[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 23, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1720-S1732]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4521) to provide for a coordinated Federal 
     research initiative to ensure continued United States 
     leadership in engineering biology.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                           Amendment No. 5002

  (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 5002.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5002.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask to dispense with further reading of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of March 22, 2022, under 
``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.


                Amendment No. 5003 to Amendment No. 5002

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5003 to amendment No. 5002.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask to dispense with further reading of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                (Purpose: To modify the effective date)

        At the end, add the following: ``This Act shall take 
     effect on the date that is 1 day after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.''.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.


                  Amendment No. 5004 to Amendment 5003

  Mr. SCHUMER. I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5004 to amendment No. 5003.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask to dispense with further reading of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                (Purpose: To modify the effective date)

        On page 1, line 2, strike ``1 day'' and insert ``2 days''.


                           Amendment No. 5005

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I have an amendment to the underlying 
bill at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5005 to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 5002.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask to dispense with further reading of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                (Purpose: To modify the effective date)

       At the end, add the following: ``This Act shall take effect 
     on the date that is 3 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.''.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.


                Amendment No. 5006 to Amendment No. 5005

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5006 to amendment No. 5005.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask to dispense with further reading of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                (Purpose: To modify the effective date)

        On page 1, line 2, strike ``3 days'' and insert ``4 
     days''.


                Motion to Commit with Amendment No. 5007

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I move to commit H.R. 4521 to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation with instructions to 
report back forthwith with an amendment.
  Mr. SCHUMER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] moves to commit 
     H.R. 4521 to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation with instructions to report back forthwith 
     with an amendment numbered 5007.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask to dispense with further reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                (Purpose: To modify the effective date)

       At the end, add the following: ``This Act shall take effect 
     on the date that is 5 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.''.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.


                           Amendment No. 5008

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I have an amendment to the instructions 
at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5008 to the instructions of the motion to 
     commit.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask to dispense with further reading of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                (Purpose: To modify the effective date)

        On page 1, line 2, strike ``5 days'' and insert ``6 
     days''.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.


                Amendment No. 5009 to Amendment No. 5008

  Mr. SCHUMER. I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5009 to amendment No. 5008.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask to dispense with further reading of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                (Purpose: To modify the effective date)

        On page 1, line 1, strike ``6 days'' and insert ``7 
     days''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Now, Madam President, as President Biden begins the most 
important foreign trip of his Presidency, the best thing the Senate can 
do this week is pass permanent normal trade relation legislation so we 
can land another devastating blow on Putin's economy. In a few moments, 
I will ask the Senate for consent to do just that.

[[Page S1721]]

  Last week, the House passed legislation revoking Russia's normal 
trade relations with the United States by 424 to 8--424 to 8. The vast 
majority of House Republicans backed it, including Leader McCarthy and 
the Republican leadership.
  Here in the Senate, my friend, the senior Senator from Idaho, 
sincerely believes that we should amend the bill by including an oil 
ban. I don't believe we should do that. As I said earlier today, there 
are four reasons why we should move forward quickly on PNTR and then 
have a separate discussion on the oil ban.
  First, President Biden has already implemented a ban on Russian oil 
and gas, so passing something the President has already done is not 
even remotely as urgent as passing the PNTR first, especially because 
the President is leaving today and meeting with our European allies. 
What could be better than a united Senate putting further sanctions on 
Russia as the President meets with our European allies, where he has 
done a very good job of bringing them together?
  Second, there is still some disagreement, including with the 
administration, about how to best draft an oil ban proposal. There are 
some who worry that the proposal that my friend from Idaho is pushing 
would actually delay the ban on Russian oil compared to the President's 
proposal. This is a consequence no one wants.
  Third, it is so important we show unity right now as President Biden 
meets with our European allies. Swift Senate action, combining 
Democrats and Republicans with one voice supporting PNTR, would do just 
that.
  Finally, the House is not in session. Any changes we would make to 
the PNTR legislation by amendment delays enactment by at least a week. 
There is no reason--absolutely no reason--to change the PNTR 
legislation the House has already approved and delay action.
  Now, again I repeat: I am, Senator Wyden is, and all we Senate 
Democrats are willing to work with Senator Crapo on this issue, if he 
can agree to let the process move forward.
  So let me say again, PNTR has already been overwhelmingly passed by 
the House. It is a very important and logical step in the fight against 
Putin's barbaric war. We should move the House bill ASAP.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 7108

  So, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be 
determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the 
Republican leader, the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 
7108, which is at the desk; that there be 4 hours of debate equally 
divided; and that no amendments be in order; that upon the use or 
yielding back of the time, the bill be considered read a third time and 
the Senate vote on passage of the bill; and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table without further 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  I rise to address Ukraine's perilous situation. There is broad 
agreement in this Chamber and in the House of Representatives that 
America's response in all areas to Russia and Belarus's aggression 
against Ukraine must be comprehensive and strong.
  Leveraging the benefits of the U.S. trade relationship with Russia is 
just such a response that will add to the pressures on Putin to rethink 
his actions in Ukraine and punish him for what he has already done.
  On March 8, the Democratic and Republican leadership in the Senate 
Finance Committee and the House Committee on Ways and Means reached an 
agreement on precisely that type of response. The bicameral, bipartisan 
agreement is called the Suspending Normal Trade Relations with Russia 
and Belarus Act, and its provisions include banning Russian energy 
imports, including various forms of petroleum, natural gas, and coal; 
moving Russia and Belarus to the same pariah trade status as North 
Korea and Cuba; providing the President additional authority to raise 
tariffs on Russia and Belarus even further; calling on WTO members to 
take similar actions to deprive Russia of its trade benefits; and 
sending a crystal-clear message to Russia's dictator, Vladimir Putin, 
that he will never see these trade benefits restored until he reverses 
his aggression, stops threatening our NATO allies, and recognizes the 
right of the Ukrainian people to live freely.

  None of this is controversial, and all of it is necessary.
  Yet only a day after the deal was made and with neither warning nor 
explanation, the House split the energy ban from the trade status 
provision and bifurcated the two measures further by imposing separate 
standards on Putin's actions in Ukraine before any President can think 
to restore these trade benefits to Russia without congressional 
approval.
  Each bill passed by over 400 votes, but the House decided to only 
transmit the bill on Russia's trade status, its permanent normal trade 
relations, or PNTR piece, even though it had passed more than a week 
after the energy ban.
  The important point is that our House colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle agree both restrictions need to happen. Some may wonder why the 
urgent need for the congressional energy import ban after President 
Biden provided one in his Executive order.
  Speaker Pelosi was asked just that question when she put the new 
House version of the import ban up for a vote, and she stated, 
correctly, to her House colleagues: ``You're here to legislate.''
  Absolutely, that is why we are here. And our legislative response--
more especially its certification requirements--must deliver an 
unmistakable message to Putin: no relief until you stop your aggression 
and recognize Ukraine's inalienable right to live free and choose its 
leaders. The energy ban and its trade status revocation are 
complementary, and they must work together.
  While President Biden's Executive order to ban Russian oil was a 
positive step, the Senate and House need to impose tough conditions on 
Putin's treatment of Ukraine to be met before any President seeks an 
end to the energy import ban. These conditions are like those Congress 
had done in the bipartisan CAATSA legislation, which we negotiated when 
I was the Banking Committee chairman during the Trump administration.
  Enacting a Russian oil ban will demonstrate to the Ukrainian people 
and our NATO allies that Congress is committed to cutting off Russia's 
funding for its war effort.
  Many of our allies, including in Europe, are debating whether to 
adopt an energy ban against Russia. By the U.S. Congress acting 
definitively and with certainty through our congressional action, our 
allies will all be more encouraged to take similar stands against 
Russian energy exports, which account for over a third of Russia's 
budget.
  I seek to continue our bipartisan tradition by introducing text that 
is as close to the original deal as possible, except in two respects, 
that respond to the points made by our majority leader--both made to 
facilitate our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  First, I am making a single technical correction, made at the request 
of Senators Manchin and Murkowski, to comport with the timeline of the 
President's Executive order regarding the oil ban so that no delay such 
as was mentioned as a possible problem will exist. This edit is 
necessary to avoid that delay, and it solves that problem.
  Second, I have revised the certification criteria that would allow 
the restoration of trade benefits to match exactly what the House 
passed. The original deal provided that benefits could not be restored 
until Russia withdrew its forces and stopped posing an immediate threat 
to NATO allies and partners. To secure bipartisan support, I yielded to 
what the House passed: that Russia need only reach an agreement with 
the President to withdraw its forces rather than have definitively 
withdrawn them and that Russia not pose a threat to NATO members as 
opposed to NATO members and their partners.
  Again, this is to match what the House has requested. Mind you, I 
have many colleagues on my side who would like to do many more things, 
and I agree with their requests. But on the trade front, I am willing 
to make these concessions to get this done.
  My view is that we should act quickly. I agree with the majority 
leader on

