[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 48 (Thursday, March 17, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1229-S1236]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              NOMINATIONS

  Madam President, now, yesterday, the Senate moved forward on a dozen 
judicial and administrative nominees, many of them with solid 
bipartisan support.
  Today, we will hold three more floor votes: two to confirm a pair of 
district judges and one to move on the nomination of Judge Ali Nathan 
for the Second Circuit.
  When I met Judge Nathan 10 years ago, I thought, ``Here is someone 
truly special and truly brilliant,'' and, a decade later, I still hold 
that view.
  Ask her colleagues on the bench or ask her colleagues from private 
practice or even the likes of President Obama, and they will all say 
the same thing: Judge Nathan is a first-rate jurist and a consensus 
builder by nature.
  I am pleased the Senate is acting on this well-deserving judge today, 
setting up a final confirmation vote next week.


               Nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson

  Madam President, speaking of nominations today, today is the last day 
the Senate will meet before we begin a truly historic series of 
hearings next Monday, starting at 11 a.m. The Senate Judiciary 
Committee will begin hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's 
nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  These televised judiciary hearings will give millions of Americans a 
chance to hear from the judge directly for the first time since her 
nomination. These hearings matter. Americans deserve to hear for 
themselves from Judge Jackson, whose decisions will echo across 
American law for a long, long time.
  Of course, the historic nature of this nominee must not be minimized. 
Of the 115 Justices who have sat on the Court, only 5--only 5--have 
been women; only 2--2--have been African Americans, Justices Thurgood 
Marshall and Clarence Thomas; only 1 has been Hispanic, Justice Sonia 
Sotomayor from the Bronx.
  But, to date, never has an African-American woman come before the 
Judiciary Committee for consideration to the highest Court. Judge 
Ketanji Brown Jackson will be the very first.

[[Page S1230]]

  And the public will also see that her credentials, her vast 
experience in both public and private practice, and her near 9 years on 
the Federal bench make her stupendously qualified to bear the title 
``Justice.''
  I thank Chairman Durbin and the members of the Judiciary Committee 
for their work orchestrating what has been a fair and quick nomination 
process, and all of us look forward to next week's hearings.


                                  Oil

  Madam President, now, on oil, I want to return to a worrying trend. 
Over the past few days, the price of crude has actually gone down, but 
the average price of a gallon is still stuck at nearly $4.30. If anyone 
thinks this is fair, efficient, or sensible, they are probably an oil 
executive. No matter what, the divergence between the price of crude 
and the price of a gallon is causing immense--immense--damage to 
American families at a time when they are all struggling to make ends 
meet.
  Meanwhile, it is nothing short of repugnant for oil companies to be 
touting what are truly dizzying profit margins while soaking American 
families with these exorbitant prices. Last year, the top 25 oil and 
gas companies reported a combined $205 billion in profits. And what 
have they done with this avalanche of cash? Invest in new technologies? 
Nope. Give Americans a break at the pump? Nope.
  They have been using their profits to reward shareholders by 
implementing stock buybacks. Listen to this. According to a recent 
Bloomberg report, in the fourth quarter of last year, oil and gas 
companies increased stock buybacks by over 2,000 percent from the 
previous year--2,000 percent--and none of it to produce more energy or 
invest in new technologies; just a massive windfall for shareholders. 
And their increase in stock buyback over the previous year is more than 
any other industry by quite a large margin.
  The Senate, I am glad to say, is soon going to call executives from 
oil and gas companies to come testify and explain why they see fit to 
reward shareholders instead of finding ways to give Americans a break 
at the pump.


                                 Russia

  Madam President, finally, on PNTR, on a final note, the House today 
is expected to vote on legislation revoking permanent normal trade 
relations with Russia.
  For weeks, Members of the Senate, the House, and the White House have 
been working together to draft a strong and effective bill that will 
increase the pain on Putin's Russia and that our European allies will 
accept. To date, both parties, Democratic and Republican, remain united 
in sending Putin a clear message. His inhumane violence against the 
Ukrainian people will come at a crippling price.
  And today's step by the House is another way we are making that come 
true. When the House passes this bill, I expect it will have broad 
bipartisan support here in the Senate, and I will work with my 
colleagues to find a way to move it through this Chamber quickly.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Republican leader is recognized.


                  Nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, next week, the Judiciary Committee 
will hear firsthand from President Biden's Supreme Court nominee Judge 
Jackson. It will be a serious and dignified process. The American 
people need answers to more important questions than what somebody 
wrote in the nominee's high school yearbook.
  The Senate needs to examine Judge Jackson's qualifications, and we 
need to examine her judicial philosophy and see if she will apply laws 
as written and weigh cases without favoritism. And we need to explore 
why the farthest left activists in the country desperately wanted Judge 
Jackson, in particular, for this vacancy.
  Judicial philosophy is a key qualification for the Supreme Court. 
There are plenty of smart lawyers in the country, but they don't all 
understand that a judge's proper role is to apply the text of the laws 
neutrally. Some would rather start with liberal outcomes and reason 
backward.
  So it is unsettling that senior Democrats have lauded Judge Jackson 
for the ``empathy'' they suggest shapes her judicial approach. So if 
you are the litigant for whom the judge has special preexisting 
empathy, well, it is your lucky day; but the other party is being 
denied their fair day in court.
  The Senate Democratic leader, the House majority whip, and multiple 
legal academics all say Judge Jackson will rule with ``empathy.'' 
Helpfully, one professor clarified which kinds of litigants would 
benefit from her empathy. He proposed that because of Judge Jackson's 
``ample criminal defense experience,'' she would ``bring a measure of 
empathy to the criminal defense cases, the Fourth and Fifth Amendment 
cases.''
  So liberals are saying that Judge Jackson's service as a criminal 
defense lawyer and then on the U.S. Sentencing Commission give her 
special empathy for convicted criminals. Her supporters look at her 
resume and deduce a special empathy for criminals. I guess that means 
that government prosecutors and innocent crime victims start each trial 
at a disadvantage.
  That isn't my assertion. That is what the nominee's liberal 
supporters are all saying. In fact, the nominee has all but said it 
herself. Here is what the Washington Post reported last year when Judge 
Jackson was nominated to the DC Circuit:

       She and her allies credit her work as a public defender as 
     helping her develop empathy.

