served on the white

house council of economic advisors. she would also be the first black woman to sit on the federal reserve board of governors. sadly, every single republican in committee voted in lock step against ms. cook that was in the banking committee, providing no good explanation for obstructing this qualified and historic nominee. nonetheless, the step i'm taking now will make sure ms. cook's nomination moves forward, setting up a vote as soon as tomorrow. now i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 672. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, export import bank of the united states, judith delzoppo pryor of ohio to be first vice president. 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 debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 672, judith delzoppo pryor of ohio to be first vice president of the export-import bank of the united states 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 those 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 764. 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 to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of health and human services, january contreras of arizona to be assistant

secretary for family support. mr. schumer: i sent 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 debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 764, january contreras of arizona, to be assistant secretary for family support, department of health and human services, 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 to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session session to consider calendar 667. 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. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of labor, david weil

of massachusetts to be administrator of the wage and hour division. 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 debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 667, david weil of massachusetts to be administrator of the wage and hour division department of labor 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 718. 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. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, federal

labor relations authority, susan tsui grundmann of virginia to be a member. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk wil -- 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 bring to a close debate on of executive calendar number 718, susan tsui grundmann, of virginia, to be a member of the federal labor relations authority. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that 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 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 number 717. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say i aye. all opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, merit systems protection board, cathy

ann harris, of maryland, to be a member. 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 bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 717, cathy ann harris, of maryland, to be a member of the merit systems protection board. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that 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 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 number 716. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, merits

system protection board, cathy ann harris, of maryland, to be chairman. 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 bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 716, cathy ann harris, of maryland, to be chairman of the merit systems protection board, signed by 16 senators as follows. the presiding officer: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask that the cloture motions be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: all in favor say aye. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: pursuant to -- i move to proceed to executive session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all 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: pursuant to senate res. 27, the banking committee being tied on the question of reporting, i move to discharge the banking committee from further consideration of lisa denell cook, of michigan, to be a member of the board of governors of the federal reserve system. the presiding officer: there will be four hours of debate on the motion equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. mr. schumer: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. schumer: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the senate consider the following noilses imlec, 816, 817, 818, 819, that the senate vote on the nominations, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that any statement related to the nominations be printed in the

record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is 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. schumer: madam president, i have one request for a committee to meet during today's session of the senate. it has the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. schumer: and finally, madam president, i ask unanimous consent in a when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m., tuesday, march 29, nothing the prayer -- following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to

the nomination, to discharge the cook nomination and that the senate vote on the motion to discharge the cook nomination at 11:45 nomination, if motion is invoked on the coloretti nomination, that the senate recess following the cloture vote to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. notwithstanding rule 22, the senate vote on cloture on the kang nomination at 2:15, if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be expired. if any nominations are confirmed during tuesday's session of the senate that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's actions. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until

the senate gaveled out for the day. they asked pass the bill to increase u.s. competitiveness with china on semiconductor production for that now goes to congress to the house to resolve differences in the two versions of the bill purred also this week the senate considering several president biden's nominations including to be deputy white house budget director. senate vote comes in the same week the president is releasing his 2023 budget request. the senate is back in session tomorrow, watch live coverage here on cspan2. >> tuesday morning white house budget director testifies on president biden's 2023 budget request. the house budget committee is hosting. watch live at ten eastern on c-span three. online@c-span.org, or watch full coverage our free video app c-span