[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 53 (Thursday, March 24, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1760-S1769]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume legislative 
session.
  The Senator from Kansas.


                                Ukraine

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I have lent my voice with my colleagues 
here in the U.S. Senate many times, here on the Senate floor, and 
elsewhere back home in Kansas in condemnation of Vladimir Putin's 
attack, invasion, the death and destruction that his actions--his sole 
actions--have taken on the people of Ukraine. But those actions have 
consequences broader than just within the borders of the independent 
country of Ukraine. I want today to bring awareness to a pressing 
consequence coming out of this invasion, and that is hunger.
  A month ago, Russia, the world's largest supplier of wheat, invaded 
Ukraine. Ukraine is the fifth largest

[[Page S1761]]

supplier of wheat. Together, they account for about 30 percent of 
global exports. This has exacerbated--tremendously exacerbated--the 
already existing global food crisis, and it will only get worse.
  Coming from a State like Kansas, coming from Kansas, America's 
largest supplier of wheat, I can tell you the effects this invasion 
will have on the stability of our ag markets here in the United States, 
and it should be alarming and could prove to be a catastrophic outcome 
for our global food supply.
  When there is a shortage of food, one of the things we can do is 
produce more. I would tell you that while the prices of agricultural 
commodities we grow in Kansas and across the United States have 
increased, I also would tell you that the input cost--the things that a 
farmer or a rancher has to purchase in order to produce that crop, to 
produce that outcome--has increased even more dramatically.
  I would encourage the administration and this Congress to do more in 
regard to the cost of everything. The increasing cost of food for the 
American consumer and the absence of food for many around the world can 
be alleviated by increasing the supply--can be addressed at least in 
part by increasing the supply.
  To help do that, we need to make certain that we increase our own 
production of oil and natural gas and of fertilizer. The cost of 
fertilizer is a huge input cost for the Kansas farmer, and we still 
have tariffs on phosphates coming from Morocco. The Department of 
Commerce is contemplating tariffs on nutrients for fertilizer coming 
from Trinidad and Tobago.
  Increasing the cost of the inputs of producing food is a very 
damaging thing to occur and should stop. We need to reduce the price--
slow the increase in the price of diesel fuel and fertilizer. Natural 
gas is a major component of producing fertilizer, and diesel fuel is 
hugely important.
  Again, we need to increase the supplies of our fossil fuels to help 
the farmers survive during these times.
  Today, I wear on behalf of Kansans the sunflower pin. It is the State 
flower of our State, but it also is an important symbol in Ukraine. It 
is a symbol of the resistance to Putin's invasion.
  Just as Kansas is the breadbasket of America, Ukraine is the 
breadbasket of Europe. Ukraine, as I said earlier, is a large grain-
producing country, not just in wheat but a top 10 global exporter of 
corn, sunflower oil, and other commodities. It provides produce to 
markets not just in Europe but to some of the most vulnerable countries 
throughout the Middle East.
  According to the magazine The Economist, ``The last time Egypt raised 
bread prices, the Soviet Union was still intact.''
  Food stability is essential to political stability. We may recall 
that it was an increase in food prices that sparked mass protests 
throughout the Arab world a decade ago.
  As we have seen in the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Afghanistan 
and the developing crisis caused by the invasion of Ukraine, it is 
critical to utilize every tool at our disposal to meet these 
challenges. And it extends much further than the countries we see in 
the news each day. Currently, 45 million people across 43 countries are 
on the brink of famine. Hunger isn't an isolated issue; it affects each 
and every one of us.
  Prior to this assault, Afghanistan was facing a dire food shortage, 
with 23 million people going hungry. This will worsen as Putin's 
assault continues.
  In Sudan, 87 percent of the country's wheat comes from Russia and 
Ukraine. By the end of this year, an expected 20 million people will be 
food insecure, one in two Sudanese.
  In Bangladesh, despite progress in recent years, 11 million people 
are still suffering from acute hunger.
  In Ethiopia, 20 million people currently require food support, and 
this will worsen as Putin's assault continues.
  According to the U.N. agency chiefs, Yemen is teetering on the edge 
of an outright catastrophe.
  The No. 1 driver of hunger on the planet is manmade conflict, 
according to the World Food Programme. As Russia's tyranny continues--
this Putin-made war--countries around the globe will teeter on the 
edge, falling further into widespread hunger.
  As the cochair of the Senate Hunger Caucus and a member of the 
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, which funds Food for Peace and 
the McGovern-Dole Program--what I like to call Food for Peace and the 
Dole-McGovern Program--combatting any threat of hunger is not only the 
smart thing to do, it is the morally right thing to do to save the 
lives of not only those living in Ukraine but around the world.
  In January and, again, earlier this month, I called on USDA Secretary 
Vilsack and USAID Administrator Power to release the resources within 
the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, an emergency international food 
assistance program to combat global hunger in times of ``exceptional 
need.'' The Emerson Trust was created in 1980 for a moment just like 
this: when existing global hunger programs cannot--cannot--adequately 
address the prospects of multiple looming famines.
  As both the immediate and long-term effects on Ukraine's agriculture 
sector become clearer, the United States should work--the United 
States, with the rest of the world, should work to quickly provide the 
necessary commodities through sale or donation to meet countries' 
unsatisfied food and commodity needs. Doing so will help alleviate a 
greater humanitarian crisis than has already been caused by the 
unprovoked invasion and will help foster political stability in food-
insecure countries.
  We are seeing the worst of evil--Putin's invasion of Ukraine--and the 
tremendous cost--humanitarian cost, loss-of-freedom cost--by that 
invasion. We can also see the best in humanity: helping a starving 
world to be fed.
  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. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


 Recognizing Western Washington University Vikings Women's Basketball 
                                  Team