  And here they quote the nominee herself:

       There is a direct line from my defender service to what I 
     do on the bench, and I think it's beneficial.

  So, look, nobody is saying that public defenders ought to be 
disqualified from judicial service. It is an important role. But as the 
New York Times reported this week, the Biden administration is on an 
intentional quest to stuff the Federal judiciary full of this one 
perspective. Even amid a national crime wave, a disproportionate share 
of the new judges President Biden has nominated share this professional 
background that liberals say gives judges special empathy for criminal 
defendants.
  Here is the New York Times:

       It is a sea change in the world of judicial nominations. . 
     . . The type of high-profile murder cases handled by some of 
     Mr. Biden's nominees would have been considered disqualifying 
     only a few years ago; now the president . . . is actively 
     seeking to name more jurists who have such experience.

  It is not just Judge Jackson.

       At least 20 other lawyers with significant public defender 
     experience have been nominated by the Biden administration.

  One soft-on-crime advocate marveled to the reporter:

       We have never seen anything like this.

  Such enthusiasm.
  President Biden is deliberately working to make the whole Federal 
judiciary softer on crime. Even liberals admitted as much. They 
actually applaud it. But with murders and carjackings skyrocketing 
nationwide, I doubt the American people feel the same way.
  I look forward to learning more about how Judge Jackson believes her 
service as a criminal defense attorney leads her to interpret the text 
of our laws and our Constitution differently than other judges. If any 
judicial nominee really does have special empathy for some parties over 
others, that is not an asset; it is a problem.


                                 Energy

  Madam President, on another matter, as Democratic policies have 
unleashed runaway inflation, families have felt particular pain at the 
gas pump.
  Since President Biden took office, gas prices have climbed nearly 
$2--$2. The Biden administration wants to claim that a full year's 
worth of price hikes were all caused by a war Putin started 3 weeks 
ago. But this fictional version of events doesn't fool anyone.
  Two years ago, then-candidate Biden told everyone he was ready to 
wage war on the most reliable forms of American energy:

       No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, 
     period. [It] ends.

  That is President Biden.


[[Page S1231]]


  

       I guarantee you . . . We're going to end fossil fuel.

  In other words, either the Biden administration has a shaky 
understanding of supply and demand or soaring energy prices have been 
baked into their agenda right from the beginning.
  For 14 months now, energy policy has followed a disturbing pattern. 
First, the Biden administration rolls out a direct attack on American 
energy, then working families feel the pinch, and then Democrats try to 
deflect the blame. Take the Keystone XL Pipeline. President Biden made 
canceling it a day one priority. Then, as gasoline, diesel, and other 
energy prices climbed, the White House justified itself by saying the 
project would have taken years to affect prices anyway.
  The problem is, back during the Obama administration, their own 
analysis suggested the project would be fully operational by 2013. They 
spent a decade fighting against a pipeline that would have taken a 
couple of years to come online by complaining it was not immediate 
enough.
  That was their argument a decade ago, and it is their argument now. 
The pipeline could have been built multiple times over in the time the 
Democrats spent resisting it. Besides, if slow construction were really 
the problem, the administration would be rushing to rein in their own 
regulatory army that is handcuffing other new and existing pipelines 
with mountains of extra bureaucracy.
  Just weeks ago, while Putin was already amassing forces and trying to 
make energy hostages out of Western Europe, the Biden administration's 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission went out of its way to make 
permitting new American natural gas pipelines radically more difficult.
  Here is yet another example. Last year, the Biden administration 
directed the SEC to prioritize discouraging loans, capital, and 
financing for fossil fuel energy projects. But now that a worldwide 
scramble has sent prices sky-high, the administration blames the 
industry and says it is ``time for oil and gas companies to work with 
Wall Street to unleash our productive capacity.'' The administration 
that campaigned on ending fossil fuels now claims the fossil fuel 
companies are just layabouts who don't want to drill. It is enough to 
make your head spin.
  Oh, and President Biden rushed to lash America back to the mast of a 
climate deal that actually gave China a pass to keep increasing their 
emissions. As Germany prepared to give Putin an even tighter hold on 
Europe's market for natural gas with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, 
President Biden fought bipartisan efforts to stop the pipeline.
  His response to soaring prices hurting families last year was to go 
hat in hand and beg OPEC and Russia to produce more. And now that 
Russia has invaded Ukraine, the Biden administration is reportedly 
exploring more imports--listen to this--from Venezuela and Iran, 
totalitarian regimes with contempt for human rights and the 
environment.
  So it turns out the Biden administration doesn't mind fossil fuel 
production after all. They just don't want to ``Buy American.'' The 
administration will buy oil from the Supreme Leader of Iran; they will 
buy oil from Maduro. If North Korea had oil, they would probably try to 
buy that, too. Anything--anything--to avoid keeping those jobs and that 
energy independence right here in the USA.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.


