[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 50 (Monday, March 21, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1261-S1268]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

   AMERICA CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR MANUFACTURING, PRE-EMINENCE IN 
   TECHNOLOGY, AND ECONOMIC STRENGTH ACT OF 2022--Motion to Proceed--
                                Resumed

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 4521, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 282, H.R. 4521, a bill to 
     provide for a coordinated Federal research initiative to 
     ensure continued United States leadership in engineering 
     biology.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.


                    Honoring Corporal Jacob M. Moore

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, over the weekend, we learned that 
four U.S. marines were tragically killed Friday night. Their training 
aircraft crashed during joint NATO exercises in Norway. One of those 
marines, Corporal Moore, was born and raised in Catlettsburg, KY. I 
want to take a moment to mourn this great loss and salute Corporal 
Moore's service to our country.
  Corporal Moore joined the Marines in 2018. At only 24 years old, he 
had spent 4 years honorably serving our country all around the world. 
He was serving as an MV-22B Osprey crew chief based out of New River, 
NC.
  Corporal Moore was in Norway along with 30,000 other soldiers from 27 
countries for NATO's Cold Response exercises. Every 2 years, NATO 
servicemembers travel to the edge of the Arctic Circle to train in 
northern Scandinavia's frozen wilderness. This long-scheduled exercise 
is not directly related to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but the events 
of recent weeks have only reminded us of the incredible importance of 
the NATO alliance to America's security and to world peace.

  Corporal Moore's service was hugely and directly important to our 
Nation, to our allies, and to the world. So we will never forget 
Corporal Moore's service and sacrifice in defense of America's safety 
and freedom. We are thinking of and praying for his family at this 
terribly, terribly difficult time.


                  Nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson

  Madam President, on an entirely different matter, this week, the 
Senate will turn to a crucial constitutional duty: deciding whether to 
provide or withhold consent to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme 
Court of the United States.
  President Biden's nominee for this incredibly consequential position 
is Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.
  Judge Jackson is currently a DC Circuit judge of less than a year. In 
9 months as an appellate judge, she has offered only two opinions, both 
after the Supreme Court vacancy opened up. So this time, unlike 
Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, there is no meaningful sample size of 
appellate

[[Page S1262]]

opinions for Senators to consult. We know a lot about the time Judge 
Jackson spent applying precedent as a trial judge on the district court 
but very little about her independent views of larger constitutional 
and legal questions.
  This makes the Judiciary Committee's work this week all the more 
important. The country needs a respectful, dignified but vigorous and 
exhaustive hearing. This is especially true in light of the curious 
disconnect between the thinness of Judge Jackson's appellate record and 
the white-hot intensity with which our country's farthest left 
activists wanted her and nobody else for this vacancy.
  Fringe groups that attack the Court's legitimacy and want Court 
packing spent a great deal of time and money promoting Judge Jackson 
for this nomination, and, once nominated, prominent, soft-on-crime 
activists and open-borders pressure groups quickly rallied to her side. 
The Senate needs to understand why.
  I enjoyed meeting with Judge Jackson recently. She is a likeable 
person. More to the point, she has obviously reached impressive heights 
in the legal profession. But I voted against confirming Judge Jackson 
to her current post last year, and our meeting the other week did not 
resolve my questions and concerns.
  So here is what I will be especially watching and listening for as 
our colleagues question the nominee this week.
  First, at the most basic level, I want to hear whether Judge Jackson 
agrees that the job of a judge is to follow the law as it is written. 
This is a simple, straightforward proposition. But the same liberals 
who have spent decades imploring Justices to approach their jobs as 
activist superlegislators are now eager to see this nominee confirmed.
  Judge Jackson suggested to me in our meeting that she does not really 
view herself as having any judicial philosophy whatsoever, but 
meanwhile, in the press, boosters of her nomination say she does have a 
philosophy and assures us that it is mainstream. So which is it? I hope 
the committee can clear up any confusion.
  It is also the case that President Biden has repeatedly declared that 
any judge he appoints will pass certain litmus tests. He said they 
would have ``an expansive view of the Constitution'' that includes the 
``penumbras'' and non-textually-based rights that activist judges 
favor. The President has even made explicit promises about specific 
cases. For example, ``They will, in fact, support Roe v. Wade.'' We 
need to know whether Judge Jackson passed President Biden's policy 
litmus test explicitly or just implicitly.

  We also need to understand more about Judge Jackson's so-called 
empathy for particular parties in cases over others. This is not an 
accusation that Republicans invented; it is a trait that Judge 
Jackson's supporters happily ascribe to her. One law professor has 
explained that Judge Jackson would ``bring a measure of empathy to the 
criminal defense cases, the Fourth and Fifth Amendment cases.''
  I guess a judge entering a case with special preexisting empathy 
would be a great deal for the party with whom she empathizes, but it 
would certainly be a raw deal for the opposite party. A judge's job is 
to bring neutrality, not an agenda.
  And yet, even as America grapples with a historic crime wave, the 
President has chosen a nominee whose own supporters say her work as a 
criminal defense lawyer and on the U.S. Sentencing Commission will tilt 
her judgment in favor of convicts. Even as illegal border crossings are 
setting alltime records, political groups that support amnesty and 
functionally open borders are cheering that, if confirmed, Judge 
Jackson will ``shape the realities of millions'' of people who have 
come into our country. These confident policy assertions are not 
selling points; they are actually red flags.
  The Supreme Court sits atop one of the three pillars of American 
Government. It is the ultimate backstop for the endurance of our 
Constitution and the rule of law. And we rightly entrust the Justices 
who lead it with life tenure. So any nominee to this highest Bench 
ought to welcome close scrutiny, tough questions, and a rigorous review 
of their record. The country deserves nothing less, and this is what 
Senate Republicans will provide this week.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. 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 Majority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is 
recognized.