[[Page S1722]]

this. We must do it together, and we must do it today. There is no 
reason to wait for another revenue bill to come from the House before 
we act. So let us mark the bravery of the Ukrainian people by passing 
the strongest legislation we can, today, in the trade space.
  Accordingly, I am asking the Senator to modify his request to take 
the firm, comprehensive action against Vladimir Putin that 
circumstances require. I would like to ask that the Senator modify his 
request to make it in order for the Crapo substitute amendment, which 
is at the desk, to be considered and agreed to and that the Senate vote 
on the passage of the bill as amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object to the 
request from the Senator from Idaho, it is my understanding that the 
Senator's modification would not include provisions that were included 
in the House-passed legislation that modifies the global Magnitsky 
sanction regime.
  I just would like to speak for a moment, if I might. There is no 
question that we stand with the people of Ukraine against the 
unprovoked attack by Mr. Putin. We are inspired every day by the 
courage of the Ukrainian people and by their inspirational leader, 
President Zelenskyy.
  The United States has shown leadership, and I congratulate the Biden 
administration. We have led the free world in providing defensive 
lethal weapons to Ukraine to defend itself. We have provided 
humanitarian assistance, joining the global community, including 
dealing with 3 million Ukrainians that are now refugees in other 
countries and 10 million that have been displaced as a result of Mr. 
Putin's unprovoked attack.
  And we have led on sanctions. We have led in getting the global unity 
to impose sanctions against not just the Russian sectors, but also 
against individuals. And when Mr. Zelenskyy spoke before the Members of 
Congress, he specifically mentioned the importance of these sanctions; 
and he asked us to expand those covered by the sanctions to include the 
enablers, those that are enabling Mr. Putin--the oligarchs--to be able 
to fund his aggression against Ukraine.
  So what did the House send over to us? In their bill, they sent over 
a global Magnitsky modification. It is identical to legislation that 
was filed by Senator Portman and myself that included the revocation of 
PNTR for Russia, along with the global Magnitsky. First and foremost, 
it removes the sunset that is in the legislation that would sunset this 
year.
  Mr. Zelenskyy asked for us to be resolved in being willing to stand 
up to Mr. Putin, that it would take some time. A clear message is that 
we remove the sunset on the global Magnitsky statute. And we know how 
difficult it is to get legislation passed in this body.
  It also expands the global Magnitsky to include the enablers--exactly 
what Mr. Zelenskyy asked us to do--those that enabled--the oligarchs 
that allowed him to be able to finance this. The language that is 
included in here is very similar to the language that was included in 
President Trump's Executive order. This is critical legislation.
  Now, let me just tell you how appropriate it is that it is included 
in a PNTR bill--because the first Magnitsky sanction bill--and Senator 
Wyden was very important in getting this done--was included in the 
original PNTR bill for Russia, and we were able to get it done at that 
time.
  We then made it a global Magnitsky, and my partner on that was the 
late Senator McCain. It has always been bipartisan. My partner now is 
Senator Wicker. The two of us have joined forces to make sure we get it 
done now. It is critically important in order to impose banking 
restrictions on those that are targeted under the global Magnitsky, as 
well as visa restrictions on being able to travel.
  How important is it? Ask Mr. Usmanov, who is one of the principal 
oligarchs to Mr. Putin, who solves Mr. Putin's business problems. Guess 
how he solves those problems? Well, his yacht has now been confiscated 
in Germany. That is how important these sanctions are and how we 
have to move them forward.

  So, if I understand my colleague's request, it would deny the 
opportunity for us to act on the global Magnitsky, which Mr. Zelenskyy 
has specifically asked us to do. We would lose that opportunity. We 
would be sending this bill back to the House that is not in session, 
which means there will be a further delay in repealing PNTR for Russia, 
which is something we need to do now, today. We can get it to the 
President for signature today under the majority leader's request.
  And as the majority leader has indicated, I support the energy ban--I 
support the Russian energy ban. President Biden has already taken steps 
to do that. And I agree with my colleague from Idaho. I would like to 
incorporate that in statute, but there is no urgency to do that as 
there is on repealing PNTR and the global Magnitsky. That is the 
urgency. That is what we need to get done today. That is what we can 
get to the President this afternoon under the majority leader's 
request, and that will be denied if my friend from Idaho's request were 
granted.
  So, for all those reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the modification.
  Is there an objection to the original request?
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, reserving the right to object and just 
briefly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. I would like to say to my colleague Senator Cardin, I 
believe we could easily work the global Magnitsky legislation into 
whatever we do today. I don't believe there will be objections to 
moving ahead on that. It is not included in what I submitted because 
that was not a part of the original four-corners agreement which I am 
proposing. I think that could be added.
  I also have colleagues on my side of the aisle who have other items 
they would like to see discussed because the idea we are talking about 
here is to move ahead with no amendments on legislation that is major. 
And I am willing to discuss that as well, but I believe we need time to 
work this out.
  We can get this done today. And even though the House is not in 
session today, our passage of global legislation on this entire issue 
would send a powerful message that the House could affirm when it does 
come back into session next week.
  So I will still need to object, but I will commit to my colleagues on 
the other side that I will work with you today to try to iron out these 
differences. I need to have assurances that these other pieces that, 
for some unexplained reason, the House has not been willing to put into 
this package can be put into a package that will pass. And if we can 
get to that point, we can move today.
  So I commit that I will work with you; but at this point, I must 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, I thank my colleague from Idaho. 
I know he sincerely wants to move forward. The best way to send a 
message is pass the House bill, get it to the President, and have him 
be able to sign it while the European allies and we are meeting.
  But I am disappointed, though, that we were unable to take quick 
action now, but I very much appreciate what Senator Crapo has said now. 
And Senator Crapo and I had a good discussion this morning. We agree. 
We want to get to a bipartisan resolution to this legislation.
  So Senators Wyden, Crapo, and my staff are going to work throughout 
the day on language related to the oil ban and the other issues that 
Senator Crapo talked about that we could consider separately. We would 
then move to pass PNTR separately, which we hope we can pass today or 
certainly tomorrow.
  So I am committed to getting this issue resolved and very much 
appreciate my friend, the Senator from Idaho's willingness to discuss 
it so we can work out something that both sides can accept.
  Mr. CRAPO. I thank Leader Schumer.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, let me pick up on what both of my 
colleagues have just said. Senator Schumer and Senator Crapo have both 
said

[[Page S1723]]

how committed we are to getting this worked out today. And as Senator 
Schumer said, under his leadership, the Finance Committee--the chair 
and the ranking member--that is what we are going to be working on so 
that this actually happens.
  And I want to make sure everybody understands what that means. It 
means that while the President is in these crucial discussions right 
now in Europe, the Senate--in the most expedited way, which is to pass 
the House legislation today--would revoke permanent normal trade 
relations with Russia.
  And here is why that is so important. Vladimir Putin's inhumane 
conduct means that Russia has forfeited the right to the benefits of 
the international trade order that was established after World War II. 
And what the Senate can do by passing the House bill today would amount 
to the harshest economic consequences in a generation. Let me be 
specific about that.
  When we pass that legislation that came over from the House here in 
the Senate, it would immediately trigger a significant increase in 
tariffs on Russian-made products. Adding to that, the proposal also 
includes authority for the President to raise tariffs even higher in 
the future. These tariffs would directly level a significant set of 
restrictions on Putin's circle of oligarchs, who export everything from 
chemicals to plywood. This is an absolutely essential step in ensuring 
that Russia is a pariah state.
  So to wrap up, apropos of the comments from the distinguished Senate 
majority leader and our ranking member--and the President of the Senate 
has worked with him as well--we had a good discussion over the last 
half-hour that is going to focus on getting passage of the House bill 
done today. And as Senator Schumer, Senator Crapo, and I have all 
noted, those discussions have been ongoing, but we are going to step it 
up so we can get this done today and send the House bill to the 
President's desk by close of business today.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I wanted to join in the comments made 
by the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, which I 
currently sit on, and my distinguished colleague on the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, who is the author of the Magnitsky Act.
  I just hope--I came loaded for bear to the floor because I thought we 
were going to have a different result, but I am optimistically going to 
expect that we are going to have a resolution because, look, there are 
burnt bodies in the streets of Ukraine. There are mass graves to bury 
the dead. There are Ukrainians who are melting snow in order to drink 
water to survive. So it is truly mind boggling that we cannot get this 
legislation passed that eliminates Russia's preferred trade status and 
reauthorizes the Magnitsky Act.