                         Monacan Indian Nation

  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise today to speak about a really 
important victory in Virginia yesterday--a victory for the Monacan 
Indian Nation, and it is a victory that I have had a hand in over the 
course of many years. I want to describe it and celebrate it.
  When the English came to Virginia first in 1607, there were thriving 
Virginia Native populations. The populations east--in eastern Virginia, 
east of Richmond--were part of a larger confederacy called the Powhatan 
Confederacy, and they spoke an Algonquian-based language. There were 
Tribes in the southern part of Virginia that spoke an Iroquois-based 
language, and Tribes in the western part of Virginia spoke a Sioux-
based language. One of these Tribes was the Monacan Tribe.
  John Smith, in 1607, 1608, and 1609, traveled all around the 
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries and did some very detailed mapmaking 
of the area, including a town that he called the chief Monacan town 
named Rassawek. Rassawek is on a point of land in what is now Fluvanna 
County, VA, where the Rivanna River and the James River combine.
  Rassawek was the headquarters, or the chief administrative town, of 
the Monacan Tribal Nation. The story of the Virginia Tribes is one of 
triumph, but also one of tragedy. Many of the Tribes made peace 
treaties with the English in the 1670s. All of these Tribes were 
discriminated against, and some were driven far from their homes.
  The Monacan Tribe was driven by the English settlers from Rassawek, 
further west into Amherst County, and then many of them were driven 
even further west into the middle west end and other places. But 
Rassawek maintained its sacred status to the Monacan Nation for many 
reasons, including the fact that so many of Monacan families were 
buried there and their remains are still there.
  An aspect of the tragedy of the Virginia Tribes is that: When I was 
elected to be a Senator in 2012, none of the Virginia Tribes had ever 
been recognized, even though many still live intact in communities in 
Virginia. There were over 500 Tribes that had been federally 
recognized. The Virginia Tribes are part of exhibits at the Smithsonian 
Museum at the foot of Capitol Hill; and yet they had never been 
recognized. And they had never been recognized for three reasons.
  One, they made peace treaties with the English rather than with the 
United States. Often, recognition begins with the treaty entered into 
with the United States. Second, often, recognition is determined by 
extensive submission of land records and other records. Many Virginia 
courthouses were burned during the Civil War, and so records 
establishing Tribal lands, for example, were destroyed.
  But, finally, and most cruelly, Virginia had an official named Walter 
Plecker who served as the State's director of the Department of Vital 
Statistics from 1920 until the 1960s. And he was a eugenicist. He 
believed there was no such thing as Indians, that they were all color. 
And, systemically, he determined to take every record he could find of 
Tribal communities in Virginia and change the racial designation of 
those records--birth certificates, marriage licenses, death notices--of 
Indian members to ``color,'' even to the point of disinterring Indians 
who had been buried in cemeteries that were primarily cemeteries for 
Caucasians. This made it, again, very difficult for these Tribes. They 
refer to this as the ``paper genocide'' for them to assert their claim 
for Tribal recognition.

  I started working with the Monacan and six other Tribes when I was 
mayor of Richmond on this issue because I became friends with a guy 
named Steve Adkins, who is the chief of one of these Tribes, the 
Chickahominy Tribe.
  We worked over the course of many, many years--these Tribes coming to 
Congress and asking for Federal recognition. And when I came into 
office in January of 2013, this was very, very high on my to-do list, 
to finally right this historic wrong and correct an injustice and allow 
these Virginia Tribes--whose stories are so well known and still live 
in these communities--to finally be recognized.
  Now, we have gotten seven Tribes recognized--one through the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs process, the Pamunkey Tribe, and six through an act 
of Congress. I thank the Presiding Officer because all of my colleagues 
joined together at the end of 2018 and, in a unanimous vote, finally 
did justice by the Virginia Tribes, including the Monacan Tribe.
  Now onto Rassawek. The Monacans were driven further west and now have 
their, sort of, Tribal headquarters in a place called Bear Mountain in 
Amherst County. The chief of the Tribe is a man named Ken Branham. Ken 
is a good friend.
  In 2014, a local authority, the James River Water Authority in 
Fluvanna County, decided that strategic location at the merger of two 
rivers would be a perfect place to build big water treatment intake and 
treatment facility. It

[[Page S1232]]

is a growing community. There are more water needs in the community. 
The facility was needed, but the site they chose for the construction 
of the facility was Rassawek.
  The authority proceeded forward to purchase the land and then 
undertake engineering studies to build this water treatment facility. 
At the time, 2014, the Monacans had not yet been federally recognized. 
They could complain, and they could argue, but they didn't have the 
clout that Federal recognition would eventually give them. Yet many 
people rallied to the Monacans' cause and said, ``Look, we preserve 
other sites all the time.''
  Virginia is first in the Nation in preserving, for example, Civil War 
battlefield sites, and we preserved the ancestral home of the Powhatan 
of Werowocomoco on the York River, which is soon to be a national park. 
Should we allow Rassawek to be essentially destroyed and the remains of 
Monacans buried there for generations to be disturbed?
  Armed with Federal recognition, the Monacans attracted even more 
support. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, in 2020, named 
Rassawek as one of the most 11 endangered sites in the country. A huge 
grassroots effort developed because of the hard work of the Tribe that 
assembled thousands and thousands of supporting individuals--some very 
nearby Rassawek, but some very far away--to advocate that there has to 
be a better solution for this water treatment need in Fluvanna County 
than to disturb and destroy Rassawek.
  Yesterday, the James River Water Authority, in a unanimous vote, 
decided to set aside their plan to do the water intake facility in 
Rassawek and to donate the land that they have purchased for that 
facility to the Monacan Tribe. The Monacan Nation, in gratitude, 
pledges to work together with the James River Water Authority to find a 
more acceptable site. A number of alternatives have already been 
identified.
  This summer, I was canoeing on the James River. I canoed the entire 
James River from where it starts, the Allegheny Mountains, to Fort 
Monroe in Chesapeake Bay--350 miles. It took me 26 days that I spread 
over the spring, summer, and fall. One day in August, I was canoeing 
from a town called New Kent to Columbia, passing Rassawek, which was on 
river left as I went downstream.
  So I reached out to Chief Branham, knowing that the fight about the 
future of Rassawek was underway. I said: Could you and Tribal leaders 
meet me? I will pull my canoe onshore when I pass by. Meet me and talk 
to me about the status of this fight and why it is so important to the 
Monacan Nation to win.
  So coming down the river with a friend, my former State director who 
used to work on this Tribal recognition issue, John Knapp--I want to 
thank him, as well as other staffers, Evan and Nick and Tyee and Mary 
and other staffers in my office, who worked on this. John and I pulled 
our canoe over on the shore in this beautiful spot in rural Virginia 
where the two rivers come together. We beached the canoe on a sand 
point, climbed a bluff, and met Chief Branham and other members of 
Monacan leadership to see the beauty of the site and to share a meal 
but also to talk to them about the importance of Rassawek and why they 
really, really needed to win this battle. They don't have a plan to 
develop Rassawek. They are not going to build anything there. They just 
want it to be preserved in its natural beauty out of respect for 
Monacan people who have lived there for nearly 5,000 years. Yesterday, 
this unanimous vote by the local water authority--a vote of respect, a 
vote of acknowledgment--recognized that this is a sacred site.
  We in Virginia, we love our history. We love our history, and we 
don't want to lose it. The history of the Monacan Nation, the history 
of all of our Tribes is worthy of battling. You don't win every battle. 
The Monacan Nation won a really important one yesterday, and it might 
not have happened. Ninety-nine of my colleagues joined with me to make 
sure that the Monacan Nation and the other Virginia Tribes were 
finally, after hundreds of years, given Federal recognition.
  I just wanted to express my congratulations to the Monacan Nation and 
my appreciation to my colleagues for helping me do something good.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                        Nomination of Gigi Sohn