                        Remembering   Don Young

  Mr. SCHUMER. First, Madam President, I want to offer condolences to 
the family of   Don Young, the dean of the House and longest serving 
Republican in history, who passed away last Friday at the age of 88.
  The State of Alaska has lost a titan, the House of Representatives 
has lost a legend, and my thoughts are with his family in this 
difficult time.


                  Nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson

  Madam President, now on SCOTUS, earlier today, the Senate Judiciary 
Committee commenced their hearings on Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's 
historic nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  The daughter of public educators, the pride of Miami Palmetto Senior 
High School, and a Federal judge for nearly a decade, Judge Jackson 
began her testimony by returning to what matters most: her family, her 
upbringing, her qualifications, and, most of all, her fidelity to the 
Constitution.
  Over the course of the week, I expect the American people will 
finally see for themselves why Judge Jackson is one of the most 
qualified individuals ever to be nominated to the Supreme Court of the 
United States. They will see, for instance, why the American Bar 
Association unanimously rated Judge Jackson as ``well qualified'' for 
the Supreme Court, their highest rating possible.
  They will see why the president of the Fraternal Order of Police said 
there is ``little doubt that [Judge Jackson] has the temperament, 
intellect, legal experience, and family background to earn this 
appointment.''
  They will see why even conservative judges, like retired DC Circuit 
Judge Thomas Griffith, who introduced Judge Jackson today, wrote that 
``Judge Jackson is immensely qualified to serve on the Supreme Court 
and should be confirmed by the Senate.''
  And I also trust that Americans will see right through the misleading 
and desperate broadsides that a few Members of the other side have 
launched against the judge in recent weeks. We need not pretend that 
wild accusations from self-interested actors deserve to be taken 
seriously, so color me skeptical that the American people will give 
them much weight.
  Finally, as these hearings begin, I want to thank Chairman Durbin for 
organizing a speedy and fair confirmation process. His work has been 
outstanding. Every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee has met 
with the judge, which will allow for thoughtful and thorough hearings, 
just as the chairman had promised.
  I, thus, remain confident that as these hearings begin, the Senate is 
on track to confirm Judge Jackson as the 116th Justice of the Supreme 
Court by the end of this work period.


                       Business Before the Senate

  Madam President, now on Senate business, as the Judiciary Committee 
begins a busy week of hearings, the Senate, likewise, begins a busy 
week here on the floor.
  Later this afternoon, the Senate will vote to invoke cloture on the 
motion to proceed to the House-passed America COMPETES Act, the next 
important step toward enacting major jobs and competitiveness 
legislation that both Republicans and Democrats widely support.
  Over the past year, the House and Senate have acted independently to 
pass their own versions of competitiveness legislation. To reconcile 
the differences between these bills, both Chambers must enter a 
conference before we send the final product to the President's desk.
  In order to go to conference, the Senate needs to amend the House-
passed COMPETES bill with the Senate-

[[Page S1263]]

passed U.S. Innovation and Competition Act and then send it back to the 
House. That is what we are working toward starting today.

  It is of the highest urgency we move forward on competitiveness 
legislation. It will lower costs--the words of the day are ``lowering 
costs stop inflation.'' This bill will do a lot in that regard. The 
competitiveness legislation will lower costs by bringing manufacturing 
jobs back to America, by fixing bottlenecks in our supply chains, and 
by fueling scientific research.
  Importantly, this bill would also help ensure that the United States 
has a long-term and resilient supply of chips--crucial for our 
military, our auto industry, our tech industry, and for American 
families who feel the sting through price hikes and maddening delays in 
available goods.
  As the war in Europe reminds us, our country is vulnerable when we 
import too many goods from a single country, particularly 
semiconductors so needed in so many sectors of the economy. We need to 
make more of these products here in America instead of overseas to 
shore up our supply chains, preserve our national security. For that 
reason alone, let's not tarry any longer. Let's pass this important 
bill--no more delay.
  I want to thank my Republican colleagues, especially Senators Cornyn 
and Young, for continuing to work in good faith in this process. Most 
of us want to see a conference happen soon, and I believe we can reach 
that goal in the coming weeks.
  Now, as important as Judge Jackson's hearings are, I urge everyone 
not to sleep on a handful of other hearings happening this week that 
are crucial for our country's agenda and, frankly, our Democratic 
agenda.
  In the Senate HELP Committee, Chairman Murray will hold a hearing 
tomorrow on something Democrats have pushed for months: cutting the 
cost of childcare and preschool for American families.
  The Senate Committee on Aging, meanwhile, will hold a hearing this 
Wednesday on increasing home care services to seniors, something I 
strongly support. And I thank Chairman Casey for organizing this 
hearing.
  And, finally, the Committee on Environment and Public Works will also 
meet Wednesday for a hearing on clean energy, combating climate change, 
and increasing America's energy independence in the 21st century.
  All these issues--fighting climate change, lowering the costs of 
childcare, taking care of our seniors--remain at the top of our 
caucus's priorities. These hearings will inform us immensely as our 
caucus continues working on legislation that will lower costs and 
expand opportunity for the American people.