  We see that Putin's actions are not only creating a horrific set of 
circumstances in Ukraine; they are creating a severe shortage of wheat 
across the Middle East and North Africa, bombing maternity hospitals 
and theaters housing children, causing the worst refugee crisis in 
Europe in decades.
  While we have long called out Putin's thugishness, his unprovoked and 
devastating attack on Ukraine has united the world in its resolve to 
levy severe repercussions for Putin and his cronies. So we must revoke 
this preferential trade status immediately. I think we should do the 
same for Belarus, which continues to provide a launching pad for 
Putin's war.
  But, certainly, not including Magnitsky makes no sense. Now, it makes 
no sense when last week I came to the floor and asked for unanimous 
confirmation of a key number of nominees at the State Department and 
USAID that are at the heart of helping the United States help Ukraine 
on coordinating sanctions, on our USAID Director for that part of the 
world, on the Assistant Secretary for refugees--millions of Ukrainian 
refugees. We should have these people in place to do the job.
  But we also have to have the law that is going to expire in place 
that Putin hates. He hates it. It is named after someone he was trying 
to eliminate. We have to continue to expand our options for keeping the 
pressure on Putin's regime and those who enable him. Reauthorizing 
Magnitsky is a critical part of doing just that.
  With Magnitsky sanctions, we can hold human rights abusers to 
account. We can call out their unacceptable and appalling acts, and we 
can hand the President a powerful tool to sanction those who profit off 
the Russian people and exploit state assets.
  But if we don't act, Magnitsky provisions will sunset later this 
year. Putin shouldn't be able to think: I can wait it out. He should 
know that the law is going to continue and the sanctions that have been 
levied under Magnitsky will continue to be levied and enhanced.
  He wants to see this law go away. His oligarchs and top officials 
would breathe a sigh of relief. Allowing Magnitsky sanctions to expire 
would send exactly the wrong message at the most critical time.
  This bill not only extends these tools; it sharpens them. This 
reauthorization would expand sanctions to cover other serious human 
rights abuses, giving the President the power to sanction a broader 
array of conduct.
  So we have to get this done today. We have to revoke normal trade 
relations with Russia. We have to send an unequivocal message that 
Putin's cronies cannot and will not act with impunity. They will pay a 
price, and we must show the world that whether human rights abusers are 
in Moscow or Minsk, America stands up for our values and our 
principles, and we put them into action wherever they are attacked. 
That is what this effort is all about.
  I do hope that before this day is out, we will see this passed on the 
Senate floor. There is no excuse not to get it done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me thank the chairman on the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee for his incredible leadership on this issue 
and so many others.
  I want to point out that our committee has already approved this 
language. This is already approved. This is not something that is new 
to this body. We have been debating this for some time. It has been the 
United States and the U.S. Senate that have taken the leadership to 
provide tools to go after human rights abusers. We were the first to 
act, but, as a result of our action, Europe has now acted, the UK has 
acted, and Canada has acted. So we have provided global leadership. It 
is one of the strongest tools we have against human rights violators, 
and our No. 1 target today is Mr. Putin and what he has done.
  So we have a chance to really show our leadership--continued 
leadership--in this area.
  I am also encouraged by Senator Crapo's assurances that we are going 
to try to get this done today. We want to get this bill to the 
President. We want to have it clear that we reauthorized it in a way 
that would be effective moving forward.
  On one last point, if I might, no one knows exactly what happened in 
the first summit meeting between President Putin and President Trump, 
but the reports were that probably one of the very first issues that 
was raised by Mr. Putin was global Magnitsky sanctions, how it is so 
sensitive to him.
  A clear message against Mr. Putin is the passage of the 
reauthorization and, as the chairman said, fine-tuning of the global 
Magnitsky statute. I hope we can get that done today. I thank my 
colleagues for their comments.
  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. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  IRS

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, Tax Day 2022 is fast approaching. 
Americans around the country are prepping their tax returns.
  If you talked to most Americans, I don't think you would find that 
the IRS is their favorite government Agency and with good reason. The 
Agency

[[Page S1724]]

has gained a reputation for poor taxpayer service. The last tax filing 
season was particularly miserable for taxpayers. ``If you call the IRS, 
there is only a 1-in-50 chance that you'll reach a human being,'' noted 
a headline in the Washington Post last April.
  The national Taxpayer Advocate noted in her 2021 report to Congress:

       Calendar year 2021 was surely the most challenging year 
     taxpayers and tax professionals have ever experienced--long 
     processing and refund delays, difficulty reaching the IRS by 
     phone, correspondence that went unprocessed for many months, 
     collection notices issued while taxpayer correspondence was 
     awaiting processing, little or no information on the Where's 
     My Refund? tool for delayed returns. . . .

  And bad customer service isn't the only thing tarnishing the IRS's 
reputation. The IRS has also gained a reputation for mishandling the 
confidential taxpayer information it has access to. In fact, the IRS 
was recently subject to a massive leak or hack of private taxpayer 
information--information that somehow ended up in the hands of 
advocates at ProPublica, an outfit that promotes progressive causes and 
went on to publish taxpayers' private information last June. Months 
later, neither the Treasury Department nor the IRS has provided 
meaningful followup about the data breach, much less any 
accountability.
  Who could forget the IRS scandal during the Obama administration when 
the IRS targeted a number of organizations based on their political 
beliefs? Nor did the IRS inspire confidence a few months ago when it 
announced it would start requiring taxpayers to submit biometric data 
in order to access certain IRS services.
  Fortunately, after Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee and 
others weighed in, the IRS abandoned its plans to allow the harvesting 
of taxpayers' biometric data, but it was a concerning instance of 
government overreach from an Agency notable for repeated mishandling of 
private taxpayer information.
  The IRS was a frequent subject of discussion in regard to the 
Democrats' so-called Build Back Better plan. It would have been nice if 
this was because Democrats had proposed a real plan to improve taxpayer 
services and increase Agency accountability. But, no, what they 
proposed in their Build Back Better plan was a massive increase in 
funding for the IRS--$80 billion--essentially doubling the size of the 
Agency without any plan for ensuring improvements to basic taxpayer 
services.
  I am hard pressed to imagine why anyone would contemplate handing a 
massive budget increase to the IRS without simultaneously prioritizing 
a plan to substantially increase accountability and improve taxpayer 
services. But, of course, Democrats weren't interested in improving 
taxpayer services. Their main interest in handing the IRS a supersized 
budget increase was to increase tax collections to raise revenue to 
help pay for their partisan tax-and-spending spree.
  It is the same reason why they included a provision, until widespread 
public opposition forced them to remove it, that would have allowed the 
IRS to examine the details of Americans' bank accounts. Under one 
version of this provision, the IRS would have been able to sift through 
the bank records of any American with just $600 in annual 
transactions--$600. In other words, the IRS would have been able to 
look through the bank records of just about every American and find out 
just how much you spent on Starbucks or your last doctor's bill or that 
new pair of running shoes.
  Republicans are not opposed to enhancing resources for the IRS if 
needed to improve taxpayer services, but any enhanced resources for the 
IRS must be paired with serious reform, including measures to improve 
customer service, ensure that existing resources are being used 
optimally, and promote smarter and more effective audits.
  I am a cosponsor of Senator Crapo's Tax Gap Reform and IRS 
Enforcement Act, which would codify additional protections for 
taxpayers against IRS overreach.
  Among other things, the legislation would help ensure that the IRS is 
not able to target taxpayers for their political and ideological 
beliefs, and it would prohibit the kinds of bank reporting requirements 
that Democrats sought to impose in their Build Back Better spending 
spree. It would also take steps to increase IRS expertise and improve 
the audit process. It would improve the information that we have on the 
tax gap, which is the difference between taxes owed and taxes paid.
  Reducing the size of the tax gap and improving enforcement of our tax 
laws is something we should look at, but any effort has to be balanced 
with taxpayer responsibilities and taxpayer rights. Vastly increasing 
the size of the IRS without any new accountability or Agency oversight, 
as Democrats wanted to do with their Build Back Better spending spree, 
would be more likely to result in increased harassment of law-abiding 
taxpayers than in a meaningful reduction in the tax gap.
  Just in case anyone thinks I am exaggerating about harassment, I 
would like to note that a provision in the House version of Democrats' 
reckless tax-and-spending spree would repeal a measure requiring 
written approval of a supervisor before an IRS agent can assess any 
penalties. The provision was intended to prevent overreaching IRS 
agents from threatening Americans with unjustified penalties. It is 
hard to imagine why Democrats would try to repeal this measure if they 
were not trying to pave the way for much more aggressive IRS pressure 
on American taxpayers.
  In her 2021 report to Congress, the National Taxpayer Advocate noted 
that ``there is no way to sugarcoat the year 2021 in tax 
administration. From the perspective of tens of millions of taxpayers, 
it was horrendous.''
  Taxpayers deserve better. They deserve an efficient and accountable 
IRS and timely and effective customer service, and Congress should 
focus on giving it to them. I hope to be able to move away from 
Democrats' intrusive and reckless Build Back Better IRS proposals and 
toward bipartisan efforts to reform the IRS and ensure the taxpayers 
can reliably depend on the Agency.
  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. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                                Ukraine

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, since Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine, 
Vladimir Putin has been shocked by two things: He has been shocked by 
the courage and the resilience and skill of the Ukrainian army and the 
resistance by the Ukrainian people.
  He has also been shocked by the way President Biden has unified the 
world and put together this broad, effective coalition. Think about 
this: Countries like Germany and Sweden and Finland, even Switzerland, 
have never been involved in these kinds of international operations. 
They are all on board, all working with us on weapons and on 
humanitarian assistance and on sanctions.
  The President's team has done an extraordinary job in mustering the 
strength of this allied coalition to impose a broad range of powerful, 
punishing sanctions. We have cut off huge portions of their banking, 
finance, and business sectors from the Western financial world. We have 
shut down access to their monetary reserves--what Putin considered his 
war chest. We have sanctioned their central bank, their large 
commercial banks, and their sovereign wealth funds.
  We have cut off their ability to finance their debt. We have blocked 
key sanctioned banks from the SWIFT financial messaging system. We are 
shutting down their borrowing privileges at international institutions 
like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
  We have gone after Putin personally and the oligarchs who prop up his 
regime. We have gone after their intelligence entities and defense 
firms and others supporting them and supporting the war effort.
  We have sanctioned disinformation agents, freezing their assets, 
cutting off their ability to propagandize Putin's lies.
  Together with our allies, we have begun to go after their lucrative 
energy sector. We shut down the Nord

[[Page S1725]]