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about supply 
chain issues, but before I do, I wanted to say a word about March 
Madness.
  I am pretty sure that most of my colleagues who know me think the 
next words out of my mouth are going to be something about a small 
Jesuit school in the eastern part of our State, but it is not. What I 
am going to talk about is congratulating the Western Washington 
University Vikings Women's Basketball team Division II final 
championship game players.
  The Vikings will be playing in the NCAA Division II Championship 
after defeating North Georgia last night with a score of 74 to 68. It 
was an outstanding performance by Brooke Walling, Emma Duff, and the 
entire team that represents people from all over our State--Everson, 
Tumwater, Monroe, Vancouver, Arlington, Marysville, Napavine, Ferndale, 
and various other places.
  I also want to congratulate Head Coach Carmen Dolfo, who is in, I 
think, her 31st season leading the Vikings, and the fact that this is 
such a great accomplishment for the women of Western Washington.
  I hope that we will continue to figure out ways to promote women's 
basketball in the NCAA tournament. I watched this game last night and 
saw a few people from our State who had made it there to cheer on the 
Vikings, but the actual pavilion looked pretty empty. Yet I guarantee 
you it was great basketball.
  We need to continue to encourage the NCAA to figure out ways to 
promote women's NCAA March Madness. They are great players, they are 
great teams, and they deserve to have the same kind of attention. So we 
look forward to cheering them on in that final NCAA tournament Division 
II game.


                               H.R. 4521

  Now, Mr. President, I would like to come to the floor and talk about 
a continuation of our supply chain challenges that we are facing in the 
United States of America, particularly around the issues facing us in 
the high cost of cars, electronics, and appliances. Actually, you can 
say that our chip supply chain issues actually impact just about

[[Page S1762]]

everything because, yesterday, we had a hearing with major producers of 
chip semiconductors in the United States and also talked with one of 
the witnesses who happens to be in the freight business, because they 
produce trucks that are moving freight throughout the United States of 
America.
  They said the fact that they can't get these new generation trucks 
out the door because of the semiconductor shortage means that it is 
even impacting the cost of freight of every product.
  So I implore my colleagues to come to the floor and support sending 
the bill back to the House, telling them that we want to go to 
conference, and get into conference as soon as possible.
  Those who want to delay this are just delaying the United States in 
our competition with the world in producing and manufacturing great 
product. If you don't have the best chips, if you don't have the 
manufacturing, you are not going to lead.
  We already know that in 2021, we needed 1.2 trillion chips per year. 
In 2031, that is going to be 2 trillion chips per year. So we know that 
this shortage is going to continue far into the future unless we act.
  Why is this so important? Obviously, there are sectors like energy, 
transportation, high-tech, communications, national security--they all 
depend on us acting. But believe it or not, there are companies all 
throughout the United States right now that are looking at this issue 
on supply chain and saying: Are we going to make moves to take the 
supply chain back into the United States right now?
  I am saying, they are making these decisions this month. They are 
making these decisions next month. But there are some  here who think 
that we can dillydally along and maybe take months and months and 
months to reconcile these two bills. They are absolutely wrong.

  I guarantee you, the Europeans are not waiting. The Europeans have 
decided they are going to fund this investment. They are going to 
continue to move faster than the United States of America to decide to 
do the next level of investment in semiconductors.
  So are we just basically saying to those U.S. manufacturers and other 
companies that have products: Well, if you want the next generation 
chips, maybe you should locate in Europe?
  Do not think this is an idle issue; it is not. There is great 
competition for the demand for these semiconductors, but some here want 
to wait months and months and months before we get to the resolution of 
this issue.
  We need to send a signal to the market that the United States is 
determined to be a leader in this area, that we are determined for our 
national security and manufacturing competitiveness, and that we are 
going to build the best chips in the world. And for the supply chain, 
we want that supply chain here in the United States of America.
  But, again, some of our colleagues here would like to wait months and 
months and months to have that debate. We have already waited 286 days 
since the Senate passed, in a bipartisan measure, this particular 
proposal. And now, again, people want to hold up this process because 
they don't quite understand the pain at the pump.
  This is the demand increase that we are going to see in 
semiconductors, as I said, by 2030. There is a demand increase of 200 
percent. There is a demand increase in the wireless sector, 60 percent 
by 2030; consumer electronics, 80 percent by 2030. What are we waiting 
for? What are we waiting for?
  We know there is demand. We know that we can make these chips. We 
know, as one of my colleagues said, if something happened with Taiwan, 
where they are making a lot of the leading-edge chips, the table is 
going to be turned on the United States. What would we do then? It is 
not like a little situation, like we are talking about now with 
shortages and huge price increases. What would we do if the major 
supply coming out of Taiwan was affected?
  We have to get busy here and work on this legislation and start 
focusing on the fact that it is affecting our consumers right now.
  The price increase for our consumers is a 41-percent increase in the 
cost of a car, for a used car today. If you think about it, we 
estimated that a used car or truck that cost $5,000 a year ago now 
costs $7,000--so a 41-percent increase. That is $2,000 that a young 
family that could be going on a vacation or taking care of something in 
the house or maybe making a downpayment on a home or buying groceries 
or taking care of rent, now, they have an extra $2,000 if they just 
want to get a car to get them to and from work.
  That is what we are talking about. We are talking about real impacts 
that are happening in real people's lives today, and some here are 
cavalier about these costs. They think this is all about how long are 
they going to wait until they give the President of the United States 
another victory, and that is a wrong approach. The approach should be: 
What are we going to do to deal with the high cost of products that we 
now don't have because of supply chain disruptions, and what are we 
going to do to resolve these issues?
  I will debate anybody on either side of the aisle who does not want 
to move forward on this bill because they don't like the approach. 
Maybe they don't like the concept of the United States making an 
investment here. But I will tell you, it is very clear that the United 
States has fallen behind. It is very clear that we went from 36 percent 
of the market down to 12. And if we do nothing, we are going to fall 
even worse, and we won't have any of the supply chain here. It will be 
located in other places.
  I know the American people get this in an intuitive fashion. The 
information age is run by semiconductors that increase their capacity 
to translate more, to translate in the automobile the voice-activated 
commands, to do the intricacies of communications, as I know the 
Presiding Officer knows, on the issues of communication and national 
security. We have to depend on these for our national security.
  We need to quit wasting our time here. These issues are, and my 
colleagues know well--come and make your vote. Make your vote, but quit 
holding up a bipartisan discussion by both Houses on facing a supply 
chain shortage that is affecting Americans every single day.
  If you do nothing, this demand is going to continue to increase, and 
we are going to continually be falling behind.
  So I plead with my colleagues: Put this aside and vote the way you 
want to vote, but let's get to conference.
  Let's show the American people that we can collaborate on solving our 
supply chain problems, on trying to be serious about sending signals to 
the automotive industry, to the communications sector, to the national 
security sector. Bring the supply chain back, put it here in the United 
States of America, and let's get busy doing what we know how to do 
best, and that is innovate and make America competitive.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


           Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 6968 and H.R. 7108

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, as I have said all week long, there has 
been an imperative for the Senate to unite and quickly pass legislation 
stripping Russia of normal trade relation status with the United 
States. The House has acted; the White House supports it.
  As the President meets with our allies in Europe, it is very 
important we send a message to the world that we are united in making 
sure Putin pays a heavy price for his war on Ukraine. After the House 
passed PNTR last week by 424 to 8, including the support from Leader 
McCarthy, it is unreasonable and deadly wrong for the Senate not to do 
the same, especially while the President is abroad. So we are seeking 
consent to move this legislation forward ASAP.
  After a day of long negotiations yesterday, I reached an agreement 
with Senator Crapo, with concurrence from Senators Wyden and Manchin, 
to move forward on PNTR while also taking action on oil ban legislation 
separately.
  Now, I understand that Senator Paul has further objection and is 
demanding we amend this agreement with a major change to the 
legislation. Senator Paul appears to be the lone Senator demanding 
this. I believe that all other 99 Senators are in agreement to proceed.
  Look, all of us want to see this bill move quickly because it is so 
very much needed and it is so bipartisan. I

[[Page S1763]]

am willing to include, as part of our unanimous consent right now, that 
Senator Paul be entitled to have his amendment with a majority vote 
threshold.
  The question before Senator Paul is, even though the vote was 424 to 
8 in the House and is very bipartisan here in the Senate, is he going 
to tank PNTR because his arcane interpretation is not forced into the 
bill? Can Senator Paul take yes for an answer? Can he let us move 
forward today to hold Putin accountable?
  Every Senator would like his proposal or her proposal put in the 
bill, but in the Senate, we vote; and we are willing to give the 
Senator a vote, even though we greatly disagree with his interpretation 
of the law that is here.
  I truly, I earnestly, and I strongly hope that my Republican 
colleague does not object to bipartisan legislation that would deal a 
heavy, heavy blow on Putin's Russia, especially after the House of 
Representatives acted with overwhelming bipartisan support.
  Many of our Republican colleagues have criticized the Biden 
administration for supposedly not acting quickly enough on Putin, but 
now, one Republican Senator is holding up this overwhelmingly 
bipartisan bill. I strongly hope some of my other Republican colleagues 
can persuade Senator Paul to accept our agreement here so that we can 
move forward. Let us be equally resolute in standing with Ukraine and 
fighting back against Putin's brutal war by passing PNTR in the Senate 
right away.
  Mr. 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 en bloc consideration of 
H.R. 6968, the Russian Oil Ban, and H.R. 7108, Russia PNTR, both of 
which are at the desk; that there be 2 hours for debate on the bills en 
bloc equally divided between the two leaders or designees; that it be 
in order for Senator Crapo, or a designee, to offer the Crapo-Wyden 
amendment at the desk to H.R. 6968; that there be 30 minutes for debate 
equally divided prior to the vote on the amendment; that it be in order 
for Senator Paul to offer the amendment at the desk to H.R. 7108; that 
there be 2 hours for debate equally divided and controlled in the usual 
form prior to a vote on the Paul amendment, and that these be the only 
amendments in order to either bill; that upon the use or yielding back 
of time, the bills be considered read a third time en bloc and the 
Senate vote on passage of H.R. 7108, as amended, if amended, and H.R. 
6968, as amended, if amended; finally, that the motions to reconsider 
be considered made and laid upon the table without further intervening 
action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I think it is 
incredibly important that we read bills before we vote on them, that we 
have adequate debate, and that we really understand what we are doing.
  The Magnitsky Act was originally an act that sought to sanction 
people in Russia--still does--but was expanded beyond Russia, and now, 
this bill would expand it further.
  When you are going to sanction people, there has to be an argument 
about whom you are going to sanction, so the original Magnitsky Act has 
in law that you would sanction people who have gross violations of 
internationally recognized human rights. Well, that sounds good, but 
the Magnitsky Act goes a step further and defines what these are. Gross 
violations of human rights include torture; cruel, inhumane, or 
degrading treatment; punishment or long detention without charges and 
trial; causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and 
clandestine detention of those persons--a lot of this applies to, 
really, what happened to Magnitsky; this was named after him because of 
what happened to him--other flagrant denials of the right to life, 
liberty, and the security of the person.
  What we are having happen right now is sort of--they are trying to 
pull a fast one, basically. We are going to get rid of all definitions 
of gross human rights, and we are going to replace them with not a list 
of things like torture and murder, indefinite detention; we are going 
to replace it with the words ``serious human rights abuse.''
  Well, it still sounds pretty good, but it is like, what does that 
mean? The problem is that many different people have different 
definitions of rights. The left, including the U.N., believes you have 
a right to an abortion, to a house, to the internet, to healthcare. So 
you can see how, if you have wide-open, vague, vastly ambiguous 
language, someone could be President and say: The leader of that 
country is denying the human right to abortion, so therefore, we must 
sanction them. Without any sort of tribunal, without any sort of due 
process, they would just simply sanction them. Or what if they are not 
providing the internet?
  So the thing is, words are important. You can't have vacuous sort of 
definitions. Where did this definition--it came from the Trump 
administration. So basically, what they are trying to do is mirror the 
Trump administration, which gave unlimited authority to the President. 
It is kind of surprising, for all the superficial rhetoric and 
opposition to President Trump, that they are trying to adopt his 
language now. But this language also comes from the Biden 
administration because the one thing Presidents have in common is they 
like unlimited power without checks and balances.
  If this language goes through, it will remove any checks and balances 
or any definitions as to what human rights abuses are. It is a terrible 
mistake. It is rash, and we shouldn't do it.
  I have offered an amendment, and I will offer it here in a moment. My 
amendment simply includes the definition that I just read. Gross 
violation of human rights--torture, cruel and inhumane treatment, 
indefinite detention. That is what we would put in the bill, is the 
actual definition. These aren't my words; these are the words of the 
mostly Democrats who wrote the bill, the Magnitsky Act.
  What they are trying to do is take the Magnitsky Act and drive an 
enormous hole in it that you can push anything through and do sanctions 
on anybody, anywhere in the world, based on a vague, ambiguous, and 
vast definition that is not specific.
  All I am asking is that you keep the Magnitsky Act. The irony here is 
the very authors of the Magnitsky Act are on the floor saying: We don't 
want the Magnitsky Act anymore. We want a big, enormous hole, that the 
President can sanction anybody in the world anytime.
  It is a terrible idea. It is ripe for abuse from a President.
  Many on the other side had arguments with the previous President, and 
they worried about him having unlimited power. So they want to give 
unlimited power to their President because they like him better. Well, 
guess what? I am an equal opportunity, ecumenical kind of guy who says: 
No President should have vast powers. All Presidents' powers should be 
circumspect. All Presidents' powers should be controlled.
  All I am asking for is that we pass the original Magnitsky Act. So 
this is going to be forever. This isn't a year or 2. When we first 
started into the Magnitsky Act, we were going to do it for just a year 
or 2 and see how it is going. This is forever. It will never come back 
up again. And we are doing it with 5 minutes' worth of debate, not 
going through a committee, and we are just simply going to say: Do 
whatever you want. Sanction anybody in the entire world.
  It is a huge mistake, it is a huge expansion of government power, of 
Presidential power, and it will lead to abuse. And I promise you, the 
moment there is a Republican President back in the White House, the 
other side will be squawking, saying: Why is he doing this? Why is he 
doing this?
  So I would say take a step back. We could talk about this over the 
next several days. We could come to an agreement. I have even said we 
could expand the definition. The definition of ``gross violation of 
human rights'' from Magnitsky should not be thrown away. And we could 
add to it. If there are other things, such as corruption, that you 
don't think are included, give us some words, and we will talk about it 
and see if we can come to a compromise. That is what was offered, and 
what we get back is that, oh, everybody else agrees on the other side, 
so I should be quiet. I am talking about something that is arcane. This 
is your