                                 russia

  Madam President, finally on PNTR, last week, the House acted in near-
unanimous fashion to pass legislation revoking Permanent Normal Trade 
Relations with Russia.
  This legislation is very much needed for fighting Russia and holding 
Putin accountable for the carnage--the despicable, nasty, devilish 
carnage--he has waged, he has levied upon the Ukrainian people. This 
bill is one way to make sure he continues to pay a heavy price for 
starting this bloody and savage war.
  We need this legislation passed without delay. It got overwhelming 
support from Republicans in the House, including from Leader McCarthy. 
There is no reason to hold it up. Let's move it forward. Let's move it 
forward.
  No nation has so thoroughly soaked the blood of innocent civilians as 
Russia. No nation like that deserves to have any kind of normal trade 
relations with the United States.
  I call on my Republican colleagues to work with us to pass this 
legislation quickly. There is no reason--absolutely no reason--to delay 
its passage.
  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.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                                 USICA

  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about 
supply chain issues because we all know that supply chain issues are 
plaguing us on a variety of fronts, and Congress needs to act to help 
consumers, to help our industries, and to make sure that supply chains 
work very well.
  I want to start by thanking the Biden administration for their fast 
action, along with Agricultural Secretary Vilsack, for creating popup 
space at our ports to make sure that U.S. growers and shippers can get 
their products to market.
  We have seen exorbitant rates now charged in shipping; that is, rates 
that used to be $1,300 a container have now gone up to either $5,000 a 
container or $11,000 a container, just depending on where you are 
talking about products being shipped. So agricultural products are 
being left on the docks because ships are actually returning empty and 
not taking our products with them.
  Tomorrow, we will try to address this issue in the Senate Commerce 
Committee, but for now, as I said, last Friday, the administration 
announced a very innovative plan to make sure that there was dock space 
at U.S. ports to make sure that U.S. shipments--agriculture 
specifically--can be waiting and ready on the docks and get out the 
door. This is so important because there were industry officials there 
from the lentil association, from the dairy association--they said they 
had lost billions last year from the impact of not being able to get 
their products to market.
  We know for a fact that there were 24 percent fewer containers that 
left full last year, and some people say that number has risen to 30 
percent this year. So it means that instead of being filled with our 
U.S. exports to Asia, these containers are being left empty, and they 
are hurrying back to be filled up with more imports and then running 
back here to the United States.
  We can't allow this cost to impact our growers. Not only does it 
impact them in not getting the product to market, but what happens is, 
they actually lose shelf space. No one is going to wait forever for the 
U.S. product to come; they will just go to another country and give 
them the shelf space. So the Biden administration is taking quick 
action to create this space at our ports to make sure that U.S. 
products are well positioned to get back to these markets as quickly as 
possible.
  Congestion has been part of the problem. We have seen a huge increase 
in imports coming into the United States. That has caused uncertainty 
and congestion at these ports, and we need to do--that is why many of 
us supported the infrastructure bill, to also build more capacity at 
our ports.
  We know that we are going to continue to do everything we can in this 
area of shipping reform to make sure that U.S. farm agricultural 
products get to their destination in a timely fashion.
  I will have more to say about that tomorrow after we get legislation 
through our committee, but today, I really wanted to speak to our 
colleagues and ask them to support moving forward on going to 
conference on the United States Innovation and Competition Act.
  It has been 286 days since the U.S. Senate passed this legislation, 
and we have an opportunity to help establish on a continued basis 
American leadership in technology, to employ more people, to help our 
country compete in the economy of the future. But we can't do that if 
we don't get legislation passed, and we can't continue to wait for 
people who don't want to go to conference. Our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle have to help us get to conference.
  This is so important because by 2030, there could be more than 10 
million new jobs in clean energy, advanced 
manufacturing, communication, and in computing. All of those--guess 
what--depend on us making sure we do the right amount of R&D and making 
sure that we help bring U.S. manufacturing back to the United States.

  This is so critical as Americans are feeling the pinch from products 
that they can't get. We all know that we have to help small 
manufacturers who struggle with the supply chain themselves. That is 
why this bill invests in the National Institute for Technology to help 
companies strengthen their supply chain and fend off the threats of

[[Page S1264]]

