[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 23, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1717-S1720]
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 senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
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.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
Nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on Monday, I explained that the
thinness of Judge Jackson's appellate record makes this week's
Judiciary Committee hearings all the more important. Well, we are 2
days in. Judge Jackson is receiving a calm, respectful process, unlike
the treatment that Senate Democrats typically inflict on Republican
Presidents' nominees.
But, unfortunately, thus far, many of Judge Jackson's responses have
been evasive and unclear. She has declined to address critically
important questions and ameliorate real concerns.
First and foremost is the simple question of Court packing. The far-
left fringe groups that promoted Judge Jackson to this vacancy want
Democrats to destroy the Court's legitimacy through partisan Court
packing or unconstitutional term limits. She was literally the Court
packers' pick for the seat, and she has repeatedly refused to reject
their position.
Both of the liberal legal giants, Justice Ginsburg and Justice
Breyer, had no problem--no problem--defending the Court and denouncing
Court packing. Both Ginsburg and Breyer denounced Court packing. As
sitting Justices, they commented freely on the subject. The Justices
knew that expressing a
[[Page S1718]]
clear view and defending their institution was not--I repeat, not--
judicially inappropriate in any way.
But Judge Jackson has refused to follow in the footsteps of Ginsburg
and Breyer. She refuses to rule out what the radical activists want.
She told Senator Kennedy that she does have an opinion on Court
packing, but it is ``not a strongly held opinion,'' and, in any event,
she wouldn't tell Senators what it was.
But the nominee made sure to quietly signal openness--openness--for
the radicals' position. She told Senators she could see both sides of
the Court-packing debate. Where Justices Ginsburg and Breyer slammed
the door, Judge Jackson leaves it open. She even told the Committee:
I would be thrilled to be one of however many Congress
thought appropriate to put on the Court.
`` . . . thrilled to be one of however many Congress thought
appropriate to put on the Court.'' ``[H]owever many''? I am not sure
Judge Jackson's secret opinion on Court packing is as secret as she
thinks it is.
Judge Jackson also displayed a remarkable lack of candor during basic
questions about judicial philosophy. When asked about judicial
philosophy, the nominee tried to punt by simply restating the most
basic elements of a judge's job description. She said she looks at the
facts and treats litigants fairly. That is not explaining a judicial
philosophy. That is just rewording the judicial oath. It is, basically,
a nonanswer.
These are pivotal questions. They require clear responses, and
previous nominees had much less trouble providing them. A year and a
half ago, now-Justice Barrett gave the Committee an intellectual master
class in her textualist and original judicial philosophy. She described
her interpretive approach in great detail. She helpfully compared and
contrasted her philosophy with past and present Justices to provide
Senators with points of comparison. But Judge Jackson either cannot or
will not do any of that.
Senator Sasse said that in his meeting with the nominee more than 2
weeks ago, he asked the judge to compare and contrast her own thinking
with Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan to give Senators a point of
reference. At that time, the judge apparently told the Senator that she
needed to think about it but would get back to him. He followed up
yesterday, and Judge Jackson said actually she had been too busy to
give it any thought.
She could not or would not even supply a clear summary of just the
philosophy of Justice Breyer. Justice Breyer is Judge Jackson's former
boss for whom she clerked. He has written entire books detailing his
judicial approach, but Judge Jackson either could not or would not
describe it.
In one jaw-dropping moment, Judge Jackson tried to dodge questions
about constitutional interpretation by claiming that she does not have
enough experience--does not have enough experience.
Here is what she said:
I would say, just as an aside . . . that while I have been
on the bench for nine-plus years, the issue of constitutional
interpretation in that sense doesn't come up very often. It
comes up to the Supreme Court for sure, but it doesn't come
up very often in the lower courts.
In other words, at least in that moment, a nominee for the U.S.
Supreme Court tried to tell the Committee that her professional
experience had not prepared her--not prepared her--for an in-depth
discussion of constitutional interpretation.
The White House and Senate Democrats keep saying Judge Jackson's
district court experience is perfect preparation for the Supreme Court,
but it sounds like the nominee herself may actually disagree with that.
Let's be very clear. If Judge Jackson truly feels she lacks
sufficient experience with constitutional interpretation, then the
Senate certainly should not confirm her. But if she does not actually
feel that way, then she owes the Senate much more candor about her
approach.