Stream 2 gas pipeline. We imposed a broad ban on Russian oil and gas 
and coal coming to the United States. We have cut off all new American 
investments into their oil and gas sector, and our big oil and gas 
firms have withdrawn in droves.
  We have cut off the sophisticated technology Russia's refining 
industry needs and other technologies that have powered their 
industrial efforts.
  In all this, we make it clear: Russia cannot invade its neighbors, 
cannot kill civilians, cannot expect to benefit from being part of the 
international economic order.
  And again, this has been the leadership of President Biden and the 
State Department and the Defense Department and the Commerce Department 
and others and strong leadership that has pulled everybody together. 
The fact that we have put together this coalition so quickly, again, 
with countries that really haven't, since World War II, participated in 
anything like this--again, Sweden and Finland; Germany for the first 
time; Switzerland, which has been a neutral country since way before 
even you were born, Mr. President. So this has been a long time that 
these countries that were neutral are coming to the fore and making a 
difference for us.
  Putin's mistake will set back a generation or more. It will sever its 
main economic, political, and diplomatic ties with the West and 
countries around the world which want to have nothing to do with Putin 
and his regime.
  In Brussels tomorrow, the President is set to announce a major new 
wave of powerful sanctions, including against hundreds of members of 
the Russian Parliament, the duma, and other elites who have 
enthusiastically supported this brutal war.
  He will intensify American efforts, along with our allies, to impose 
further sanctions on any defense or intelligence or other Russian firms 
that have in any way supported this invasion, either directly or 
indirectly. Our goal is to reach everybody that has been part of 
Putin's machine, of Putin's war crimes.
  Every day, large teams at Treasury and the Department of Justice work 
with our allies to find and freeze and seize the assets of the 
oligarchs and other Russians who have supported Putin's war machine--
their yachts, their mansions, their overseas bank accounts. There will 
be no place to hide. All of that is vital. We can always do more.
  Russia should not have free and unlimited access to America's economy 
or to the global economy. The President has committed already--and one 
of the reasons we are here today--to end permanent normal trade 
relations with Russia so that they aren't permanent.
  We need to do our part to give the President the immediate legal 
authority he needs to work with our allies on this to shut off access 
to favorable tariff treatment for Russia's goods here and around the 
world.
  We should not delay this another day.
  The bill passed the House with a nearly unanimous bipartisan vote. We 
need to finalize this in the Senate so we can ratchet up the pressure 
further and cut off Russia's ability to finance any of its unprovoked 
invasion of another member country of the World Trade Organization.
  Even before this war, we knew that Russia, along with China, cheats 
on the rules of trade. They subsidize their industries, and they 
pollute the environment to gain an unfair advantage in the global 
market. My State, Ohio, knows all too well about being forced to 
compete with countries that cheat.
  If we don't remove this now, Russia will continue to use its status 
to position their industries in the global market, hurting American 
companies in the process.
  It is not a partisan issue. I introduced a bicameral, bipartisan bill 
with Senator Cassidy of Louisiana to remove Russia's permanent normal 
trade relation status. We did that almost a month ago. There is 
bipartisan support to do this quickly.
  I have worked with my colleague Senator Crapo from Idaho on many 
Russian sanction efforts over the years. I know we share the same 
goals.
  I am hopeful there is a path forward in getting this done today. He 
is arguing that an oil ban should be included in this, even though the 
President already issued an Executive order on this that is already in 
effect.
  I hope we can work out our differences quickly so we can send a 
clear, strong, unified message to Russia and to the world: Countries 
that invade another sovereign nation will not ever have free and 
unrestricted access to our economy. They will not be able to finance 
that invasion by continuing to cheat the rules on trade.
  It is time to come together to end permanent normal trade relations 
with Russia.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Gas Prices

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if you know anything about Michigan, you 
know we love our cars. We put the world on wheels, and we have been 
keeping Michigan moving ever since. But recently this love affair has 
hit a rough patch.
  Nearly everyone in Michigan drives--to work, to school, and to the 
lake on the weekends, and it is getting warmer and warmer to be able to 
do that. And high gas prices have made this Michigan way of life a lot 
more expensive.
  I am thinking of the driver who uses his own car to deliver meals and 
other essentials to families in Detroit. Gas prices have gone up so 
much, he is barely breaking even. I am thinking of the student who 
drives 40 minutes every day to attend classes at Michigan Tech in 
Houghton. She is training for a great career, but the price at the pump 
is cutting into the money she needs to pay her tuition and her rent. 
And I am thinking about farmers. Fuel is absolutely essential to power 
our tractors and produce fertilizer and keep the world fed.
  But income is tight even in the good times, and in the tight times, 
the folks who grow our food can struggle to fill their own 
refrigerators.
  High fuel prices hurt Michigan families, our businesses, and our 
economy. And that is why it is so frustrating when oil and gas 
companies make choices that keep prices high to boost their own bottom 
lines.
  It is true that part of the reason gas prices are so high is because 
demand is so high. Thanks to President Biden and Democrats in Congress, 
our economy came roaring back from COVID-19. Now, with all the 
challenges of the supply chains and the cost issues we are dealing 
with--but the foundation of our economy is strong, and that is a good 
thing.
  But a roaring economy requires energy, and production isn't keeping 
pace. It is not that we don't have enough oil. In fact, the United 
States is the world's largest oil-producing country. And we could be 
producing more. There are currently 9,000 approved oil leases that the 
oil companies aren't even using. Yet the oil companies have made a 
conscious decision to hold back production, to raise prices, and pad 
the pockets of their shareholders. One CEO even admitted as much last 
month when he said that his company is ``capturing value from higher 
prices for gas.''
  Let me translate that. ``Capturing value from high prices for gas'' 
really means taking money out of your pocket and my pocket and putting 
it into the pockets of their shareholders.
  It is working for them. His company's revenue nearly tripled during 
the fourth quarter, and they are not alone. In fact, the 25 largest oil 
and gas companies raked in $205 billion in profits last year--$205 
billion in profits last year--while price-gouging now at the pump.
  And they used that money to buy back $40 billion of their own stock 
and pay their shareholders and top executives $50 billion in dividends. 
And they are not particularly eager to pass on any savings to anybody 
else, unfortunately.
  It is interesting. The last time a barrel of oil was $96, gas was 
$3.62 a gallon. Last week, a barrel of oil was again $96, but this time 
gas was $4.31 a gallon.
  What is the difference?
  Well, the truth is, they set the price based on what they can get 
away with,

[[Page S1726]]

arguing a global economy and supply and so on, a supply which they 
determine, and they set the price with what they think they can get. 
And that is called price-gouging right now; taking advantage of 
situations around the world, our willingness to sacrifice to be part of 
supporting the Ukrainians and what is happening.
  And instead of doing their part to maybe say: OK, $205 billion in 
profits last year, pretty good. OK. Maybe we can, like, do our part 
here--instead, the prices at the pump go up and up and up, and it has 
got to stop.
  A single mom of three in Michigan is standing at a gas pump right now 
with a knot in her stomach, watching her bill go up and up and her 
monthly budget for everything else go down.
  So that is the problem. What is the solution?
  First of all, the Senate Commerce Committee is calling for the CEOs 
of the major oil companies to testify before the committee, and I am 
really looking forward to that hearing and what they have to say for 
themselves on why. I want to thank the chairwoman, Chairwoman Cantwell, 
and the committee for their leadership.
  Secondly, I introduced the Gas Prices Relief Act with a number of my 
Democratic colleagues. This gas tax holiday is immediate relief--yes, 
short term, but it would save Michigan drivers nearly $650 million at 
the pump this year.
  I also think it is about time to stop subsidizing these oil companies 
that are doing just fine on their own. They don't need our tax dollars 
to subsidize them anymore. For more than 100 years, Congress has given 
major, permanent tax benefits to the fossil fuel industry. This decade, 
they have received $35 billion in fossil fuel-related tax breaks. Do 
the American people really need to keep subsidizing an industry whose 
pollution is responsible for creating the global climate crisis, all 
the while enjoying record profits and picking people's pockets? The 
answer is no. Yet our Republican colleagues stand with the oil 
companies over and over again.
  I just came from an Environmental and Public Works Committee meeting 
on this very topic and heard over and over again the rationale for 
letting the oil and gas companies keep doing what they are already 
doing with no accountability and no real effort for us to move in the 
direction of clean energy where we need to move.
  Most importantly, it is time to shift to new clean sources of energy. 
For more than 100 years, scientists have known that burning fossil 
fuels creates carbon pollution that builds up in our atmosphere, and 
that traps heat. It just stays there. For more than 100 years, we just 
kept on burning fossil fuels anyway. And the industry has spent 
billions trying to convince us it is not really happening. We really 
aren't seeing the climate change. No, this isn't happening. Don't look 
up.
  Well, it is time for a change. We can start by using more homegrown 
and cleaner burning biofuels to save consumers money. It is time to 
allow the year-round sale of E15--a change I have encouraged the 
administration to make. According to the Renewable Fuels Association, 
E15 is 10 to 15 cents per gallon less than standard gasoline and 
cleaner.
  There is no time like the present to accelerate our shift to clean 
energy production, which I know the Presiding Officer cares deeply 
about and has been a leader in, and the use of electric vehicles. We 
know that part of that is moving to clean energy electricity--power as 
well as electric transportation. Both are very, very important.
  Buying an amazing Michigan-made EV means you can drive right on by 
the gas station. You don't even have to stop. That is what I am looking 
forward to. You don't even have to pay attention to what is on the 
sign--won't matter.
  The exciting thing is, we can take action to make this happen more 
quickly by ensuring that electric vehicles are affordable for more 
families and, critically, that they are built right here in America--
not in China, not somewhere else around the world, in America--and I am 
laser-focused on making that happen.
  The good news is, we will tackle the climate crisis at the same time 
because the transportation sector is the single largest source of 
carbon pollution.
  Shockingly, a few weeks ago, a fossil fuel executive said this about 
his industry:

       You've made a promise to be more disciplined about getting 
     cash back to shareholders with these dividends. The question 
     is, are you going to keep your promise? Or are you going to 
     be patriotic?