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, the Senate Commerce Committee recently 
voted on the nomination of Gigi Sohn to be a member of the Federal 
Communications Commission. I voted against her nomination for a number 
of serious reasons, as did the 13 other Republican committee members.
  I was deeply disappointed that not one of my Democratic colleagues on 
the committee stepped forward to affirm what should be glaringly 
obvious: that Ms. Sohn is not an appropriate candidate for a position 
on the Federal Communications Commission.
  One substantial concern I have with Ms. Sohn's nomination is her 
extreme position on net neutrality.
  Back in 2014, the Obama administration decided that the Federal 
Government wasn't regulating the internet enough. So in 2015, the Obama 
Federal Communications Commission passed what was known as the Open 
Internet Order--mislabeled, I would add, but which dramatically 
expanded the Federal Government's power over the internet. The 
justification for this massive regulatory expansion was net neutrality.
  Now, net neutrality is a concept that enjoys broad support in both 
parties. I support net neutrality and rules that prevent blocking, 
throttling, and the paid prioritization of internet traffic. I don't 
think a major service provider should be able to block a small news 
startup. But what the Obama FCC did in 2015 went far beyond net 
neutrality. The Obama FCC asserted broad, new government powers over 
the internet using rules that were designed for telephone monopolies 
back during the Great Depression. This opened the door to a whole host 
of internet regulations, including price regulations, and 
unsurprisingly, broadband investment declined as a result.

  That was a problem for Americans generally, who benefit when the 
United States is at the forefront of internet growth and expansion, and 
it was particularly bad news for Americans in rural States like South 
Dakota. Getting broadband to rural communities is already more 
challenging than installing broadband in cities or suburbs, and the 
possibility of heavier regulations acted as a further disincentive to 
expanding access.
  Fast-forward to 2017, and the Federal Communications Commission under 
Chairman Pai voted to repeal those heavyhanded regulations passed by 
the Obama FCC, and here is what happened: Broadband investment 
rebounded, and broadband access expanded. Internet speeds increased. 
Our Nation positioned itself at the forefront of the 5G revolution. 
While European internet providers were slowing internet speeds during 
the pandemic, American providers were increasing them. All this despite 
the repeal of the heavyhanded internet regulation Democrats claimed we 
needed--or more accurately, because of the repeal of the heavyhanded 
regulation Democrats claimed we needed.
  Why do I go into all this history? Well, because Ms. Sohn not only 
wants to bring back the heavyhanded internet regulation of the Obama 
administration, but she wants to go further and have the FCC regulate 
broadband rates and set data caps.
  Just as service providers are working to implement nationwide 5G 
networks, Ms. Sohn wants to reinstate rules that will discourage 
broadband investment and diminish access opportunities for Americans 
outside of major cities and suburban areas. That is a big problem. The 
light-touch approach to internet regulation that the Federal Government 
has historically taken has resulted in growth and access, both of which 
would be threatened by Ms. Sohn's agenda.
  Now, while I was very pleased that the FCC under Chairman Pai 
repealed

[[Page S1233]]