[[Page S1764]]

language. This is the Magnitsky Act from the last 5 years, and you are 
calling it arcane?

  This is a very reasonable request. It is a very unreasonable request 
to ram this down the throats of Americans, to expand Presidential power 
with no checks and balances, and I absolutely object to it.
  I will offer as a counter, though, a unanimous consent request that 
is at the desk to have my amendment pass immediately, and if my 
amendment is passed immediately, that the remaining request from 
Senator Schumer be passed as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Van Hollen). The majority leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Before I yield to my friend from the State of Maryland, 
the author of the Magnitsky Act, let me just say this to my good friend 
from Kentucky: Every Senator would like their amendment to be easily 
inserted into a bill, but in the Senate, we vote. I am offering the 
Senator a vote on his amendment. If each Senator said ``my way or the 
highway,'' we would have total paralysis even on an important piece of 
legislation like this.
  I yield to the Senator from Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. I reserve the right to object in regard to the Senator 
from Kentucky's request.
  Mr. President, first, let me just correct some of the statements that 
were made. This bill went through the committee. It was voted on in the 
committee. Amendments were offered in the committee. The Senator from 
Kentucky was present during the markup in the committee. That is the 
way legislation should be considered in this body.
  We are talking about how the Senate can work the way it should? Let 
the committees function. And that is exactly what we did in regard to 
the legislation that is on the floor. It went through the regular 
process. And the Senator's request is despite the fact that the 
majority leader has said he will allow a vote on the floor and let the 
Members of the Senate make the decision as to whether they agree or 
disagree with the arguments made by the author of the amendment. That 
is how a democracy should work. That is how the legislative process 
should work.
  So I am somewhat shocked that the Senator would object to the 
majority leader's request that would allow the legislation to come to 
the floor and let the Senate work its will by majority vote. That is 
what the majority leader said.
  Let me give you a little bit more history on this. The original 
Magnitsky bill was originally attached to the PNTR for Russia, and it 
was aimed solely at the tragic death of Sergei Magnitsky. We wanted to 
hold those responsible for his death accountable. That is why the 
language the Senator is referring to was included in the original act. 
It was aimed at one episode and one set of abusers.
  It became such a successful tool for diplomacy that, working with 
Senator McCain, the two of us worked on making it a global bill so that 
it would apply beyond just Russia and that we could use this to 
advance American foreign policy.