  Hmm. It is pretty clear whose side the oil companies are on, and it 
isn't the side of the American people. It is time for them to stop 
price-gouging and try a little patriotism.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                                 Putin

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, tomorrow will be 1 month since Putin 
started his war in Ukraine. Every day, we get a chance to see that war 
being fought on our TV, so I want to tell you what I have seen in 1 
month of viewing the war in Ukraine or what I have heard from people 
who report on that war in Ukraine.
  Putin is a child killer.
  Putin kills hospital patients.
  Putin is a bully.
  Putin kills elderly people.
  Putin kills pregnant mothers and their babies.
  Putin has uprooted at least 10 million people.
  Putin deliberately shells residential areas.
  Putin shells shopping centers.
  Putin shells apartment buildings.
  Putin destroys historic buildings.
  Putin bombs theaters.
  Putin bombs hospitals.
  Putin destroys cultural heritage.
  Putin threatens world peace.
  Putin silences dissent.
  Putin threatens nuclear war.
  Putin starts war to boost his popularity.
  Putin jails his political opponents.
  Putin jails citizens speaking against the war.
  Putin twists history.
  Putin is consumed with power.
  Putin feeds off corruption.
  Putin is acting like a true Nazi.
  Putin kills to feed his ego.
  Putin lies to his own people and the world.
  Putin admires Stalin.
  Putin acts like Stalin.
  Putin forcefully deports civilians, like Stalin.
  Putin is intentionally starving Ukrainian civilians, like Stalin.
  Putin is destroying families.
  Putin reintroduced mass graves to Europe--no different than the 
executions of 20,000 Polish generals and soldiers at Katyn Forest in 
1940.
  Putin lies to mothers of Russian soldiers.
  Putin poisons with impunity, particularly people whom he considers 
traitors.
  Putin came to power by bombing Russian apartments and blaming 
Chechens.
  Putin is still KGB.
  Putin lied before invading Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula.
  Putin lied about Russian troops in the Donbas.
  Putin lied that he would not invade the rest of Ukraine.
  Putin lies that NATO had anything to do with his decision to invade.
  Putin thinks Ukraine isn't a real country.
  Putin thinks other Eastern European countries belong to Russia.
  Putin thinks Ukrainians are lesser people than Russians.
  Putin is afraid of his own people.
  Putin imprisons political opponents.
  Putin is afraid of Ukrainian democracy.
  Putin got rich by stealing from Russians.
  Putin is destroying his own country.
  Putin has damaged the global economy.
  Putin uses banned weapons against civilians.
  Putin kidnapped Ukrainian mayors.
  Putin tries to assassinate Ukrainian President Zelenskyy.
  Putin has troops fire on humanitarian corridors.
  Putin is in bed with organized crime.
  Putin supports America's enemies.
  Putin has made the Russian Orthodox Church a tool of state power.
  Putin oppresses religious minorities.
  Putin has forced labor camps for prisoners.
  Putin has people who support him or just follow orders or who are 
afraid to speak up, just like Hitler did.

[[Page S1727]]

  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Judge Ketanji 
Brown Jackson, President Biden's nominee to be an Associate Justice of 
the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Judge Jackson brings an exceptional level of experience to the bench. 
After serving for nearly 8 years on the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia, Jackson has more trial court experience than any 
sitting Supreme Court Justice and more than almost any Justice in a 
century. She will also be only the second sitting Justice to have 
served on all three levels of the Federal judiciary.
  Judge Jackson's nomination is historic. If confirmed, she will be the 
first Black woman to sit on the Supreme Court, bringing a long overdue 
representation to the Bench. After serving as an assistant Federal 
public defender in Washington, DC, Judge Jackson will also be the first 
former Federal public defender to serve on our Nation's highest Court.
  It matters that someone nominated to sit on our Nation's highest 
Court has represented people other than corporate clients. It matters 
that someone nominated has had real experience with people who can't 
afford lawyers. It matters that someone nominated has had real 
experience in fighting for the public interest.
  The Sixth Amendment of our Constitution grants criminal defendants 
the right to have the assistance of counsel in their defenses, but it 
wasn't until 1963, in Gideon v. Wainwright, that the Supreme Court 
unanimously ruled that the Constitution required State courts to 
appoint lawyers for defendants who could not otherwise afford one.
  Now, some Republicans have complained about the very idea of having a 
public defender on the Supreme Court, but their objections run squarely 
afoul of the meaning of the Constitution. This fundamental 
constitutional right to counsel is safeguarded by the work public 
defenders do every single day. Public defenders are literally on the 
frontlines of helping America live up to our constitutional ideals. 
Every American who supports and defends the Constitution should welcome 
a Supreme Court Justice who has worked so hard to turn our 
constitutional ideals into reality.
  When asked about her work as a public defender, Judge Jackson said:

       Every person who is accused of criminal conduct by the 
     government, regardless of wealth and despite the nature of 
     the accusations, is entitled to the assistance of counsel.

  Judge Jackson restates a foundational constitutional point, one that 
she has lived--up close and personal.
  Public defenders understand better than anyone that none of us should 
be defined by the worst thing we have ever done. Everyone, regardless 
of who they are or what they have been accused of, deserves a lawyer. 
Our legal system, as imperfect as it may be, strives to deliver equal 
justice under law. It is only because of the commitment of public 
defenders, civil rights attorneys, and legal aid lawyers that we can 
aspire to achieving that ideal.
  That is why we need Judge Jackson's expertise on the Supreme Court, 
and that is why, for a long time now, I have called for prioritizing 
professional diversity on our Federal bench.
  For far too long, our Federal judiciary has been dominated by those 
who only have experience representing the wealthy and well connected, 
but what about those who don't have money or influence? We need more 
judges with experience in representing the voiceless and the 
disadvantaged. The makeup of our Federal and State courts has never 
fully reflected the American people. Over time, this lack of 
representation has formed cracks in the foundation of our legal 
system--cracks that weaken public trust and threaten the legitimacy of 
our institutions.
  A diverse judiciary matters. Judges--all judges--draw on their past 
personal and professional experiences when analyzing the law and 
reviewing the facts of individual cases. Judges who have experience as 
public defenders, civil rights attorneys, and legal aid lawyers are 
well equipped to understand the circumstances that bring everyday 
Americans into courtrooms. It is that background that strengthens 
public trust and that reinforces the legitimacy of our judicial system.
  Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said it best:

       If the court doesn't have legitimacy with the American 
     public, it can't do all that much. All kinds of different 
     people should be able to look at the court and say, ``I see 
     somebody there who looks like me, who thinks the way I do, 
     who has experiences of the kind that I had.'' And that's the 
     kind of thing that gives the court public legitimacy.

  Justice Kagan is right. Our judiciary will, undoubtedly, be made 
stronger because of Judge Jackson's confirmation to the Supreme Court.
  It is not only her work as a public defender that informs Judge 
Jackson's experience. Prior to joining the bench, Judge Jackson served 
first as an assistant special counsel and, later, as the Vice Chair of 
the U.S. Sentencing Commission. These experiences give her deep insight 
into the sentencing guidelines and enhance her ability to think 
critically about our criminal legal system's impact on ordinary people.
  Judge Jackson's first stint on the Commission inspired her to become 
an assistant Federal public defender in order to gain practical, 
firsthand insight into our criminal legal system. Her work in the 
trenches, representing those without means or power, provided Judge 
Jackson with an invaluable perspective into our system of justice, and 
it gave her the opportunity to effectuate the fundamental right to 
counsel, which is outlined in our Constitution.
  I look forward to supporting her confirmation, and I urge all of my 
colleagues to do the same.
  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.
  Ms. ERNST. 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

  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I returned to the United States Sunday 
night after leading a bipartisan Senate delegation visit to Poland and 
Germany. Ten Senators--Republicans and Democrats--traveled together to 
demonstrate America's unwavering support for the freedom-loving people 
of Ukraine and affirm the strength of the world's most powerful 
alliance.
  I will never forget an engagement with Ukrainian civil society 
leaders. This group of passionate, strong women demonstrated Ukraine's 
spirit and their will to fight. They delivered a very clear message to 
the United States. They said that Ukraine can win, but they need more 
lethal aid delivered now.
  Our bipartisan delegation departed with the conviction that the 
United States, Ukraine, and the free world have the will and the means 
to stop Vladimir Putin's tyranny. I am here on the Senate floor today 
to state my belief that Ukraine will beat back Vladimir Putin's bloody 
invasion. They will throw the Russian army out of their country, and 
they will declare victory over this lawless criminal incursion.
  Folks, Ukraine can win this war. When the shooting is over, the 
Russian military will be broken, and the Russian economy will 
collapse--consequences brought about by Putin's chosen isolation and 
rejection of the free world. He and his cronies, their futures are not 
bright either. Putin's propaganda media machine will break down. He 
will be marked by the international community as a war criminal and, I 
predict, will be held accountable by his own people. His best days are 
behind him. Freedom will win.
  Most of us thought these outcomes were improbable just a few weeks 
ago. The President's policymakers circulated intelligence assessments 
in the first days of the invasion which concluded unequivocally that 
Ukraine didn't stand a chance. They predicted Putin would topple Kyiv 
within 3 to 5 days. Tomorrow marks 1 month since the start of the war. 
The Russian military is disorganized and demoralized.