cyber security attacks. We also know that there is money in here to 
help educate a STEM workforce so that we can train and skill the number 
of people in STEM jobs that we need. But let's talk specifically about 
one supply chain crisis that is crippling America's economy right now 
because we don't have enough semiconductors.
  Semiconductors are an integral part of our system in communication, 
in defense, in healthcare, in transportation. Yet there are zero 
semiconductor fabrication facilities in the United States that produce 
the most advanced chips. That is what we are after--the most advanced 
chips.
  The United States must keep its leadership in this area of advanced 
technology. In fact, over 90 percent of these chips are manufactured in 
the Pacific, in Taiwan. The rest are made in South Korea. So this is an 
economic and national security issue. Chip shortages drive up costs, 
and they also make us less safe.
  We know, thanks to a report from the Senate Armed Services Committee 
10 years ago, that more than 1 million counterfeit components have been 
made and made their way into our national security system. So we have 
been fighting hard to fix that problem.
  Just this month, Europol reported that counterfeiters are trying to 
exploit the semiconductor shortage by introducing fake chips into the 
market, raising the chances that critical infrastructure like our 
defense system or other kinds of communication systems could be 
compromised.
  We have also been working hard to ``rip and replace''--a term that 
has been used--to try to get foreign telecommunication electronics that 
could be compromised and used as a backdoor to try to make sure that we 
lower this threat.
  According to the telecommunications industry, this effort is 
compromised by what? Our chip shortage, which now we know that waiting 
times for some network equipment is now at 50 weeks--50 weeks for 
something that is so important to our national security.
  The cost of some networking equipment has risen by as much as 12 
percent. You hear about the cost of everything. We certainly hear about 
the cost of cars. So 12 percent, and people are selling chips for 100 
times their regular price. That is no way to help us build out secure 
broadband access.
  When it comes to clean energy, which requires chips, the prices of 
solar panels are up 18 percent because of the chip shortage. The cost 
of a used car has gone up 41 percent and 12 percent for new cars.
  So a lot is due to this semiconductor shortage. Yet our colleagues 
don't know if we want to hurry after 286 days, go to conference, and 
fix this problem. I am asking my colleagues to vote to help us proceed 
to conference. Let's not take another 3\1/2\, 4 weeks to figure it out. 
If you don't like the House bill--I know a lot of my colleagues don't--
let's get a better bill, but let's go to conference to get that done.
  We know right now depending on one country largely for chip 
fabrication is not the best idea, particularly when there are numerous 
issues. It has just been over 18 months since security researchers 
found a hacking campaign that compromised at least seven Taiwanese chip 
manufacturers to steal semiconductor chip designs.
  So do we want to continue to rely on these other countries or do we 
want to manufacture here in the United States of America something so 
critical to what is critical to the industries of the future and help 
us by making sure that we have a plan never to have these kinds of 
price spikes impact us because of shortages?

  So I ask my colleagues this. These R&D bills are going to help us 
with U.S. manufacturing. They are so important. In addition to the 
semiconductor manufacturing incentives that are in these bills, it 
specifically has resources for the Department of Defense to secure 
microelectronic supply chains and help our national security mission. 
That is what is at stake here. Why are we delaying? If you don't like 
these ideas, at least let's get on the bill and offer some ideas in 
conference that you would like to see. We are more than happy to have 
that discussion.
  Industry is taking action to try to resolve the shortages, but 
investing in semiconductor manufacturing technology will actually help 
us increase the productivity that is so essential and needed for our 
foundries.
  Our current shortages--some people might think: Well, in a few years, 
we will catch up, and it will be a thing of the past.
  I will tell you, if we don't act, more shortages are to follow. The 
world needed 1 trillion chips per year by 2018. In 2021, it was nearly 
1.2 trillion chips per year. That is how our economy has changed, and 
everything relies on these semiconductors. In 2031, if total sales 
match the revenue projection, we will need 2 trillion chips per year. 
That is why we need to act quickly on something that is impacting, 
practically every day, parts of our lives. Current projections show 
that demand for chips will grow in all sectors--especially the 
automotive sector, where semiconductor content in vehicles could 
double.
  Now, I don't know--I heard a lot of talk as I went home to hear about 
these issues. Some people are saying that maybe people are even taking 
semiconductors out of the current designs of automobiles just so they 
can get the product ready, so they can get it to ship. Now, why do we 
want that? We don't want that. We want America to have a full supply of 
semiconductors, produce the best intelligent product that the market 
wants, and compete internationally. But to do that, we have to get this 
bill moving, and we have to get support.
  That is why on Wednesday we are having members of the semiconductor 
industry testify before the Senate Commerce Committee--so we can hear 
about how the United States can have next-generation technology and 
lead in this critical area. We do not want to rely on someone else to 
make sure that we have a secure nation, secure communication, and the 
next generation that is going to move our industry--particularly 
manufacturers--to be competitive in a global economy.
  So the choice in front of us is whether we want the United States to 
have a leading role in chip fabrication and in R&D and whether we are 
going to meet that demand. If you are ready to take that, please help 
us get to conference.
  It can take 3 to 5 years from when a foundry is built to when 
production begins, and every day that we don't move to pass USICA is 
just another day that U.S. manufacturers are waiting.
  This bill means investment in our future, it means investment in 
securing the supply chain, and it means investments that will protect 
us from these kinds of price spikes in the future. It is an investment 
well worth meeting if Congress will act, and I encourage my colleagues 
to do so.
  I thank the President, and 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. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 282, H.R. 4521, a bill to provide for 
     a coordinated Federal research initiative to ensure continued 
     United States leadership in engineering biology.
         Charles E. Schumer, Patty Murray, Benjamin L. Cardin, 
           Tammy Duckworth, Mark R. Warner, Robert P. Casey, Jr., 
           Jack Reed, Tina Smith, Brian Schatz, Christopher 
           Murphy, Mazie K. Hirono, Mark Kelly, Tammy Baldwin, 
           Jacky Rosen, Ron Wyden, Margaret Wood Hassan, Maria 
           Cantwell.

  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 the 
motion to proceed to H.R. 4521, a bill 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.