  And we worked--and quite frankly, we didn't have the enthusiastic 
support of the administration because the Senator from Kentucky is 
right: Administrations like to have their own authority; they don't 
like Congress to intercede. And on the Magnitsky, we can make 
recommendations as to who should be considered for sanctions. So it was 
a major step forward, and we were able to pass Global Magnitsky.
  In the meantime, President Trump worked with us on this. He was a 
supporter of using this tool. And he passed an Executive order--signed 
an Executive order, that included provisions that we asked him to 
include in the Executive order because we recognized that corruption 
was the fuel for Mr. Putin and Russia and authoritarian regimes. So we 
wanted to make sure that we could include corruption. We wanted to make 
sure that we could include the enablers--those who enabled these human 
rights abusers to do what they do, and that was included in the 
Executive order.
  And we worked with the Trump administration. And we have worked with 
the Biden administration. And we now have a workable standard. And 
better than that, as a result of our leadership, we have gotten our 
countries around the world to conform to our tool. The European Union 
has passed Global Magnitsky. The UK has passed Global Magnitsky. Canada 
has passed Global Magnitsky. Japan is considering it as we speak.
  It is becoming the standard. So from a process point of view, what 
was passed out of our committee, what was passed out of the House 
committee, both authorizing committees have agreed on this language, 
which has been signed off by Treasury so they know they can use it, 
which has due process in it because we are dealing with property 
rights.
  So now let's get to the substance of what the gentleman's amendment 
would do. The substance of it is that it would not allow us to do what 
we need to do in regards to Mr. Putin and Russia as a result of his 
invasion of Ukraine. And the sponsor of this amendment is very clear 
what he is trying to do. He is trying to take back the current 
authority under the Executive order and would, therefore, not even be 
useful at all in regards to going after Mr. Putin.
  We would be taking a step back. It was just a few days ago that 
President Zelenskyy asked us to expand the individual sanctions, and 
that is what is on the floor right now in the majority leader's 
request, so we can expand it, we can give him the tools he needs, so 
that we can respond and help the people of Ukraine. That is what is 
involved here.
  But with the amendment being offered by the gentleman from Kentucky, 
we would be moving backwards. We would be doing just the opposite. It 
would weaken where we are today. So I am really puzzled as to why we 
can't trust the judgment of the Members of the Senate to make this 
decision. Let's argue over the 2 hours that the majority leader will 
give us to argue this point. I look forward to that argument on the 
floor of the Senate. I already had that argument in our committee. 
Because the two--the gentleman from Kentucky and I, along with the 
Presiding Officer, served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We 
had this argument in committee. And if I am correct, I believe, the 
vote was all but one supporting my position.
  So we have already had this debate where it should take place among 
the experts. And the gentleman's not satisfied with that. I am at a 
loss here because I know how important it is for us to move forward to 
help the people of Ukraine.
  Every day, we see the bodies on the ground. We see the horrific 
action by Mr. Putin, and we really want to do everything we can to help 
the people of Ukraine. The action the majority leader is asking us to 
take will help the people of Ukraine. And as I understand it, one 
Senator is going to deny us the opportunity to take a very positive 
step, to stand up for democracy, and for standing up for the people of 
Ukraine.
  I object to the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard to the modification.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am going to keep my remarks short and 
simple. America and the world need immediately the toughest possible 
sanctions against the Russian oligarchs, who are working constantly to 
devise Byzantine schemes to get around the kind of sanctions that are 
in this trade bill.
  We all understand what is at issue here, and that is that we need to 
move quickly. We need to move while the President is mobilizing the 
collective strength of our allies.
  And I am interested in working with all of my colleagues. With the 
majority leader's leadership, we have been working for days on this. 
But what is important--and our friend from Maryland has touched on it--
is that we not just relitigate what came up in one committee or 
another, if it is going to hold up the essential task ahead, and that 
is that these oligarchs who are Putin's

[[Page S1765]]

best allies and are working with him constantly to figure out ways to 
get money to fuel the Putin war machine--what they really don't want is 
what the sanctions will do: rein them in and limit them as they 
continually try to devise these schemes.
  So I would just urge my colleagues--and we are here to continue to 
work on this--to get this done and get it done now because to do 
otherwise allows the oligarchs and all their lawyers and financial 
managers to look at what is happening in the U.S. Senate. And those 
oligarchs say, ``Doesn't look like there is going to be anything right 
now--don't have to worry immediately.''
  The Senate is better than this. I urge my colleagues to pass this 
bill, which would impose the harshest economic consequences of a 
generation on the Russians, and particularly the oligarchs, who have 
done so much to prop Putin up against the odds.
  Pass this bill. Pass it now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, today's powerful new sanctions against 
hundreds of Putin allies are another critical step in U.S. leadership, 
bringing our allies together to ratchet up pressure on Russia to halt 
its brutal invasion of Ukraine.
  I think Putin has been shocked by a couple things. Putin has been 
shocked that the Ukrainians have had such furious, effective, 
courageous resistance. He didn't see that coming.
  The other thing that shocked Putin has been the skill with which 
President Biden assembled this coalition of countries to stand up to 
Putin, to provide assistance to refugees and assistance to Ukrainians 
in their country, to provide military assistance, and to put the 
squeeze on sanctions against Russia.
  He has assembled this coalition skillfully, including countries like 
Germany and Sweden and Finland and Switzerland, even--countries that 
never really played here and nobody really expected. And Biden has 
brought them in, in a coalition, and extracted--and with the right kind 
of target on sanctions.
  In addition to sanctioning the banks and the oil companies, in 
addition to sanctioning the oligarchs and Putin himself, the President 
is announcing now sanctioning Russian parliamentarians and the 
Parliament itself, the Russian Duma, a dozen more Russian arms 
merchants and defense firms that have enabled this war, and additional 
Putin cronies, including the CEO of Russia's largest bank.
  I don't understand opposition to what we are trying to do. I don't 
know. Do we have Members of this Senate, perhaps, that, for whatever 
reason, side with Putin or side with the oligarchs? I don't know. But 
this is legislation we ought to be able to get moving quickly through 
this body as it did in the House.
  As long as Putin's invasion goes on, we will continue to lead the 
world, turning up the heat and weakening Russia's war machine.
  Today, I come to the floor to support the removal of permanent normal 
trade relations with Russia. It is not, as the Presiding Officer from 
Maryland knows--it is not the first time a number of us have been 
concerned about our government's mistakes, in large part, because of 
corporate lobbying on permanent normal trade relations with countries 
around the world.
  One of worst decisions ever made in this body, or at least in recent 
history, and the damage it did to manufacturing in the industrial 
Midwest and elsewhere, was giving permanent normal trade relations to 
China and the advantages that gave them.
  American companies, always in pursuit of cheaper labor, if going 
south wasn't good enough--they would go to Mexico and then they would 
go to China, close the plants in Ohio or Western Maryland, move to 
China, open up plants there with cheap labor and with pretty much 
nonexistent environmental regulations, and then ship those jobs back to 
the United States. That was permanent normal trade relations with China 
that we gave them some 20 years ago. It was a horrible mistake, but, 
today, this is about--for a different reason--permanent normal trade 
relations with Russia that we have granted.