[[Page S1728]]

Four separate divisions are all competing for logistics resupply.
  Putin knows he is losing, and he is panicking. He jailed his deputy 
chief of intelligence, and his military is burning the bodies of their 
Russian casualties. Russia's manpower and ammunition are tapping out 
while, on the other side, Ukraine's forces are hanging tough.
  The weapons the United States and our allies and partners provided 
are being deployed with lethal proficiency. The frontlines have been 
frozen for over a week, and Russian casualties are greater than 1,000 a 
day.
  Ukrainians are intercepting unclassified calls and eliminating 
Russian field commanders. Most crucially, the Ukrainian people are 
ready to fight to the last man. The Russian army is a force of teenaged 
conscripts, subjects of an authoritarian war criminal whose delusions 
of grandeur about the old Soviet Union drove this invasion. The 
Ukrainian army is made up of free citizens who chose freedom over 
Russian tyranny. Putin's invasion doesn't change Ukraine's choice, and 
they will not go quietly.
  Given all of this, has the United States shifted its strategy? Do we 
believe we can help make a Ukrainian victory a near certainty? We all 
know why we must come to Ukraine's aid. This body's memory is not that 
short. The United States is an agreement-bound partner with Ukraine. We 
entered into an agreement. We are their partners.

  In 1994, Ukraine dismantled and surrendered its nuclear armament 
entirely in exchange for our security guarantee--the protection of the 
world's greatest superpower. Our agreement resulted in a prosperous 
Ukraine and made the world a much, much safer place.
  Before Vladimir Putin attempted to snuff it out for good 3 weeks ago, 
the American people and the world benefited from the breadbasket of 
Europe's vital agricultural sector and energy production. Ukraine has 
been an invaluable economic and security partner for nearly 30 years.
  Putin is not only testing that agreement today in the streets of 
Kyiv, Mariupol, and Kharkiv, he wants to break freedom's momentum all 
around the globe. Folks, we can't allow that to happen. We must not.
  If it has not been made clear enough already, an unshakeable 
commitment to allies and partners keeps Americans prosperous and our 
families safe. Authoritarians--whether it is the Taliban, Vladimir 
Putin, Xi Jinping, the terrorists who rule Iran--they cannot dictate 
terms to our security and our economy. We still are the world's 
superpower 28 years after we made a security agreement with Ukraine. 
America cannot be pushed around.
  We also know how we can come to Ukraine's aid. Congress just passed 
$14 billion of support for Ukraine, which included nearly $2 billion of 
lethal weaponry. That aid--those weapons and that logistical support--
must flow right now. I fought for a provision in the aid package that 
allows the President to draw down on pre-positioned military equipment, 
and I will be ensuring he follows through and gets these weapons into 
Ukrainian hands. There is no excuse for American inaction.
  The Commander in Chief now has the authority to transfer pre-
positioned weapons and logistical support, including as many as 40 
Soviet-style helicopters purchased for Afghan security forces, to the 
Ukrainians. America's commitment to Ukraine and our NATO allies demands 
we expedite the delivery of weapons and capabilities to Ukraine. Any 
delay due to the fears of escalation is reflective of a doctrine of 
appeasement that will only further embolden our adversaries.
  Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby said recently that success for 
the U.S. mission in Ukraine is, at the end of the conflict, a free and 
independent, sovereign Ukraine.
  Folks, I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment, but if that is our 
mission, America has to provide more support to enable Ukraine to win 
this war. We cannot hold back. The U.S. mission in Ukraine must go 
beyond ensuring the country merely has the means to defeat itself--
defend itself against Russian aggression, defeat the Russians. Now is 
not the time to be risk-averse.
  This administration did little to deter Putin's march on Kyiv, an 
invasion set in motion as early as April 2021. President Biden lifted 
sanctions on Nord Stream 2, framed the United States-Russia 
relationship as stable and predictable as late as June of last year, 
and canceled European Command military exercises calling them ``too 
provocative.''
  Public opinion, Congress, and even European nations have hammered, 
begged, dragged, and pushed the Biden administration to action. From 
economic sanctions to the Russian oil ban, the administration has led 
from behind and from a position of weakness.
  Take the Polish MiG debacle; three Sundays ago, Secretary Blinken 
gave Poland a green light to transfer MiG fighter jets to Ukraine. The 
following Tuesday, the White House did a flip and rejected the transfer 
of planes out of fear Putin would see the move as escalatory. Forty-one 
Republicans joined my letter voicing displeasure to the President for 
his failure to act. Letting an adversary define your military's rules 
of engagement, letting the aggressor dictate the boundaries of our 
response is not just a folly, it is suicidal.
  The administration crossed their fingers and hoped Putin would play 
nice. Well, folks, we know Putin. He didn't play nice, and deterrence 
failed. But the failure of this administration's doctrine of 
appeasement doesn't mean Ukraine will lose the war.

  I commend actions taken to shore up the NATO alliance following the 
invasion, but our Commander in Chief must now lead and give Ukraine the 
means to win. If he is to continue being the most powerful man in the 
free world, he must act as such.
  Delaying the loss of Ukraine to Vladimir Putin is not a strategy. 
Success is not a Russian-occupied Ukraine. Success is not a protracted 
insurgency. Success is a free, independent, and sovereign Ukraine. 
Defending freedom in Ukraine is defending freedom everywhere. 
Authoritarianism cannot prevail in this conflict.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Rosen). The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam President, I would like to thank my fellow 
Senator, Senator Ernst from Iowa, for leading the delegation trip that 
we took this past weekend, the bipartisan delegation. It was most 
informative, impactful, and she did a wonderful job leading that. I was 
proud of the efforts.
  I am here to join my colleagues today to discuss the invasion--the 
unjust and immoral invasion of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin--in light of 
the trip that we just took to Germany and to Poland. In a way, I am 
kind of hesitant to do so, not because there isn't a lot to say or a 
lot to share but because of the powerful words that some of the 
Ukrainians whom we met implored us, which was: Enough talking. It is 
time to act.
  I could not agree more. But out of deep respect for them, I would 
like to take a moment to make sure we all understand why we have to act 
and why we must act now.
  As Americans, you realize this when you talk to--we did, certainly, 
when we were talking with Germans and other Europeans. We don't have 
the same perspective sometimes that Europeans have who faced World War 
II. One of the most powerful comments conveyed when we were meeting 
with German officials was that their new generation who has heard for 
decades about the atrocities from their parents and their 
grandparents--they were told this would never happen again. And yet 
what we see is that it is happening again.
  This is an unjust war, and there seems to be no level of atrocity 
that Vladimir Putin is unwilling to commit. Putin overestimated his 
ability, his army, his ability to conquer. ``This must be over in 3 
days,'' according to him. He overestimated his own abilities, and he 
grossly underestimated the will of the Ukrainian people and the will to 
not just live but to live freely.
  On top of this, Putin has also failed to understand the commitment of 
the free world--of NATO--to stand up for freedom. We certainly saw that 
over the last several days.
  We, in our Nation and in our history, know that freedom is worth 
fighting for, and it is also worth defending. Generations have done 
this in our past and will do this in the future. We believe this to our 
core.

[[Page S1729]]

  We also believe that the deliberate and evil bombing of hospitals, 
targeting supply routes, and killing civilians are the actions of war 
criminals.
  But in the face of all of this evil, we see hope. We see hope from 
the Ukrainian people; we see hope from the Ukrainian leadership; we see 
hope from the Ukrainian military; and we see hope in our own military 
forces as a part of NATO, including all nations of NATO as well as the 
generosity of people around the world, the nongovernmental 
organizations we saw helping at the refugee center, and, most 
especially, the Polish people. We saw them stepping in militarily. And 
on the humanitarian side, we saw an incredible outpouring. We saw 
this firsthand at the refugee center.

  Poland has now taken in over 2 million people into their country, 
which is more than the entire population of my State. During our trip, 
as I said, we visited the refugee center where Ukrainians are going 
first to be processed as they are leaving and having to flee their 
country. After this, they end up not at another refugee center but most 
likely in somebody's home or a friend's. That is the level of care and 
support that they are receiving. And that is the level of care and 
support that they deserve as a tribute of their willingness to fight 
and defend their freedom. Many of these women and children--mostly 
women and children--are leaving their husbands and their homes behind.
  Ukraine is united. As we were told, Ukraine will fight to the last 
man. May it never come to the last man because the free world must 
help. Make no mistake, the United States of America has chosen a side. 
We side with freedom. We side with the people of Ukraine.
  Just a few weeks ago, Congress passed $14 billion in support for 
Ukraine and Central European allies amid Putin's unprovoked war. It is 
critical to get these funds and equipment to them now because time is 
of the essence.
  As an example, Congress took an extra week to pass this package. When 
you are there on the ground talking to the leadership who are trying to 
push back on Putin, a week is a lifetime--a week is a lifetime. So we 
cannot afford to hesitate or to cause inaction.
  In our efforts to get them funds--lethal aid--and to oppose sanctions 
on Russia, we must act now and keep acting.
  Madam President, as you know--you were on the trip, as well--we met 
with diplomats and generals, representatives from many of our executive 
branch Agencies, NGOs, brave soldiers, including many from our home 
States. But I will never forget the words of a woman we met named 
Katarina, whom we met at the refugee processing center. She said, in 
desperate tones, she didn't want to leave Ukraine. She didn't want to 
leave her home. She wants to live in freedom and peace, but she has a 
6-year-old and 8-year-old who are constantly hearing the sirens of bomb 
alerts, the sounds of bombing--just the violence. She had no choice. 
She had to leave to protect her children.
  Let's do what we can, as much as we can, and as fast as we can--and 
that last part is critical--to return freedom to Ukraine and justice to 
those who do not respect the sovereignty of nations. This is really 
what we owe every child in Ukraine, in Germany, in Poland, and in the 
United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, on February 24, approximately 1 month 
ago, Vladimir Putin launched an unprovoked and unjustified war against 
his neighbor, the free, democratic, and sovereign nation of Ukraine.
  The bipartisan Senate delegation visit to Europe led by Senator Ernst 
that I joined over this past weekend was truly extraordinary. It has 
reinforced my already strong belief that the United States must do all 
that it can to provide lethal aid to the courageous Ukrainians fighting 
for their families and their freedom, as well as to provide the 
humanitarian assistance necessary to ease the suffering of the 
Ukrainian people.
  The Presiding Officer was on this trip, as well.
  Like the Senator from West Virginia, who just spoke, my most 
memorable conversation was with a young mother named Katarina, who had 
two children, one age 8 and one age 6, with her. I met her at the 
Polish refugee welcome center. It was only a few miles from the 
Ukrainian border.
  She said to me:

       I want to live in peace. I want to be back in Ukraine, but 
     I have to keep my children safe.