[[Page S1265]]

  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. 
Shaheen) is necessarily absent.-
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the 
Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Toomey).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 66, nays 29, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 97 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Crapo
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Tillis
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--29

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Cruz
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     Paul
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Thune
     Tuberville

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Blunt
     Murkowski
     Shaheen
     Sullivan
     Toomey
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Padilla). On this vote, the yeas are 66, 
the nays are 29.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Illinois.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Nani 
A. Coloretti, of California, to be Deputy Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget; that the Senate vote on the nomination without 
intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or 
debate; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the 
Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's 
action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any objection?
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Proceed.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I do object to this nomination moving at 
this point to be able to do a unanimous consent on this. The reason for 
that is, at OMB, we have consistently gone back to them and asked for 
just basic information, and OMB continues to be the spot where things 
are held up, and they are not turning the information over to us.
  We have been exceptionally patient with OMB. Let me give you a couple 
of examples on this.
  We worked with DHS to try to get some additional information on some 
of the detention beds and to be able to ask about this. We submitted 
specific questions for the record to DHS in July of last year and then 
again in November of last year. We still do not have the answers to 
those.
  It is our understanding DHS has turned those over to OMB to be able 
to evaluate. OMB still is not turning those over to anyone else so they 
are locked up into the system.
  I have had numerous conversations with OMB and with the White House 
on trying to get the information on how they are handling religious 
exemptions and religious accommodations for the vaccine mandates. This 
is an entirely new process that they have created for all of the 
Agencies and an entirely different process that is running through the 
U.S. military right now.
  There are around 23,000 people who have made a request in the 
military for religious accommodation, about 23 of them have actually 
been given an answer. Most of them are just getting no answer. Across 
the Federal Agencies and all the Federal families, they are asking the 
questions about what do we do on a religious accommodation. They are 
just not getting an answer at all or they are getting answers that are 
different.
  We have asked OMB specifically for the information, just how are you 
handling it? How are decisions being made? What is the timing on it? We 
are not getting answers on that.
  We have gone to the task force. We have gone to OMB. We have gone to 
the White House. We have gone to Agencies. They all point back to OMB, 
saying they are the ones that are going to actually release that. We 
are not getting it, basic clarity of information.
  I can go on and on and on. I have got pages of questions that we put 
in that we are either not getting an answer at all or they have 
released to us something that is publicly available but not the actual 
information on it. We are not asking for unreasonable things. We are 
just asking for an answer.
  So, yes, I do object, but I would really like to be able to get this 
information from OMB.
  If this was a nominee on the other side, Democrats would certainly be 
asking for information and saying: Why did we make a request in July 
and it is now March and we can't get an answer because OMB won't 
release the answer that has been submitted by the Agency? So I do 
object.
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, it makes no sense to say that we are 
not getting answers so we are not going to confirm anybody to this 
position of Deputy Director of OMB. We only just confirmed the Director 
last week.
  It is like saying: I am going to the emergency room because I have an 
emergency, and there are no doctors working there to solve my problem 
so we are not going to let any more doctors in to work there. It makes 
no sense.
  I am deeply disappointed the Republicans are objecting to the swift 
confirmation of the Honorable Nani Coloretti to be Deputy Director of 
the Office of Management and Budget.
  She came through committee; she was reported out of committee; and if 
there were any questions of her, they should have been asked in 
committee.
  But, again, we are holding up the nomination of someone to lead an 
Agency that you are complaining isn't answering your questions. Well, 
there is no leadership there to make sure that those questions get 
answered. So this is a circular logic that does not make any sense.

  In fact, Ms. Coloretti is eminently qualified to hold this position 
of Deputy Director of OMB. Like many members of our Nation's diverse 
Asian-American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander community, Ms. 
Coloretti and her family lived the American dream of countless 
immigrants who came to the Nation in search of a better life. Her late 
parents instilled in her the value of education and hard work and, 
perhaps more importantly, fostered a sense of empathy and curiosity 
that helped lead Ms. Coloretti to choose a life of public service. And 
make no mistake, she is a true public servant who is devoted to serving 
her country.
  Her nomination should not be controversial. After all, a bipartisan 
supermajority coalition of Senators already confirmed her to serve as 
Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Of course, this 
overwhelming support was not surprising, given Ms. Coloretti's 
impressive experience in the public and private sectors, including 
serving as a program examiner at OMB.
  During her time in public service, Ms. Coloretti dedicated herself to 
making government work better for the people it serves. At the U.S. 
Department of Treasury, she pushed to enhance decision-making processes 
through better use of data and evidence.
  At the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, where she 
served as a Chief Operating Officer of a Department with a $45 billion 
budget and approximately 8,000 employees, Ms.