  The President has already committed to ending permanent normal trade 
relations with Russia, and the House has already passed a bill ending 
PNTR with Russia, so what are Senate Republicans waiting for?
  Russia should not have free and unlimited access to America's economy 
or to the global economy. There should be no place for Putin and his 
cronies to hide.
  We are trying to get this done in the Senate. I was on the floor 
yesterday hoping we could see this done then. Twenty-four hours more 
have passed; 24 hours more of Putin attacking, as a war criminal, 
people in Ukraine, people who are innocent, people who should never 
have to deal with this; another night in Ukraine under fire from an 
unprovoked Russian advance on civilian families; another day of 
destruction of civilian buildings in peaceful cities.
  So waiting every day hurts the Ukrainian people. We need to do our 
part to give the President 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.
  Senator Paul, one Republican Senator, needs to relent to let us pass 
this. I mean, I know what Liz Cheney, a Member of the House, the 
daughter of Vice President Cheney under President Bush--I know what she 
said some time ago, and she is a Republican. She talked about the Putin 
wing of the Republican Party.
  I have no idea who in this body is in the Putin wing of the 
Republican Party, but I do know that there is resistance on the other 
side of the aisle to doing what we need to do to give President Biden 
even more tools to do even more than he has already done in this.
  The bill passed the House with a nearly unanimous vote. We need to 
finalize it in the Senate so we can ratchet up the pressure further, 
cut off Russia's ability to finance its unprovoked invasion of another 
member country in the World Trade Organization.
  Even before this war, we knew that Russia, like China, games the 
rules. They cheat on trade. I said it yesterday on the floor: They 
subsidize their industries. They pollute the environment to gain that 
unfair advantage. It is cheaper to make something if you don't dispose 
of waste or you put contaminants into the air instead of disposing of 
them in another way.
  Ohioans know all too well about being forced to compete with 
countries that cheat.
  Why have we let another day go by with this still on the books? If we 
don't remove it now, Russia will continue to use the status to position 
their industries in the global market, hurting American companies in 
the process.
  It is not a partisan issue. A couple weeks ago--almost a month ago--I 
introduced the bicameral, bipartisan bill with Senator Cassidy of 
Louisiana to remove Russia's permanent normal trade relations status. 
There is bipartisan support to do this quickly.
  I have worked with my colleague Senator Crapo on many Russia 
sanctions efforts over the years. I trust him. I know we share the same 
goals, but it is Senator Paul, speaking for whomever on this, not 
letting this bill through.
  I am hopeful there is a path forward. I hope we can work out 
differences quickly. The majority--an overwhelming majority of this 
body wants to move. We all--we should all stand together saying 
countries that invade a sovereign nation will not have free and 
unrestricted access to our economy, period.
  Again, countries that invade another sovereign nation will not--
should not--have free and unrestricted access to our economy. It is 
time to come together to end permanent normal trade relations with 
Russia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, Vladimir Putin has continued to wage 
horrific war against Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. This invasion, 
waged upon the profits of Russia's oil and gas empire, has caused 
destruction and devastation beyond measure.
  We must denounce Putin's war of choice, and we must call out 
profiteering and the ricochet effects of that conflict that affect 
Americans and others across the world.
  This connection to conflict is only possible as a result of the 
fallacy of

[[Page S1766]]

American energy independence from oil and gas extraction--a lie that 
has been sold by the American Petroleum Institute or the ``American 
Prevarication Institute,'' as they should be called. For years, the oil 
and gas industry has sold Americans more snake oil than actual oil, 
promising security and safety in exchange for unlimited drilling, 
unlimited exports, unlimited profits for Big Oil and Big Gas in the 
United States. And after yet another year of price spikes caused by 
Putin and profiteering, it is time to say enough is enough with these 
false promises and crocodile tears from the American Petroleum 
Institute, from ExxonMobil, from Chevron, from all of these companies.
  President Biden was right to follow my SPIGOT Act and the bipartisan 
consensus in the House and Senate to ban all oil imports from Russia. 
The only way to end Putin's oil- and gas-funded wars is to cut off his 
oil- and gas-funded piggy bank, which comes, unfortunately, 
historically, from American consumers at the pump buying Russian oil 
for their cars. That has to end. And, thankfully, President Biden has 
now made that decision.
  And it is because we have a moral moment here to provide all possible 
humanitarian aid to the Ukrainian people. We have a moral moment here 
to cut off the money pipeline that is funding the missiles and the 
tanks that are destroying the homes of innocent people in Ukraine. And 
we have a moral moment that ensures that we take the action to build a 
better world that is safe from the climate-change-fueled crisis. But 
our ability to meet this moral moment hinges on what we do next on the 
floor of the U.S. Senate, what action we take to respond to this 
obvious crisis that we have on the planet, all related to this oil- and 
gas-fueled military invasion of Ukraine--the tanks, the planes, the 
soldiers--all paid for by oil and gas money.
  We could fail to meet this moral moment by accepting the bad faith 
arguments from Big Oil, which is using this horrifying invasion to push 
for more drilling and money to fossil fuel companies with more lands 
and waters lost to extraction, more profit for Big Oil at the expense 
of American pocketbooks; or we can meet the moral moment that the 