President Obama's heavyhanded internet regulation, I believe the best 
solution for the long term is for Congress to step in and pass 
bipartisan net neutrality legislation. Swings in net neutrality policy 
from administration to administration do not encourage long-term 
broadband investment.
  I believe there is bipartisan support for a long-term legislative 
solution but not, it would seem, from Ms. Sohn, who has openly 
disparaged bipartisan work on this issue. Now, I think Ms. Sohn would 
be fine if Congress produces a bill to her liking, but I have serious 
concerns that if she thought a bipartisan solution didn't go far 
enough, she would ignore the will of Congress and use her position at 
the FCC to impose the heavyhanded regulatory regime she favors.
  As a resident of a rural State, I am also concerned about Ms. Sohn's 
position on expanding broadband access to rural communities--an issue 
every Member of this body cares deeply about. She has been publicly 
hostile to the efforts of rural broadband companies in expanding 
reliable internet access to rural areas, while at the same time 
supporting the use of scarce government dollars to build new internet 
networks in already well-served urban areas.
  As someone who has worked long and hard to expand internet access for 
unserved Americans, I find her hostility to rural broadband companies 
very troubling. The vast majority of these companies have spent years 
building out reliable networks to some of the most remote parts of the 
country, allowing more rural areas, like those in South Dakota, to reap 
the benefits of advanced services in healthcare, education, and 
economic development.
  It is not only Republicans who have taken note of her hostility to 
the needs of rural Americans. Our former Democratic colleague from 
North Dakota has also questioned how one could support rural broadband 
and Ms. Sohn.
  Ms. Sohn's policy positions alone would lead me to oppose her 
nomination, but there are other even more troubling factors that should 
be leading Members of both parties to oppose her nomination.
  To start with, Ms. Sohn was not forthcoming to the Commerce Committee 
about her past history on the board of a company that was ordered to 
cease operations after being found in violation of copyright laws. This 
raises serious concerns about her fitness to sit on the FCC.
  After questions were raised about her involvement with this company's 
settlement with broadcasters, she did volunteer to recuse herself, if 
she is confirmed, on a variety of issues related to broadcasting and 
copyright violations. But why on Earth--why on Earth should we choose a 
Commissioner who would have to recuse herself from participating in 
substantial parts of the FCC's work? How does it serve Americans to 
have an FCC Commissioner who can't fully do her job? Surely, there are 
other qualified nominees who don't have Ms. Sohn's conflict of 
interest.
  But my objections don't end there. While I am concerned about Ms. 
Sohn having to recuse herself from doing parts of her job, I am most 
concerned about whether or not Ms. Sohn can do any part of her job in a 
fair and impartial manner.
  Ms. Sohn has a history of virulent partisanship and far-left 
activism, including support for such far-left initiatives as defunding 
the police. She has publicly expressed her disdain for Republicans, and 
she has a record of outspoken criticism of the very same conservative 
media outlets that she would be responsible for regulating. Perhaps the 
most notable example is her hostility towards FOX News, which she has 
referred to as ``state-sponsored propaganda'' and accused of playing a 
role in ``destroying democracy.''
  ``Destroying democracy.''
  And yet we are supposed to believe that she would approach cases 
involving the FOX corporation impartially? I think it is pretty clear 
that would not be the case.
  I don't expect a Democrat nominee to the FCC to agree with 
Republicans on all the issues--far from it. But I do expect a Democrat 
nominee to do his or her job and do it in an impartial and unbiased 
manner.
  In the case of Ms. Sohn, President Biden has nominated someone who 
cannot fulfill part of the responsibilities of FCC Commissioner and 
whose record strongly suggests that she cannot be relied upon to 
fulfill any of her responsibilities in an impartial manner.
  Americans deserve an FCC nominee who can do her job impartially, no 
matter what the matter before the Commission. And I hope that if Ms. 
Sohn's nomination comes to the floor, at least some of my Democrat 
colleagues will join Republicans in opposing her nomination.
  We should all be able to agree that virulent partisanship and an 
inability to fulfill the responsibilities of one's job are 
disqualifying characteristics for a role on the FCC.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Duckworth). The Senator from Alabama.


          Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2021

  Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam President, today I want to talk about the real 
March madness that we are having this month, moments about basketball 
and the tournament, but I want to talk about the madness of attacking 
title IX, attacking women's sports, and attacking women in general.
  Last night marked the beginning of the 2022 NCAA Women's Swimming and 
Diving Championship. Instead of celebrating the many hard-working women 
who earned their spot in the championship, I expect much of the media 
attention to be around a singular competitor--a transgender athlete who 
competed as a male as recently as 2019.
  But the discussion should not be about inclusivity; it should be 
about fairness. I have spoken about this issue before and, last March, 
actually forced a vote on the amendment that would have prevented 
Federal funds from going to educational institutions that allowed 
biological males to compete in women's athletics.
  Unfortunately, colleagues on the left were more interested in 
pandering to the far left than they were in protecting the ability for 
girls and women to participate in fair--and I repeat, fair--
competition. They refused to support my amendment.
  And I would argue that by allowing biological males to complete in 
women's athletics, Democrats have set serious efforts for women's 
equality back by decades. And, ultimately, this will have the effect of 
discouraging many, many, many young women from participating in sports.
  In a recent article, two parents of a current collegiate athlete 
said:

       I think the NCAA needs to change its policies, and find a 
     way to include transgender women without trampling all over 
     biological women.

  I agree.
  Well, the NCAA has been silent. They have failed to take decisive 
action in ensuring a level playing field for all of women.
  And so now Congress must act to do so. This is why I joined Senator 
Mike Lee and 16 fellow colleagues in introducing the Protection of 
Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2021. This is critical legislation 
that would make it a violation--a violation--of title IX for a 
recipient of related Federal funds to permit a biological male from 
participating in an athletic program or activity designated for women 
and girls.
  The bill would also establish the definition of ``sex'' in title IX 
as based ``solely on a person's reproductive biology and genetics at 
birth.''
  It is imperative for Congress to act so that an entire generation of 
women aren't discouraged from pursuing their athletic dreams, whether 
on the field, whether on the court, or whether in the swimming pool.
  As some of the most talented female swimmers in the country prepare 
to compete over the next few days, it would be wrong not to call out 
the inherent unfairness in allowing a biological male to participate in 
several women's events.

  Penn's transgender athlete will compete in the women's 100-, 200-, 
and 500-yard freestyle events. Just a few short years ago, this athlete 
was competing in men's collegiate swimming events.
  Since being allowed to switch, this swimmer has shattered--and I mean 
completely shattered--records in women's events.
  In December, at the Zippy Invitational, this athlete set new national 
and school records in the 1,650-, the

[[Page S1234]]