[[Page S1266]]

Coloretti focused on strengthening management practices to improve 
program delivery and ultimately achieve better results.
  Look, there is no question that Nani Coloretti is eminently qualified 
to be Deputy Director of the OMB, nor is there any question that the 
President deserves to have his full leadership slate in place to 
formulate and finalize his fiscal year 2023 budget proposal.
  As the President often notes, a budget truly reveals what one values, 
and that is why it was so important that the Senate confirmed the 
Honorable Shalanda Young to be OMB Director last week.
  Now, my question is, If you want to fix the problem and get answers, 
let's get somebody like Nani Coloretti in there who has got a 
background and a track record of getting Departments and Agencies 
working correctly, working again efficiently for the American people. 
That is why it is critical that we move swiftly to confirm Nani 
Coloretti now.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                Ukraine

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today to stand 
in solidarity with the people of Ukraine as they suffer through the 
brutal and cowardly Russian assault.
  I have spoken on the floor each of the last 6 weeks about the 
horrific events we have all watched unfold and what role the United 
States should play. Simply put, we need to do more, and we need to do 
it more quickly, as do our allies.
  As we talk this evening, the shelling and killing of innocent 
civilians continues in the dark of night in places like Kyiv and 
Kharkiv and Mariupol, a beautiful port city being reduced to rubble by 
a frustrated Vladimir Putin. He seems intent on destroying what he 
can't have because of the brave, outgunned Ukrainians, who refuse to 
surrender and refuse to live under his despotic rule.
  Those heroic Ukrainian defenders of their homeland deserve our 
support. Even if they didn't, this bloody war launched by an 
authoritarian regime against a peaceful, democratic neighbor matters to 
world freedom, to our own national security. It must not stand, or else 
all of us in freedom-loving countries are at risk.
  As we talk this evening, the ruthless bombing continues. Something 
else is happening. President Biden is getting ready to cross the 
Atlantic to meet with our NATO partners to talk about next steps. 
Although nothing has done more to solidify the West than the ruthless 
Russian attacks, I commend President Biden for the important role he 
has played in helping keep the alliance together. Now, I call on him to 
lead that alliance to redouble their efforts to stop the madness, to 
ensure that 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.
  I believe moving leaders to do more is possible because of all the 
deadly Russian escalation that we have seen but also because free 
citizens all around the world are shocked by the death and destruction 
that they see online and on TV every day, and they are speaking up. I 
see this at home in Ohio, but I see it all around the globe.
  I think leaders can be persuaded to do more. Over the past month, the 
administration itself has changed its mind and ratcheted up some 
sanctions and military assistance that we have advocated from both 
sides of the aisle from this Senate floor. To their credit, the 
administration reversed themselves and agreed to implement the Nord 
Stream 2 sanctions, to allow U.S. Stinger missiles to go to Ukraine 
directly from us, to impose the SWIFT banking sanctions, to ban oil 
from Russia, and to take away Russia's most favored nation trading 
status with us.
  Now, with Russia ramping up its brutal assault, targeting and killing 
thousands of innocent civilians, America and the free world must do 
more--as they bomb maternity hospitals and schools and a shopping 
center in Kyiv last night and bomb shelters filled with children.
  Last week, I led a bipartisan group of Senators to Poland and to the 
Ukrainian border, where we witnessed firsthand the pain that Russia is 
inflicting on innocent civilians. We talked to dozens of refugees--
almost always Ukrainian women and children, sometimes grandmothers and 
grandchildren. They came to Poland with only a backpack or a suitcase 
and nothing else, leaving everything else behind. In tears, they begged 
us to close the skies so the bombing would stop. They told of 
apartments or homes being destroyed, of the heartbreak of leaving their 
husbands or sons or fathers behind to fight the invaders.
  So what more can we and our allies do to help Ukraine win this war? 
Note, I say ``win this war.'' If we act swiftly, I think we can still 
defeat the Russians and keep Ukraine as a viable democracy. If we do 
too little, thousands will die, as will the dream of Ukrainian 
democracy. The forces of evil will win, and all of us will pay a price.
  Let me talk about five areas where I think we could do more to assist 
Ukraine. First, on the military side, we must redouble our efforts with 
urgency to provide Ukraine with the equipment and munitions and, where 
necessary, the immediate training to improve their air defenses and 
give them better offensive air capabilities.
  The decision whether to facilitate providing more MiG-29s from Poland 
and perhaps other allies in the region who have these Soviet-era 
airplanes has been hotly debated. In my view, we should have done it a 
long time ago, when we got the initial green light from the 
administration a few weeks ago.
  The Ukrainians have asked for them, and I do not believe they are any 
more escalatory than, certainly, the escalation that Russians are 
engaged in virtually every day. We now have reports of cluster bombs 
being used. We have reports of vacuum bombs being used against 
civilians. It is also no different than what we have done and continue 
to do with other weapon transfers, whether it is Stingers or Javelins 
or others.

  Remember, the Ukrainians are on defense here. They are just trying to 
protect their country. Give them what they say they need to defend 
themselves. I would hope that at least we could immediately facilitate 
spare parts and other assistance to keep the current Ukrainian planes 
flying.
  The Ukrainians have made it desperately clear that they need more air 
defense. We just learned today from public sources that the United 
States is providing SA8s, an older Soviet-era defense system, to 
Ukraine. Apparently, this is equipment that we got years ago--because 
it was the Soviet system--to be able to study it. We now have that 
system, and as of today, we have decided to send it to Ukraine. 
However, the same reporting also said that the more capable S-300 
Soviet-era systems that we have are not being sent.
  Look, I am very glad these systems are going to protect innocent 
civilians, but, to me, this shows the lack of urgency that I was 
talking about earlier. Here we are on day 25 of this all-out war--
people dying every single day--and, finally, we have looked into the 
closet, and we have in the inventory these incredibly important air 
defense systems, and we are providing them? Where were they on day 5 or 
day 10 or day 15 or even day 20, with people dying every one of those 
25 days?
  And why are we not sending the A300s? I don't know the answer to 
that. There may be an answer. There may be a reason I can't know what 
that answer is. But again, to me, this is an example of us having to 
have the urgency to respond and doing more and doing it more quickly.
  The United States can and should facilitate the transfer of former 
Warsaw bloc anti-aircraft systems that Ukrainians know how to operate, 
like the S-300, like the SA8s, the SA10s, and others. There are 
regional partners in the area, Eastern European countries, that have 
these systems, without going into detail.
  We should also provide extra munitions to replenish existing anti-air 
batteries. Our partners in the region say they are willing. Let's 
facilitate. Let's