United States is willing to lead with innovation, moving away from 
global oil chaos and closer to clean, cheap, domestic renewable energy 
sources--sources that will not fall victim to price hikes from despots, 
dictators, and criminals overseas.
  Now, we have all heard the Big Lie from Big Oil, FOX News, and the 
GOP, the Gas and Oil Party. Their message is: All you need to do is 
give us a few more leases, cut a few more regulations, provide us with 
a few more subsidies, and then we will be on our way to energy 
independence.
  Trust the oil and gas companies, they say, and FOX News says, ``Yes, 
trust the oil and gas industry,'' but that argument is leakier than an 
old oil tanker, and it has been proven again and again.
  If Big Oil wanted to make us energy independent, they would have 
already done it. Instead, they resort to their Big Lie.
  So here are the facts:
  Big Oil is sitting on 11,000 unused oil and gas leases, and 9,000 of 
those leases are on Federal lands in the United States. They have 
already been purchased by the oil and gas industry, mostly for $2 an 
acre, but they have got them; and 2,000 leases are offshore, in the 
waters of the United States, and they have all been already approved 
for drilling.
  Big Oil also has 6,000 partially drilled wells that they can use to 
drill right now. In other words, they have already done the drilling, 
and they are still not going there right now, on an emergency basis, to 
produce that additional oil and gas.
  Why is that?
  Because rather than using the resources they already have to drill, 
they are using this crisis as an excuse to get more leases, more wells, 
more profit for themselves while sitting on, squatting on, the existing 
leases they already have that could produce the additional oil and gas 
that they say they want to produce. Of course, they don't want to 
produce that oil or else they would be doing it already. They just want 
more leases that they can sit on and profit from in the years ahead.
  In terms of solving this crisis that we have right now, they can do 
it if they want, but they don't want to because it might actually drive 
down the price of oil or it might drive down the price of natural gas 
if they produce more here.
  So this is not a problem of governmental overreach. If you don't 
trust me on this, how about trusting the oil executives themselves. In 
a recent survey, 60 percent of oil executives said that investors are 
keeping them from drilling. Just 10 percent pointed to regulations. 
These are the oil company executives. They say it is the investors--the 
millionaires in their companies--who don't want to drill, not Federal 
regulations.
  Remember the Keystone Pipeline--the pipeline that the Republicans 
wanted so they could be energy independent?
  In 2015, every single Republican on the floor of the U.S. Senate 
voted against my amendments to ban the exports of that oil from the 
Keystone Pipeline. They kept saying then it would lead to energy 
independence, and when I said, ``Fine. Let's have an amendment that 
says it cannot be exported,'' every single Republican voted no--allow 
it to be exported out of our country.
  These crocodile tears from the Republican Party--from the GOP, Gas 
and Oil Party--are just so predictable, and it comes back every single 
time.
  Big Oil has kept up their export shenanigans. In 2021, we exported 
8.6 million barrels of oil a day while importing 8.4 million barrels 
per day. Last year, we imported, on average, 600,000 barrels of oil a 
day from Russia. At the same time, we exported the same amount to 
China. That is what the Republican Party and the gas and oil industry 
got in 2015 when we lifted the ban on the export of American oil. That 
is not energy independence; it is profit dependence of the American 
people on the agenda of Big Oil and Big Gas.
  The Gas and Oil Party doesn't want to drill for oil here in America 
to protect Americans from economic harm; they want to do it for their 
own economic benefit. Big Oil has a need for greed. The Republican 
Party, as we just heard in the confirmation hearing, kept talking about 
crime in the streets. No. The big problem is crime in the suites--crime 
in the oil and gas executive suites of our country--and the Republican 
Party's inability to stand up to them so that we have true energy 
independence in our country. In 2021, while consumers sacrificed at the 
pump, with gas prices increasing by 50 percent, Big Oil made over--get 
this number--$200 billion in profits.
  That is what is happening. That is why they don't want to drill--
because the price of oil might come down; therefore, their profits 
might come down, but they have built all the leases they need right 
now. This isn't about energy supply for consumers; it is about Big 
Oil's demand for profits for their shareholders and for their 
executives. That is what the agenda of the oil and gas industry in 
America is all about, not American security, not American consumers, 
not American environmental and healthcare issues, but the profits of 
their executives.
  We don't need sacrifice in our country. We need innovation. We need a 
way to ensure that we unleash all of the potential, which we have, in 
our country in order to tap into all of our rich natural resources. 
Instead of supporting energy independence and getting out of the way of 
a real domestic, clean energy boom, Big Oil would rather force 
consumers to sacrifice with high prices at the gas pump.
  We don't need Americans to sacrifice by paying high gas prices. 
Instead, we need to innovate and install clean energy solutions. This 
is our short-term and our long-term solution to price disruptions, 
climate chaos, environmental injustice, and wars paid for with oil and 
gas profits--much of it war profiteering.
  Here are some more facts:
  An additional 16 million electric vehicles on the road would replace 
all of the oil that we currently import from Russia. Let me say that 
again. If we would just deploy 16 million all-electric vehicles, we 
would back out all the oil from Russia. The next 16 million all-
electric vehicles would back out all the Saudi oil that we import into 
the United States. ``EVs'' just doesn't stand for ``electric 
vehicles''; it also