  She was weary-looking but determined to keep her children safe. This 
young mother and her two children were leaving the only country she had 
ever known. She left her husband behind, not knowing when or if she 
would see him again--all in order to keep her children safe.
  We have only to watch the scenes of what Putin is doing to try to 
destroy Ukraine and to break the will of its people. He has bombed 
apartment buildings, schools, theaters, shelters, humanitarian 
corridors. He has bombed a maternity hospital. What does that tell you 
about this man, this war criminal? What more do we need to know?
  The only way that we can end this humanitarian crisis is to provide 
Ukraine with the weapons, supplies, ammunition, and other assistance 
that they need to bring to an end this Russian war of aggression. We 
must provide, without further delay, the Ukrainians with the MiG 
fighter aircraft that have been held up by this administration and 
which Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has requested. We must ensure that 
Ukraine receives additional anti-aircraft defenses, including the S-
300, whether directly from our stocks or those of our allies.
  We must ensure that the Ukrainians have the means to fight and defend 
their people from these ongoing atrocities ordered by Putin. And we 
know of--we saw firsthand--their extraordinary bravery, their 
determination to fight for their country, to put everything they have 
on the line.
  Every moment, every hour, every day counts. We do not have time for 
endless debate and delay that costs the lives of innocent Ukrainians. 
As the Ukrainian leader told us, the administration must stop telling 
Putin what America will not do. It must say what we will do.
  The administration should also make every effort in collaboration 
with Congress, when necessary, to ease the process of allowing 
Ukrainians with family members here in America to come stay with them 
until it is safe to return home. I know many Mainers are eager to help.
  Finally, I want to acknowledge the terrific American soldiers that we 
met, including several from the great State of Maine. Many of them left 
their families with days' or even hours' notice over the past few 
weeks. They rapidly deployed to Germany, Poland, and other NATO allies 
to deter Russia's aggression and defend these NATO members from any 
Russian threats. Each of these members of our military were motivated, 
patriotic, and impressive, and I am so grateful for their service.
  I have read that President Biden is considering stationing our troops 
close to the frontline to send an unmistakable message to the Russians 
on a more permanent basis, and I hope that he will indeed do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, it is a privilege to be here on the 
Senate floor speaking to Kansans and to Americans, to Vladimir Putin 
and to Ukrainians, and to the rest of the world, our allies, our 
friends, and our adversaries. It is a privilege to be here with the 
opportunity of speaking with one voice.
  As we know, that does not happen frequently enough in the U.S. 
Senate, but the Presiding Officer was on this trip with us to Eastern 
Europe and to the Ukrainian border, and my colleagues here on the 
Senate floor--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents; Members of the 
U.S. Senate, together--saw what we saw and resolved what we resolved 
together.
  I am so pleased that that is the case. Particularly our adversaries, 
but clearly our allies, as well, must know that this is not a 
Democratic or Republican issue. It is an American issue. It is a world 
issue. It is something about freedom that transcends any of the 
differences that we have here in the United States or in the U.S. 
Senate.
  And every day matters. While it is important for us to bring our 
report

[[Page S1730]]

home to our colleagues and to our constituents about what we saw, what 
we heard, and what, most importantly, we felt, it is important that we 
act.
  Remember the Ukrainian citizens who told us: It is OK to proclamate. 
It is OK to have a statement. It is OK to pass a resolution. But what 
we need is action.
  Every day matters in the fight against Vladimir Putin's unprovoked, 
unjust, and immoral invasion of Ukraine.
  To any of the people who say Ukraine is at fault here, I cast all 
doubt about that. That is not the case. What is happening in Ukraine, 
what is happening in Eastern Europe, and what may happen beyond the 
borders of Ukraine is the result of an evil man named Vladimir Putin.
  The United States--this administration--must stop telling Putin what 
we won't do. Don't ever tell our adversaries: We are not going to do 
this.
  It makes absolutely no sense.
  But we do need to do what we said we will do and even more.
  Our slow bureaucratic march to provide aid is not keeping up with the 
Russian forces. I dread when I get up in the morning, each morning, 
before, but especially after, I returned from the Ukrainian border. I 
dread turning on the television to see what the latest news is and what 
the sights are from Ukraine, only to find more onslaught, more death, 
more destruction.
  Every minute, every day matters. We have delayed ourselves in 
providing financial sanctions and in imposing financial sanctions. We 
were slow in energy sanctions, and we were slow in getting a defensive 
military package in place. But we are moving now.
  This Congress has reached its conclusions about the importance of 
these things. This administration has acted, but the things that we 
have promised, apparently, still have not in total reached Ukraine.
  How difficult it must be to be a Ukrainian, knowing that something is 
coming from the outside world to help? While I get up and dread the 
news of the day, every moment in their lives has to be the expectation, 
the hope that something is going to arrive today to bring this 
incursion, this massacre, this death and destruction to an end.
  If you are a parent in Ukraine, it is not about what you see on the 
nightly news, on the morning news. It is about how am I going to save 
my children's lives today? What is going to occur in a few moments? And 
our answer can't be: It is coming. We will be there later.
  It has to be: We are there now.
  The defensive military package includes Stinger anti-aircraft 
systems, Javelin anti-armor weapon systems, tactical unmanned aerial 
systems, grenade launchers, firearms, ammunition, and body armor and 
helmets. But they must be delivered. They mean nothing on a list. They 
mean nothing on a piece of paper that says we are shipping these 
things, on a bill of lading. They mean nothing en route to Ukraine. 
They mean something when they are in the hands of the Ukrainians that 
we know to be committed, brave, persistent, undeterred.

  You know in visiting, the Senator spoke about the military men and 
women we have seen from our own country and what an inspiration they 
are and how much we appreciate their service and their sacrifice and 
their families back here in Kansas and across the country.
  Our military men and women from Kansas have been training Ukrainians 
over the last several years, and even they are amazed that, despite 
their relationships and training with the Ukrainian soldiers, how 
successful they are. I think, unfortunately, in this country we thought 
that this invasion would last a few days and that it would be over and 
the Ukrainian people decimated or surrendered.
  And so our expectations, apparently, were that we were not necessary, 
that we were not a solution to this problem. The course of events is 
already predetermined, but the human spirit defies all expectations--
the human spirit of the Ukrainian people, the tremendous leadership.
  My experience suggests to me the value of a leader. You can have 
highly trained soldiers, but if you don't have leaders who inspire, 
their abilities to succeed, their abilities to persevere disappear. And 
President Zelenskyy has been the role model.
  My guess is that citizens around the world look at Zelenskyy and say: 
Oh, that is the kind of clear leadership, determination that we need--
clear spoken, clear acting, not running, fighting the fight.
  We must make certain--this is a moral issue, Americans, the world. If 
you think that the war was going to be over in a few days, you may have 
a different attitude. But now that we know that it is not, we have to 
provide the military equipment, the means for the Ukrainian people, 
their military, their civilians, not just to survive another day but to 
win the war. How immoral it is to provide just enough to live but not 
enough to win.
  What we saw on the Polish-Ukrainian border is the impact of Putin's 
war to these people, to the people of Ukraine, to the people of the 
neighboring countries--the fear that our NATO allies have that Ukraine 
may not be next. Not only do we need to provide the equipment and 
support for Ukrainians to win for purposes of the Ukrainian people, but 
if Putin doesn't pay the price, if he feels that he is all-empowered 
after his march through Ukraine, I have no level of comfort that he 
stops at the Ukrainian border.
  I am saddened by what I saw: the human suffering, the tragedies. We 
all have kids and grandkids. And we saw Ukrainian children; we saw 
parents who love them but had to give them up for their safety and 
security. We saw families--wives who love their husbands, spouses who 
love each other but departing because dad, brother needs to stay behind 
to fight the fight.
  And on the other hand, there was the tremendous relief in seeing the 
response by others. It happens often in crises around the world, when 
Americans and others--the whole world--resolve to help people in these 
circumstances.
  But this is not a flood; this is not is tsunami; this is not an 
earthquake. The sadness of this comes from: This is unnecessary. This 
is one man's evil actions causing the desperation and death, the 
tragedy, in Ukraine.
  And we should know that it doesn't end at the Ukrainian borders. Even 
if Putin doesn't cross the border, the hunger, the starvation, the lack 
of food around the world--Ukraine is the breadbasket of Europe, and its 
ability to feed itself and its ability to feed the rest of the world is 
disappearing.
  We will see the need for assistance and humanitarian aid in countries 
around the globe only increase at a time in which there is famine in so 
many places.
  It is a circumstance caused by a tyrant, whose actions will not just 
affect Ukrainian people, but the rest of the world.
  We must be unified with our NATO allies. And it was so pleasing to 
see the NATO countries who now recognize the importance of NATO and are 
stepping up to fulfill their commitments, in support of the Ukrainians, 
but in support of this pact that at the end of World War II, across the 
Atlantic, it was decided that America had a role to play, but we could 
only play that role with the cooperation of others.
  It is still true today. America has a role to play, but we need 
friends and allies, and we made our commitment to NATO. They, too, need 
to know that America will be steadfast. We can demonstrate that by 
being steadfast in Ukraine.
  It is immoral, it is death causing, it is damning should the United 
States of America fail in its obligations.
  I will conclude with the story I have told before. It comes from 
watching the news--something I try to avoid doing--about the reporter 
who is asking what appears to me to be a 10-, 11-year-old boy in a 
Ukrainian orphanage that question we often ask young people: What do 
you want to be when you grow up?
  This little boy, through an interpreter, answered that question, What 
do I want to be when I grow up? His response was: I want to be an 
American.
  What does that tell us about us? Americans? It tells us that we are 
still something special. We still matter. The rest of the world still 
pays attention to us, and an 11-year-old boy across the globe knows 
enough about us to know that is what he wants to be.
  That should make us feel proud as Americans, but it also ought to 
make us accept and fulfill our responsibilities.