[[Page S1267]]

make it happen. Let's get the NATO countries that can help to help 
more.
  Over the weekend, there were reports, as an example, that Slovakia 
and Turkey were willing to take such action. We have got to be sure 
that we are ensuring these transfers take place immediately. Of course, 
we must also keep sending Stinger missiles, which are effective in 
shooting down Russian helicopters and the lower-flying jets.
  We must find ways to quickly provide Ukraine with more armed drones, 
such as the Turkish TB2, which has been very effective, apparently, and 
even one-use loitering munitions, which the Ukrainians know how to use 
and have been very effective with on the battlefield.
  Last week, it was announced that the United States was sending 100 of 
these loitering munitions, one-use munitions, called the Switchblade. 
One hundred will go very quickly. We should increase that number. Let's 
get the hundred there first, and let's increase that number to give the 
Ukrainians more to be able to defend themselves.
  To our Israeli friends--I know this is controversial--but I would ask 
them to consider selling us or other countries--and we should agree to 
buy--their Harop drones, which Ukraine could use right now. The bottom 
line is we need to flood the zone when it comes to providing Ukraine 
with military assistance.
  We are not being asked to fight this fight for them. They just want 
the tools to be able to defend themselves and have a chance--a fighting 
chance--to be able to win. There should be no gaps in our weapon 
transfers, and we need to lead our NATO allies and others when it comes 
to providing and coordinating support.
  Second, we need more sanctions. We need to implement them faster. The 
sanctions have to bite now, not 2 weeks from now or 2 months from now. 
We need to remove all Russian banks' access to the global financial 
system. Russia must be financially cut off from the rest of the world 
if we are to have the effect that we want to have. Even without using 
our full sanctions authority, we have already seen some of the pain 
that we can inflict.
  However, there are loopholes in these sanctions. It is not enough to 
go after individual banks, such as VTB and Sberbank. We are told that 
the Kremlin has already transitioned payments from these banks through 
Rosbank, UniCredit, and Raiffeisen. We need blocking sanctions on all 
of Russia's finance and defense industry as long as Russian forces are 
in Ukraine.
  We need to exert maximum pressure to ensure no money can be sent to 
Russia to fund its war effort. We must implement full blocking 
sanctions on all Russian banks and ensure energy transactions are not 
exempt from these transactions. Russia should not be allowed to use its 
oil and gas profits to kill innocent Ukrainians.
  We can also target the way Russia, including individuals close to 
President Putin, currently evade sanctions. In 2020, when I was chair 
of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, we published a 
bipartisan report showing how sanctioned oligarchs continued to have 
access to the U.S. financial system, in this case, through the purchase 
of high-value art. The two oligarchs we investigated were sanctioned in 
2014 following Russia's invasion of Crimea.
  You have heard that those sanctions weren't particularly effective. 
This is one reason. They laundered their money through art. They 
continued to purchase millions in art through auction houses and 
dealers in New York after they were sanctioned.
  In that report, we recommended Congress should amend the Bank Secrecy 
Act to require art dealers to confirm the identity of buyers and 
sellers in transactions to ensure they are not using the art purchases 
to launder money or evade sanctions. These are the same requirements we 
place on financial institutions. Those changes are now more urgently 
needed than ever. The European Union and the United Kingdom recently 
closed this loophole by requiring businesses handling art transactions 
valued at 10,000 pounds or more to comply with anti-money laundering 
laws, including verifying the identity of the seller, buyer, and 
ultimate beneficial owner of the art so that the purchase isn't being 
used to evade sanctions.
  Since the EU and UK have tightened compliance, the United States, 
which has the largest art market in the world, becomes now the main 
target for sanctioned Russians to continue to evade sanctions and 
launder money through high-value art purchases. If the administration 
doesn't move on this, we are currently drafting legislation to close 
this loophole in the U.S. Senate.
  Third, on tax treatment, we should suspend our tax treaty with Moscow 
and explore options to remove other tax benefits from Russian 
businesses. The United States has income tax treaties with a number of 
foreign countries to facilitate investment and prevent double taxation 
of residents and businesses which operate in both countries. Under 
these tax treaties, residents, not necessarily citizens, of foreign 
countries are generally taxed at a reduced rate or exempt on certain 
items of income. It is important to note that these treaties reduce 
U.S. taxes on Russian residents and businesses, but they generally 
don't reduce the taxes of U.S. citizens or U.S. treaty residents. 
Instead, they would reduce Russian taxes for U.S. citizens.
  President Biden has the constitutional authority to suspend our tax 
treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation. We need to 
pursue all options to isolate Russia and make it clear that there are 
consequences for their actions. The tax treaty is one more way to do 
that.
  We should also follow the UK and suspend the exchange and sharing of 
tax information with Russia and Belarus. With Russia's hostile actions 
toward Ukraine, we should no longer incentivize U.S. investment in 
Russia or provide preferential tax treatment for Russian investment in 
the United States.
  Fourth, on trade, there are two additional things we can do to bring 
pressure on President Putin and his allies. Access to our market is a 
privilege, not a right, and we should not give Russia the normal 
access. The House passed a law to suspend what is called ``most favored 
nation,'' or PNTR, for Russia last week, which some in the Senate 
oppose because it does not contain a statutory ban on Russian energy 
imports. Currently, the energy import ban can be undone at the whim of 
a President, rather than the legislative criteria about the restoration 
of Ukrainian sovereignty and the cessation of hostilities. So I agree 
with putting it in statute. I think that would be a good idea. But I 
also believe the urgency of the moment means that we have to find a way 
to stop preferred access to our market. Let's do it this week.
  The International Trade Commission should also bring the full might 
of U.S. trade remedy law to bear on Russian companies which trade 
unfairly, similar to how we treat Chinese companies. Last week, I sent 
a bipartisan letter with Senator Brown to the ITC on this topic. The 
Commission is required by law to consider ``all relevant economic 
factors which have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United 
States.'' Given Russia's behavior, including its manipulation of trade 
flows in pursuit of malign strategic objectives and exceptional 
involvement of the state in the domestic economy, we ask the Commission 
to take these into account in cases involving Russia when they violate 
our trade laws.