For decades, liberal activists have preferred judges who do not limit
themselves to applying the text of our laws and our Constitution, but
rather make new policy from the bench.
Sure enough, Judge Jackson spent all day yesterday trying to explain
what amounts to a passionate policy disagreement with existing
sentencing guidelines for certain horrible crimes. In a number of
instances, she has given out sentences far, far below the sentencing
guidelines and far below the government prosecutors' request. In cases
ranging from child exploitation to fentanyl trafficking, she has used
every possible ounce of discretion to essentially remake sentencing
policy from the bench.
Under questions from Senator Cotton, Judge Jackson said it would be
inappropriate for her to comment on the proper durations of criminal
sentences as this was a policy matter for legislators and not judges.
But at other times, she justified her own past leniency by explaining
that judges have huge amounts of discretion and latitude on sentencing
criminals. Either subjective questions about sentencing are fair game
for the judicial branch or they are not. Certainly, the nominee cannot
have it both ways.
Today, Judge Jackson will have another chance--another chance to
defend the institution of the Court, like Justices Ginsburg and Breyer
had no trouble doing; another chance to give Senators a clear
explanation of her judicial philosophy, like Justices Gorsuch and
Barrett had no trouble doing; another chance to explain whether and how
her clear policy views on the merits of sentencing criminals will
continue to impact her judicial judgment.
The Senate and the country will be watching.
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. SCHUMER. Mr. 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 majority leader is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote
occur immediately following my remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Russia
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on PNTR, as President Biden begins the
most important foreign trip of his Presidency, the best thing the
Senate can do this week is pass PNTR legislation to land another
devastating blow on Putin's economy.
Over the past few weeks, Republicans have complained that President
Biden hasn't acted quickly enough against Putin. Yet for the past few
days, they have stymied swift action on PNTR, despite the fact that the
House approved it 424 to 8, with Leader McCarthy supporting it.
In particular, the senior Senator from Idaho has sought to amend the
bill to include an oil ban. We are willing to work with Senator Crapo
to address his concerns, but there are a few reasons we should move
quickly with PNTR.
First, President Biden has already implemented a ban on Russian oil
and gas. So passing this legislation is not a priority the way PNTR is.
Second, there remain serious questions about whether the proposal from
Republicans would delay the ban on buying Russian oil for a period of
time. This is a consequence no one wants. Senator Manchin brought this
up when he saw the language, and it is something that we have to make
certain that this proposal isn't weaker than what the President has put
into effect. Third, showing unity, particularly at this time when the
President is meeting with our European allies, is especially important.
Finally, the House is not in session. Any changes we make to the PNTR
legislation delays enactment by at least a week.
There is no reason--absolutely no reason--to change what the House
has already approved on PNTR and delay action by a week or more. Again,
Democrats are willing to work with Senator Crapo on this issue if he
can agree to let this process move forward.
So let me say it again. PNTR has already been approved overwhelmingly
by the House, and it is the most logical next step in the fight against
Putin's barbaric war, and the Senate should thus act. Republicans who
complain of
[[Page S1719]]
delay are the ones who are delaying. The Senate has been most effective
when working quickly and in unison to support the President and our
European allies against Vladimir Putin. Passing PNTR with overwhelming
bipartisan support is another chance to do just that.
Insulin
Mr. President, on insulin, yesterday I held a handful of
conversations with colleagues from both sides of the aisle on one of
the most confounding problems facing millions of Americans--the
skyrocketing cost of insulin. Making insulin more affordable is a top
priority to Democrats, so right now, there are bipartisan talks
underway by Senators Shaheen and Collins to cap insulin at $35 a month
and make changes to drive the cost down in a comprehensive way.
I intend to put a proposal on the floor as soon as we can after
Easter. There should be nothing remotely partisan about making sure
Americans don't go broke to manage their diabetes. So Democrats are
eager to work wherever we can on legislation that will cap insulin at
$35 a month and give millions a long-overdue break at the pharmacy.
It is reported that at least one in four insulin users has to ration
their use of insulin because they can't afford it. The exponential
spike in the cost of insulin is truly one of the most frustrating
trends of the past two decades. This is a drug with no patent on which
millions of Americans rely to manage their diabetes. Today, a 40-day
supply of insulin can exceed $600 a month--a prohibitive and downright
immoral price that makes no sense at all.