500-, and the 200-yard freestyle events and continues to dominate the 
competition.
  At the invitational, this swimmer won the 1,650-yard freestyle with a 
new record time of 15:59.71. The second-place swimmer finished 38 
seconds later.
  At the Ivy League Championships last month, this swimmer broke the 
200-yard freestyle record of 1 minute and 43 seconds, beating out the 
last record by over a half a second, and the pool record was beat by 2 
seconds.
  Having been a coach for 40 years, I can attest more so than anyone in 
Congress that there are fundamental differences between men and women 
when it comes to sports. But you don't have to take my word for it. A 
recent study concludes that ``on average, males have (1) 40-50 percent 
greater upper limb strength, (2) 20-40 percent greater lower limb 
strength, and (3) an average of 12 pounds more skeletal muscle mass 
than age-matched females at any given body weight.''
  Lungs are bigger; heart is bigger. Competing in swimming, in the 
women's swimming division, has given this Penn athlete an unfair 
advantage that no one else in the field can overcome.
  Some have been too afraid to speak up, fearing they will be 
sacrificed at the altar of political correctness, or that they will be 
canceled if they say it is unfair for a biological male to compete 
against a biological female, or that they will be shunned if they don't 
embrace inclusivity over fairness.
  But some have already bravely voiced their opinion.
  The advocacy organizations Champion Women and Women's Sports Policy 
Working Group released dual petitions on Tuesday with over 5,000 
signatures, asking for policymakers to prioritize ``fairness and safety 
for females'' instead of ``blanket transgender inclusion or exclusion'' 
in women's sports.
  The petitions were organized by three-time Olympic gold medalist, and 
the founder of Champion Women, Nancy Hogshead. According to Champion 
Women, the petitions were signed by nearly 300 Olympians, Paralympians, 
and U.S. national team members, as well as over 2,500 athletes who have 
competed at the high school, club, or collegiate levels.
  This is why Congress must act to pass the Protection of Women and 
Girls in Sports Act of 2021.
  Allowing biological males to compete in women's athletics threatens--
threatens--to undo all progress that has been made under title IX.
  Title IX has provided women and girls the long-denied platform that 
had always been afforded just to men and boys. It ensures female 
athletes had the same access to funding, facilities, and athletic 
scholarships. Before title IX, female athletes received less than 2 
percent of the college athletic budget--only 2 percent--and athletic 
scholarships for women were virtually nonexistent.
  And since the 1970s, when I first started coaching, female 
participation at the college level has risen by more than 600 percent.
  So this week, the NCAA championship will once again emphasize that 
the debate is not limited just to the Halls of Congress, but one that 
we are seeing play out across the country.
  It is an undeniable fact that biological males have a physiological 
advantage over females--a fact. So let me be clear: The question here 
is not should we be inclusive and supportive of all athletes; it is 
how.
  The first step the Senate can take to address the wrong that the NCAA 
has allowed to happen is to pass S. 251.
  There is an attack on women's sports. In the long run, there is an 
attack on women in this country. It has to stop, and it has to stop 
now.
  So I ask my colleagues to stand up for America's female athletes and 
women all throughout this country and support these efforts to preserve 
women's sports.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 643, Laura S. H. 
Holgate, to be Representative of the United States of America to the 
International Atomic Energy Agency, with the rank of Ambassador; that 
the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that 
no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any related 
statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately 
notified of the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, reserving the right to object, 
the Biden administration has failed to properly oversee the Pan 
American Health Organization, or PAHO.
  President Biden and Secretary Blinken know that PAHO has cooperated 
with the communist regime in Cuba to traffic doctors overseas, and they 
know there are Cuban doctors who are trying to sue PAHO and hold 
traffickers accountable.
  Here are the facts. In July 2013, the Cuban Ministry of Health signed 
an agreement with the Brazilian Ministry of Health to formalize an 
arrangement for Cuban doctors to provide medical services in Brazil.
  That agreement required the administration of former Brazilian 
President Dilma Rousseff to transmit a monthly payment through PAHO to 
the Cuban Ministry of Health for the medical services provided by each 
Cuban doctor serving in Brazil.
  It also prevented Cuban doctors from seeking employment in Brazil 
outside of the formal structure of the arrangement.
  More than 20,000 Cuban medical professionals serving in Brazil under 
the Mais Medicos Program had their wages stolen by the Cuban Government 
and received only a small fraction of what they earned, and that was 
with the support of PAHO.
  Their family members were prohibited from accompanying them, and many 
had their passports confiscated.
  Cuban doctors were the only medical professionals participating in 
the program who had their salaries directly garnished by their 
government. Meanwhile, doctors from other countries, serving in Brazil, 
received their full wages for their medical services.
  Other Cuban doctors have suffered similar abuses in Angola, 
Guatemala, Mexico, Qatar, and Venezuela.
  For example, in 2019, a group of Cuban doctors reported they had been 
directed and often coerced to use their medical services to influence 
votes in favor of the Maduro regime, including by denying medical 
treatment to opposition supporters and by giving precise voting 
instructions to elderly patients.
  This gross program is a huge moneymaker for the communist thugs 
ruling Cuba.
  In 2018 alone, they pocketed more than $6.3 billion from exporting 
Cuban professionals to work overseas. This is clearly human 
trafficking, and medical missions by Cuban doctors represent a majority 
of those profits.
  Since I have been in the Senate, since 2019, I have been fighting for 
these Cuban doctors and against human trafficking. But actually nothing 
has been done to hold PAHO accountable. PAHO is hiding behind legal 
immunity. President Biden has the power to lift their immunity, and I 
have requested his administration do so multiple times, but they have 
shamefully declined. It is wrong.
  Victims of human trafficking deserve to see their alleged abusers in 
court, and PAHO should never be able to hide behind claims of immunity 
to avoid accountability for their role in facilitating those abuses.
  I have informed Secretary Blinken that until substantial steps toward 
fulfilling this request are made, I will be blocking all relevant State 
Department nominees.
  Americans deserve qualified and competent people in positions of 
power who put American interests first. If this administration wants to 
appease dictators like the Castro and Diaz-Canel regimes and go to 
Venezuela and try to buy oil, I am going to hold them accountable.
  Therefore, Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I appreciate the concerns that my friend 
from Florida has raised. However, I am just struggling to see how the 
safety

[[Page S1235]]