[[Page S1731]]

  No 11-year-old boy in an orphanage in Ukraine ought to be in an 
orphanage in Ukraine. And we, our allies, must fulfill our 
responsibilities of what it is to be an American.
  Madam President, I offer my willingness to work with you and everyone 
in this U.S. Senate, the Congress, and the administration to make sure 
that, knowing that there are people in the world who know what they 
want when they grow up is to be an American, to do my part to make sure 
that America is the place and an American is who you would want to be.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Madam President, let me start by thanking the junior 
Senator from Iowa for her leadership.
  I thank Senator Ernst for fighting for freedom. Thanks for showing me 
the way to continue to fight for those who need help.
  This weekend, together, we witnessed the worst of mankind, but we 
also saw the best of humankind, and that would be the Polish people and 
the job that they have done welcoming--yes, welcoming--almost a million 
refugees from Ukraine over a period of about 2 weeks.
  They didn't just welcome them. They gave them food; they gave them 
clothing and shelter. And then more than that, they helped process them 
and get them to a location, to a friend, to a relative, buying them 
plane tickets, putting them on trains.
  I have done missionary healthcare work all across the world, and what 
we saw the Polish people doing there was absolutely incredible. Half of 
the Polish people have taken a refugee into their own homes.

  But like I said, we also witnessed the worst of humankind, the worst 
of mankind, and that would be Vladimir Putin's war on the people of 
Ukraine.
  One Ukrainian woman--her name was Olena--whom I spoke with said:

       The Russians are attacking Ukraine from the north, from the 
     east, and the south. With their missiles, they can reach 
     every place of our country--there is no safe place in Ukraine 
     any more. Everything can be targeted: hospitals, 
     kindergartens, maternity wards, hospitals, everything.

  And another Ukrainian we spoke to, Daria, said:

       In the city of Mariupol, almost every single building was 
     hit by a Russian bomb or a Russian missile. People are 
     residing in bomb shelters. They are cut from electricity. 
     They are cut from aid, food, and from water. They are melting 
     snow to drink water. Russians are deliberately throwing bombs 
     into hospitals.

  And, again, I am quoting Daria.

       There is only one hospital remaining. One of the hospitals 
     was a maternity hospital. Men were trying to evacuate a woman 
     who was in labor, and she died with her unborn baby. Another 
     pregnant woman--her name was Mariana--was going down the 
     stairs. She survived. She gave birth. They don't have food 
     now to feed the mother. I don't know if the baby girl is 
     still alive. There are thousands of people dead, but it's 
     impossible to bury them. The bodies--it's a horror movie 
     which is happening--people are dead on the streets.

  These stories are heart-wrenching, and there is no doubt the world 
needs to step up and we need Europe to lead. And I am so proud to 
report the buzz across Europe and the buzz across Germany as we landed, 
that the Germans are committed once again to this transatlantic 
partnership and a willingness to commit dollars and funds to this NATO 
alliance and to the security of the world.
  That said, there is so much more that we can still do short of boots 
on the ground. And like my Ukrainian friends remind me: This war didn't 
start with Russia on February 24.
  And this is Olena again. She said the weakness of the United States 
started much earlier:

       Since the beginning of November, we've been shouting out 
     loud to help arm Ukraine, sanction Nord Stream 2--why did the 
     U.S. lift sanctions on Nord Stream 2 and basically give the 
     green light for Putin to move forward in Ukraine? We clearly 
     warned that that might happen--we were not heard.

  Earlier this month, the Ukrainians said that they met with Secretary 
Blinkin and they begged him to please send air defense systems now. But 
weeks later, they still don't have them. This is day No. 26 since 
Russia invaded, and the Ukrainians are telling us they are not seeing 
any American weapons yet.
  I asked them to describe to me what they needed to win this war, and 
their answer was very simple: maximum military assistance as it relates 
to weapons, including, MiGs, A-10s, Javelins, Stingers, drones.
  Look, the Ukrainians can win this ground war, but the problem is 
Russia is launching bombs from their own airspace, from their own land, 
from the seas as well. What they need are missiles that will intercept 
the Russian bombs.
  Another Polish woman we met said:

       We were ready as Poland to give these MiGs--

  This is a Polish woman speaking now.

       We were ready as Poland to give them the MiGs, but the 
     Biden administration didn't want us to provide them. And what 
     happened--instead of consulting us, the Biden administration 
     decided to go public without the Polish Government even 
     knowing that this was the case.

  The impression in Ukraine is that the White House is undermining the 
giving of weapons from our allies to the Ukrainians, that they are 
thwarting the transfer of these weapons. One of the Ukrainians even 
went so far as to say she wanted to steal the MiGs because there was 
just no other option.
  This war was completely preventable had the United States projected 
its strength. The United States can do so much more. President 
Zelenskyy has begged us, the United States, to lead more, but this 
administration is following the footsteps of President Obama by leading 
from behind. They have been slow to react at every step.
  This is a portion of a cruise missile that hit in Ukraine. Two 
Ukrainian diplomats describing to me what happened, where 35 people 
were killed by the cruise missile. This was launched by Russia on one 
of the days that President Biden said what NATO will not do to help 
Ukraine.
  Let me say that again. This was launched the day that President Biden 
said what NATO will not do to help Ukraine.
  This is the very telegraphing that has, yet again, proved to be 
deadly. As Ukrainians pointed out to us, this is what led to the 
disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal. In their words--the words of the 
Ukrainians, not mine--they say this administration is operating what 
they call an ``Afghanistan syndrome.''

  The Ukrainian people don't need speeches. They don't need words. They 
don't need resolutions. They don't need Americans forming committees 
and praying about it. They need more than our prayers. They need 
action. They need action.
  I call for a war tribunal to be formed and Putin and his generals to 
be held accountable and put on trial for crimes against humanity.
  The world needs to seize his personal assets and the assets of his 
oligarchs, and we need to use those personal assets to rebuild Ukraine. 
The world needs to stop doing business with Russia today. Don't wait on 
your governments. Don't wait on the sanctions. I call on every business 
in the world to stop doing business with Russia today.
  And finally, the United States needs to implement our sanctions 
today, not yesterday. We don't need to delay until June 24 a waiver on 
energy payments from Russian banks.
  We still have so much more we could do short of putting American 
boots on the ground. We need to send this military aid yesterday--not 
tomorrow, not next week.
  It is not a time to debate. Give them the damn weapons. The brave 
Ukrainian people will use them. They will fight to the death, but they 
have to be empowered to do it, and every day we wait, thousands more 
will die.
  I want to finish on a positive note. I am so proud of these young men 
and women, American fighters in the Big Red One, the 1st Infantry 
Division of Fort Riley, KS. They have been there for years training 
Ukrainians, training our partners.
  Some of the folks will ask me back home: Are we going to be safe? I 
have got all the faith and confidence in the world of our soldiers, of 
our military--all the confidence in the world of these men and women 
that are willing to put their lives on the line.
  And let me reassure you also that the Ukrainian people are not going 
to give up. They are not going to give up. They are going to fight for 
every inch, every mile of their home soil.
  In Poland, Olena and Daria told me just before we departed:

       America is the leader of NATO. Every NATO country is 
     looking at what America is

[[Page S1732]]

     doing and not doing. What America is saying and what America 
     is not saying. We know that there are NATO countries here on 
     the border who have weapons which we need, but they simply 
     need backup from America. We will win this war. But, at which 
     price will we win this war? Help us win it at the price of 
     less casualty. That's what we are asking the United States.

  Like I said earlier, the Ukrainians can win this war. There is a path 
to victory. I believe in them, but the world has to step up. We have to 
empower them. We are doing so little of what we could be doing.
  I was taught at a young age: Of him who much is given, much is 
required. And the United States has been given so much. We are still 
the leader of the free world. It is time we start acting like it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.

                          ____________________