  The Commerce Department should reclassify Russia as a nonmarket 
economy, making it easier to bring unfair trade cases against them. It 
is appropriate to reclassify them because up to 77 percent of their 
economy is now run by the government. Commerce was asked to reclassify 
in the fall but retained Russia as a market economy, allegedly after a 
Russian delegation pressured the Biden administration. In light of the 
invasion, Commerce should reconsider that decision and ensure that 
Russia is reclassified as a nonmarket economy.
  Now a handful of countries, like China and Belarus, are in that 
category. This means these countries don't have a free market. Instead, 
they have policies that restrict the flow of capital, involve 
government in the running of the economy, and don't allow wages to be 
set by free bargaining between labor and management. When a country is 
a nonmarket economy, it means our trade enforcers have an easier time 
of being tougher on those countries when they sell products here that 
are unfairly priced. It is time to do it.

[[Page S1268]]

  Fifth, and maybe most important and most difficult, we need to lead 
our European allies on fully sanctioning Russia's energy sector. 
Russia's war machine is funded primarily through energy sales, 
including natural gas and oil to Europe. Probably the best way to 
persuade those persuadable in Russia is to cut off those resources, as 
we are doing here in the United States. It is going to be a lot more 
difficult for our allies in Europe to do that because many are 
dependent on Russian energy. But there are many steps the United States 
and other allies, like Qatar, can take to expand energy production here 
at home and help our allies abroad. LNG export contracts need to be 
finalized now and the export and import terminals quickly expanded. And 
that can be done.
  Further, the Treasury Department's announcement that sanctions 
against Russia's biggest banks, including VTB Bank, do not apply to 
energy transactions until June 24--June 24 may be too late. That is 
unacceptable. We need to change that Treasury Department approach to 
sanctions against those biggest banks and ensure that we are applying 
them to energy transactions as soon as possible.
  I would advocate for a similar approach in how we designated Iranian 
entities in 2018 when we left JCPOA. We did not issue sanctions waivers 
to European companies that continued to do business with Iran's 
economy, and that forced those companies to leave Iran's market, even 
though European governments weren't particularly supportive of that. 
That is what happened.
  Some countries in Europe have not done enough to diversify their 
energy future in light of this invasion, which they are now financing, 
again, through the purchase of Russian gas. It can't be business as 
usual. We need to figure out a way to stop that revenue.
  By the way, there is a connection between the Iran deal and Ukraine. 
Under the new Iran deal, secondary sanctions will be lifted on the 
Central Bank of Iran and all other Iranian financial institutions, 
enabling transactions between Russia and Iran, to include the Central 
Bank of Russia, Sberbank, and others. In other words, the Iran nuclear 
deal guarantees that Russia can use a sanctions-free Iran as a 
sanctions-evasion oasis. This should not stand.
  The administration needs to reverse course here. Sanctioning Russia 
because of the barbaric war in Ukraine and then giving them a pass when 
it comes to the Iran nuclear deal is contradictory to our foreign 
policy interests. At the very least, this proposed treaty needs to be 
submitted to Congress as is required by law so that we can analyze that 
issue and make a decision.
  We need to do more, and we need to do it quickly. I have outlined 
some of the actions we can take, and we should act fast to let the 
people of Ukraine know we stand with them. The popular Ukrainian 
rallying cry ``Slava Ukraini,'' when translated into English, is 
``Glory to Ukraine.'' ``Slava Ukraini,'' to which the response is 
``Glory to the Heroes,'' ``Heroyam Slava.''
  In the midst of this atrocity, there are so many heroes to glorify in 
Ukraine: the soldiers, professionals, and civilians, alike, doctors and 
nurses and firefighters and the volunteers who are providing food and 
water and blankets. We pray for them all. We pray for their families.
  Godspeed to the people of Ukraine in their simple and profound quest, 
a battle for a free and independent Ukraine. We must show the world 
that America supports that simple quest, that we stand with Ukraine.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________