and security of Ukraine's 15 nuclear reactors, in the midst of the 
largest reoccurrence of warfare on the European Continent since World 
War II, has any relationship to the issue which he raised.
  Russia is blocking International Atomic Energy Agency access into 
Ukraine. The proper response by the Senate--by the Senator from 
Florida--is not to block our Ambassador to the International Atomic 
Energy Agency at a time when Putin, at a time when Lavrov, are talking 
about nuclear weapons.
  We need a representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency. 
That is what the Senator from Florida is blocking right now on the 
floor--just did it.
  All across our country Americans are right now wondering, is a 
nuclear war once again possible? What if the Russians launch a tactical 
nuclear weapon into Ukraine against a nonarticle 5 country; what is our 
response?
  They are wondering, does the IAEA have access to the 15 Ukrainian 
nuclear powerplants that the Russians, with military force, are taking 
over?
  What are the protections that are going to be put in place in order 
to ensure that we, in fact, have done everything that we can do to 
avoid a nuclear accident, either a nuclear weapon or a nuclear 
powerplant accident?
  That is where we are right now, and what I hear from the Senator from 
Florida is a disposition on a subject completely unrelated to those 
issues, as Americans are all tuned in on a daily basis in a way that 
they have not since 1962 to the very real potential that there could be 
a nuclear exchange--nuclear weapons exchange--between Russia and the 
West.
  So, from my perspective, this is a historic moment that we have to 
come together in a bipartisan way to provide a response--a response to 
Russia, a response to their allies--that we are deadly serious. 
Instead, what the Senator from Florida has done is to arrive to object 
to the confirmation of Laura Holgate so that she can be there.
  She is fully qualified. She is an all-star in her knowledge of all of 
these issues, but she won't be on duty. She won't be there with our 
allies, with the technical experts on all nuclear issues, because of 
this objection which we just heard.
  From my perspective, we are at a pretty big turning point here. We 
need to be talking to everyone. We are either going to know each other 
or we are going to exterminate each other. That is the point in time at 
which we are at. We are either going to talk to each other or we could 
potentially slip into an accidental nuclear catastrophe that historians 
and future generations of young people will look back and say: How did 
that happen?
  Well, one of the reasons why it can happen is we can't even get an 
American to be confirmed by the Senate at this time of great crisis 
because of an objection from the Republican Party. I mean, partisanship 
should stop at the water's edge, but when you are talking about nuclear 
weapons, there shouldn't even be a discussion about it. We should just 
let this highly qualified woman get on the job to use her expertise in 
defense of our country and in defense of everyone on the planet because 
this could quickly--quickly--trigger accidents that escalate, and then 
the unimaginable could happen.
  So that is where we are right now. We need an ambassador to draw 
attention to the danger of Russian forces, especially holding Ukraine's 
nuclear operations at gunpoint. We need an ambassador to demand that 
Russia accept the IAEA's offer to establish a presence in Ukraine to 
ensure the continued safe operation of Ukraine's nuclear facilities.
  Russia knows from the aftermath of the Chernobyl nuclear accident, 
the worst in history, that deadly radioactive fallout does not respect 
borders.
  And we need an ambassador at the IAEA to perform a wide array of 
duties outside of the Ukraine crisis, from keeping nonnuclear weapon 
countries nonnuclear and making sure that this doesn't trigger attempts 
by other countries to gain access to nuclear materials and then nuclear 
weapons. And we have to make sure, ultimately, that we confirm Laura 
Holgate.

  First, she served the same role in the Obama administration. She hits 
the ground running. She knows these issues. Second, she is a protege of 
Senator Sam Nunn and Senator Richard Lugar, and like that legendary 
bipartisan duo, she has devoted her career to dismantling weapons of 
mass destruction and materials that could be used by terrorists as 
dirty bombs.
  So how is it that we still don't have an ambassador seated at the 
International Atomic Energy Agency's meetings on Ukraine, given this 
body unanimously confirmed Ambassador Holgate in December to be our 
representative to the other U.N. organizations based in Vienna?
  That is a good question and it has no good answer and we did not hear 
that answer on floor of the U.S. Senate just 5 minutes ago, when the 
Senator from Florida objected. We didn't hear a word about their 
objections.
  I will tell you what, they are creating very risky conditions for all 
Americans when they deny our country a seat at the table at the 
International Atomic Energy Agency at this time in history.
  I was the same age as the pages on the floor today when the Cuban 
missile crisis cast a shadow over our Nation. I remember what that was 
like.
  We are slipping day by day into a situation where we could be 
confronted with similar conditions, and the least that we should be 
able to say is we tried, we really tried, to avoid that nuclear 
catastrophe. And the minimum that we should do is have an ambassador 
who is at the table who is talking to all of our allies and the rest of 
the world about these issues right now.
  Ukraine and the whole of Europe averted disaster when a Russian 
munition fell just short of Ukraine's nuclear reactors just a couple of 
weeks ago. We may not be so lucky the next time if Russian forces move 
on the country's other facilities with the same reckless abandon.
  What possible benefit is derived from keeping our ambassadorial post 
at the IAEA unfilled at a time like this? We make nuclear safety and 
nuclear security a partisan issue at our own peril and at the peril of 
every family in our country as well as Europe.
  It is just absolutely irresponsible, for unrelated reasons, to deny 
our country that kind of protection right now.
  So we are going to keep coming back with this, and the reason we are 
is that we can see a continued escalation. We can see, in Putin's own 
words, reckless intent. And it is not for us to judge whether he is 
sincere or not in terms of his consideration of the use of nuclear 
weapons or his lack of full consideration of what the consequences are 
of having armed attacks on nuclear powerplant facilities all over 
Ukraine.
  We can't get inside of his brain, but the least we can do is have 
someone go to the table from America, someone who has dedicated her 
life--Ambassador Holgate--to this work.
  That is what happened here on the floor right now. It was a partisan 
politicization of nuclear proliferation, of nuclear safety, at a time 
where we are seeing a peril that we have not seen in 50 years in the 
United States or the planet.
  All I can tell you is history will not come back and well receive the 
partisan objection for the completely unrelated reasons for not 
allowing us to have that kind of representation at the nuclear table at 
this particular point in time.
  I intend to return on this subject, as many times as it takes, so 
that we can have someone who is there protecting every family in our 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warnock). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my 
remarks before the next vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                Ukraine

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, since Vladimir Putin's invasion of 
Ukraine, we have all been inspired by the courage and leadership of 
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
  As Russian troops invaded and brutally attacked his country, 
President

[[Page S1236]]