Over the past few weeks, a number of my colleagues, including Senator
Warnock, Senator Shaheen, Senator Murray, and Senator Collins, have
worked assiduously on proposals for bringing down the price of insulin,
bringing it back down, as part of our larger effort to lower costs for
American families. The latest bipartisan effort will combine elements
from Senator Warnock's and other proposals, and it has my enthusiastic
backing because lowering the cost of insulin is so important.
I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for working on
this issue in good faith. Bipartisanship has been the kindling for a
number of recent Senate accomplishments, and insulin should be another
issue where we deliver.
In addition, incidentally, while we are talking about cost-cutting,
we are having hearings this week on a number of issues relating to high
cost. Senator Casey, in the Aging Committee, is leading a hearing on
home care and the high cost there today. Senator Carper is leading a
hearing on clean energy and national security and the high cost of
energy. In Agriculture, Senator Stabenow had a hearing yesterday on the
cost of rural childcare, rural elder care, and healthcare.
H.R. 4521
Mr. President, on the competition bill, today the Senate will take
another step to advance major, bipartisan legislation to increase
American jobs and lower costs for American families. For over a year,
both parties have worked on competitiveness legislation built around
two goals: Create more American jobs and lower costs for American
families. In the case of Senator Young and myself, the effort has
stretched back many years. The House and Senate passed legislation to
achieve these goals separately, so the best way now to send a final
product to the President's desk is by entering a conference committee
with the House. We are now working towards that end and jumping through
a number of procedural hoops to get that done.
The majority of us want to see this legislation reach the President's
desk. We want to see costs go down for families, see more manufacturing
jobs here at home, see greater relief for supply chains, and we want to
revive America's unparalleled innovation machine that fueled our
economy for so much of the 20th century.
The past month reminds us that our country is vulnerable when we
import too many goods from a single country--particularly, in this
case, semiconductors. The war in Ukraine is a perfect test case. Some
of the most important resources for making chips, like neon gas, come
precisely from Ukraine.
We need to make more of these products here in America instead of
overseas so we can lower costs, shore up our supply chains, and
preserve our national security. For that reason alone, the Senate is
moving ahead on this important competitive legislation.
Nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson
Mr. President, finally, on SCOTUS, the Supreme Court, yesterday Judge
Ketanji Brown Jackson offered a 13-hour master class of why she
deserves to be the 116th Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. She was
simply impressive. It was clear to anyone watching that Judge Jackson's
brilliant legal mind was running in high gear. She remained measured
and poised and thoughtful as she worked through yesterday's grueling
series of questions.
Over the course of the day, Judge Jackson affirmed that she will
approach her role on the Supreme Court with prudence, a respect for
precedent, and by serving in the same mainstream fashion as the great
Justice whose seat she would fill.
At times, the judge also displayed one of her greatest strengths: her
grace and poise even during moments when a handful of Republicans asked
intentionally misleading questions--questions which even their fellow
Republicans found uncomfortable. Republicans tried to land a blow, but
Judge Jackson kept her cool. By the end of the day, it was obvious why
the judge's nomination has won the support of everyone from law
enforcement to conservative judges, to scores of peers throughout her
career. I expect she will reach final confirmation by the end of this
work period.
Now, even as the judge continues her testimony today, the Senate will
also be busy confirming scores of other judges to important positions
across the Federal bench. I am proud to say that last night, the Senate
confirmed its 50th judge under President Biden, and by the end of
tonight, we could reach as many as 58 total judges. But doing that is
going to take a lot of focus and patience, just as we required last
week. I will once again ask my colleagues that in order to move through
tonight's votes quickly, we should stay in our seats or as close to the
Senate floor as possible.
I yield the floor.
Vote on Motion
The ACTING PRESIDNET pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
question is agreeing to the motion to proceed.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The yeas and nays have been
requested.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Casey), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), and the Senator
from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 31, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 100 Leg.]
YEAS--66
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Crapo
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Markey
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
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--31
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
Sullivan
Thune
Toomey
Tuberville
NOT VOTING--3
Casey
Manchin
Shaheen
[[Page S1720]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). On the motion to proceed to
Calendar No. 282, H.R. 4521, the America COMPETES Act, the yeas are 66,
the nays are 31.
The motion is agreed to.
____________________