Zelenskyy did not do as others have done in the past. He didn't run; he 
didn't hide; and he didn't give in. President Zelenskyy did what every 
leader hopes to have the courage to do in times of crisis: He stood his 
ground, spoke out, and rallied the rest of the world to get behind him.
  Yesterday, as we all know, Members of Congress had a chance to hear 
directly from President Zelenskyy.
  First, he expressed his gratitude to the United States for the 
support we have provided so far to his country, but he also issued an 
urgent plea for more defense articles. He showed us a videotape of 
devastating photos and videos coming out of Ukraine, demonstrating what 
the Ukrainian people are being subjected to every day by Putin's cruel 
and unprovoked war against innocent civilians.
  Ukrainian troops need more arms. They need anti-tank capabilities, 
and they need additional aircraft. As President Zelenskyy put it, the 
destiny of Ukraine is being decided now, as we speak.
  I believe we have a moral obligation--not necessarily a treaty 
obligation since Ukraine isn't part of NATO, but we have a moral 
obligation as the leader of the free world--and I am talking about the 
United States as a whole--to support Ukraine and help them defend their 
sovereignty and their people.
  For example, Poland, a member of NATO, offered to transfer an entire 
fleet of MiG-29 fighters to the United States for delivery to Ukraine. 
Ukrainian forces already know how to fly those Russian aircraft, and 
President Zelenskyy assured us that they are desperately needed, but 
the Biden administration rejected the offer out of fear that it might 
provoke Mr. Putin or, in terms of war, might escalate the conflict.
  Winston Churchill, another great wartime leader, aptly said:

       An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will 
     eat him last.

  This cannot be the policy of the United States. We cannot appease 
Vladimir Putin, and we can't afford to be timid in the face of the 
greatest threat to world peace since World War II.
  Here on the Senate floor, several weeks ago, I shared a maxim of 
another Russian leader, Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the Soviet Union, 
of course, at the time. This is something I would suspect that Mr. 
Putin agrees with.
  Lenin said:

       You probe with bayonets. If you find mush, you push. If you 
     find steel, you withdraw.

  In short, if people like Vladimir Lenin and Vladimir Putin are met 
with weakness, they are going to keep coming; if they are met with 
strength, they may withdraw.
  President Putin clearly subscribes to this world view. He doesn't 
respect weakness. In fact, weakness is a provocation; it encourages 
him. A weak opponent is Putin's greatest desire. President Biden, 
unfortunately, in not acting more forcefully and taking the initiative 
as only leaders can do, is playing into his hand.
  The Biden administration has time and time again eventually come 
around to doing the right thing when it comes to arming the Ukrainians. 
Unfortunately, it has only been after there has been a public outcry or 
more pressure from Congress or President Zelenskyy.
  Last year, President Biden waived sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 
Pipeline. This, of course, is a natural gas pipeline that goes from 
Russia to Germany. One of the things, even now, the Germans have 
recognized is their vulnerability to the monopoly that Russia has when 
it comes to providing oil and gas to Europe.
  As Russia built up troops on Ukraine's border, President Biden 
suggested that some attacks on Ukrainian sovereignty would be ``minor 
intrusions'' and perhaps disregarded by the United States, he implied.
  President Biden ignored the advice of virtually all of his advisers 
and missed the window to impose paralyzing sanctions on Russia before 
the invasion, and now the administration continues to refuse to 
facilitate the transfer of these Polish fighter jets.
  In standard fashion, the administration seems to be a little confused 
by this crisis--afraid to say yes and too afraid to say no.
  I am reminded of President Obama's statement of ``leading from 
behind,'' which appears to be an approach embraced now by President 
Biden.
  Strong words are important, but they don't defend against rockets or 
cruise missiles. Sanctions are important, but they won't take out a 
Russian tank. Humanitarian aid is important, but only if it is 
delivered on a timely basis and when it is needed. And waiting and 
seeing what will develop next and then responding after the fact rather 
than anticipating the need is not particularly effective.
  As I said, I believe we have a moral obligation to stand with Ukraine 
and help its people defend their way of life. We should not be in a 
position of telling President Zelenskyy: Yes, you have asked us for 
these defensive arms. You have asked us for these airplanes. We are 
going to give you just what we think you need.
  I don't think that should be our position. We ought to ask President 
Zelenskyy what he needs and provide it forthwith.
  We want to help Ukraine defeat Russian forces and repel them from 
their territory entirely, not just extend the length of this terrible 
war. The most effective way to do that is to supply Ukraine with the 
assets they need as quickly as possible.
  To start with, the Biden administration should reevaluate its 
decision to reject Poland's aircraft offer. These airplanes are needed 
for Ukraine to maintain air superiority over Russian forces, and they 
need them now and not at some distant date in the future. And we need 
to continue to find ways to put American weaponry into the hands of 
Ukrainian soldiers.
  Back in World War II, the United States was known as the arsenal of 
democracy. Again, in a bill that I have introduced called the Ukraine 
Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act, we can do that again. I am proud to 
have worked with a group of bipartisan Senators, including Senators 
Cardin, Wicker, and Shaheen, to produce this legislation.
  This legislation authorizes the President to enter into lend-lease 
agreements like we did in World War II, which probably saved Britain 
from domination by Nazi Germany. We can do this again by providing 
Ukrainian forces with the weapons they need to defend their country.
  This legislation was included in various packages designed to support 
Ukraine, but, unfortunately, those packages never made their way to the 
Senate floor.
  There is broad bipartisan support for this lend-lease provision, and 
it will give the United States the ability to send the exact type of 
military support Ukraine needs without a lot of redtape or unnecessary 
delays.
  Our support for Ukraine is not a provocation for Putin. It is a 
necessary show of strength, and it is a deterrence.
  As we search for additional ways to support Ukraine, it was great to 
hear from President Zelenskyy. As I said earlier, his bravery and 
leadership have galvanized the world and have inspired all of us to 
take action. And I hope his plea for additional aid will persuade 
President Biden to act with even greater dispatch.
  This weekend, I will be traveling with a number of our colleagues to 
Poland to visit our friends and allies on the ground and to see for 
ourselves the sort of humanitarian crisis that Putin's invasion of 
Ukraine has created.
  Poland, to its credit, has welcomed thousands of refugees--hundreds 
of thousands--and continues to deal with the Russian aggression along 
its borders.
  I look forward to this opportunity to visit both Poland and Germany 
and learning more from our partners in Europe and eager to bring back 
their input to the Senate for further urgent action.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________