[[Page S1767]]

stands for ``ending violence''--getting the United States tied up into 
situations around the world because of all of the money that these 
wealthy oil states get from the United States.
  Here is another way to break it down:
  We can put 5 million electric vehicles on the road, 5 million heat 
pumps in homes, and replace 75 percent of our public bus fleet with 
electric buses and still back out all the oil we import from Russia. In 
the time it would take to implement these measures, we can release the 
already congressionally mandated sales of the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve to give consumers relief at the gas pump.
  We can accomplish all of this by passing my SAVE Consumers Act with 
Senator Heinrich, which would grant the President additional authority 
to implement energy efficiency standards and release another 265 
million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by the end 
of 2023.
  We can do this. We can deploy the Strategic Petroleum right now, 
invest in a renewable, clean energy agenda, and actually produce enough 
energy that substitutes for all the Russian oil and do so in a very 
brief period of time; but we have to commit to destroying the demand by 
Putin's dirty energy business model by powering our own country with 
clean, American-made renewable energy. We can power our way to peace. 
We can power our way to stopping the most dangerous effects of 
greenhouse gases that are creating climate change on our planet.

  Putin banks on divisions in the West. What he found instead was our 
complete solidarity with the people of Ukraine. Imagine if we were to 
channel that same spirit of unity to unlock a safe, healthy future and 
untether ourselves from Putin's dirty profits. We should agree that no 
country continues to have a veto on our energy security or of our 
friends and allies.
  The future lies not in the extracted fossil fuels of the Industrial 
Revolution but in technologies that will power the clean energy 
revolution.
  It is in our interest to build a well-trained, well-paid battalion of 
American union workers to lead countries to look to their energy needs 
from the red, white, and blue of the United States instead of Putin's 
cronies who finance Russia's repression at home and adventurism abroad.
  By passing a $555-billion investment in clean energy and climate 
justice, we can build a made-in-America clean economy that delivers 
real energy independence for our country, and we can export those 
technologies around the world. With tax credits and rebates in wind and 
solar, all-electric vehicles, offshore wind, battery storage 
technologies, heat pumps, and advanced domestic manufacturing, we can 
cut costs at home while cutting off Putin's money line from oil and 
natural gas. These investments would reduce our dependence on global 
oil markets and, instead, power our country through localized clean 
energy.
  The solar from our deserts, the solar power from those States that 
have near year-round Sun, the wind off of our coast from Massachusetts 
down to Maryland, which the Presiding Officer represents, the wind off 
of the west coast, the hydropower from our Southeast, the geothermal 
from our Northwest--all of it can be tapped, and we can end an era 
wherein our country is held hostage by the need to import more oil.
  Our Federal climate policies are exactly what we need--this national 
security moment, this environmental moment, this healthcare moment, 
this moral moment for our country and for the planet. There is no quick 
solution to this quagmire that Big Oil has drilled the United States 
into. There are only better and worse solutions, moral and immoral 
solutions. We can innovate and install clean energy that produces all 
of the energy which we need and that protects us, protects our allies, 
and protects our planet at the very same time or we can continue down 
the pathway of false promises and profiteering.
  It is our moral moment. Let's stand in solidarity with those affected 
by oil and gas wars and seize this chance for a cleaner, safer, more 
affordable future for Americans, for our allies, and for the world.
  There are doubters that we can make this transition, people who say: 
Well, wind and solar and all-electric vehicles and battery and storage 
technology--that sounds fine, but it just won't solve the problem. They 
are the same people who said that we could not deploy the spectrum.
  I was the author of the bill that accomplished and that made it 
possible for everyone, by 1995, to have a flip phone in their pockets 
at 10 cents a minute. Then, in using that very same spectrum 10 years 
later, a young guy, Steve Jobs, invented a phone which is a computer 
that has the same power as the computers on the Apollo mission to the 
Moon. We innovated; we moved; and we can actually see the people, in 
their fleeing Ukraine, all holding smartphones invented in the United 
States because we put together the policies that changed us from black 
rotary dial phones to these powerful computers in everyone's pockets.
  We can do the same thing with energy. We can create a revolution. We 
just have to get Big Oil and Big Gas out of the way and allow our young 
people to innovate, allow our entrepreneurs to innovate, allow for the 
deployment of all of these technologies, and then children will have to 
look to the history books to find if there ever was such a crisis that 
we are living through today.
  So my hope is that the Senate will respond and that they will 
understand how much of this conflict is created by the globe's 
dependence upon oil and gas. Putin is proving that to us once again, 
and if we look at the Middle East, we can see that hole that we have 
dug for ourselves and our dependence upon that region.
  We have the solution. It is innovation; it is optimism; it is 
unleashing the entrepreneurial spirit in our country. That will be the 
challenge of the U.S. Senate over the next 2 months.
  Will we have the same courage to respond, to take on those energy 
titans, in the same way that the Ukrainian people, every day, are 
giving us the example that we should be following?
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 4521

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motions on amendment No. 5002 
and H.R. 4521 ripen at 5:30 p.m., Monday, March 28; that if cloture is 
invoked on the substitute, all postcloture time be considered expired; 
the remaining pending amendments be withdrawn; no further amendments be 
in order; the substitute amendment be agreed to; the cloture motion on 
the bill be withdrawn; the bill, H.R. 4521, be considered read a third 
time, and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with 60 
affirmative votes required for passage, all without further intervening 
action or debate.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I am requesting votes on two very 
important issues regarding this competition bill: No. 1 to put the 
Senate on record in opposition to providing $53 billion in corporate 
welfare to the highly profitable microchip industry, with no 
protections for the American taxpayer; and two, to eliminate the $10 
million bailout included in this bill for Blue Origin, a space company 
owned by Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest person in this country who 
is now worth over $180 billion.
  So, Mr. President, I ask the majority leader: Will you now give me 
your commitment to receive two rollcall votes next week on each of 
these motions to instruct at a simple majority threshold?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, yes, I give the Senator from Vermont my 
firm commitment to do whatever I can to get an agreement to have votes 
on his two motions to instruct when the message comes back from the 
House on this measure.

[[Page S1768]]

  Having made that commitment, I ask the Senator from Vermont whether 
he might allow the Senate to agree to my original unanimous consent 
request?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I appreciate the commitment of the 
majority leader to ensure that I will receive rollcall votes on these 
two issues. Having received the majority leader's firm commitment, I 
will not object.
  I ask unanimous consent to address the body for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there an objection to the original 
request?
  Hearing none, it is so ordered.
  Without objection, the Senator from Vermont is recognized for up to 
10 minutes.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me thank the majority leader for his 
willingness to put my two motions to instruct on the floor next week 
for a vote. And I want to take a minute to explain to my colleagues and 
the American people what these amendments are about.
  As I think most Americans understand, half of the people in our 
country are living paycheck to paycheck. They cannot afford the high 
cost of healthcare. They are often spending more than they can afford 
for housing. If they are fortunate enough to be able to have gotten a 
higher education, it is more likely than not that they are struggling 
with significant student debt. If they are young parents, they are 
probably finding it hard to locate quality, affordable childcare or 
pre-K. If they are older Americans, it is likely they are having a hard 
time paying for the dental care, the hearing aids, the eyeglasses, or 
the home healthcare that they desperately need.
  Meanwhile, as many middle-class and working-class Americans fall 
further and further behind, there is another economic reality taking 
place in our country. We don't talk about it enough--but we should--and 
that is that the people on top, the very wealthiest people in our 
country, are doing phenomenally well and, in fact, have never had it so 
good.
  Today in America, we have more income and wealth inequality than ever 
before. We talk a lot about Russian oligarchy--and that is certainly 
true--but anybody who thinks that we don't have an oligarchy in this 
country is surely mistaken.
  In our country today, we have two people who own more wealth than the 
bottom 40 percent of the American population, and the top 1 percent own 
more wealth than the bottom 92 percent.
  And, unbelievably, during this terrible pandemic--which has cost us 
almost 1 million lives--when thousands of essential workers died, they 
died because they had to go to their jobs, and going to their jobs, 
they contracted the virus. During that same period of time, the 
billionaire class became much, much wealthier. In fact, over 700 
billionaires in America became nearly $2 trillion richer during the 
pandemic. In other words, for the people on top, the pandemic has been 
a very, very good time economically.
  But it is not just the increased wealth of the very rich that we are 
seeing. Corporate profits are at an alltime high, and CEOs have seen 
huge increases in their compensation packages. And a lot of this is 
happening because of the unprecedented level of corporate greed--
corporate greed that we are seeing.
  Let me just give you a few examples of the corporate greed that is 
taking place right now. Everybody knows that the price of gas is 
soaring. Last I saw, it is averaging about $4.25 a gallon. Meanwhile, 
ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and Shell made nearly $30 billion in profit 
last quarter alone. The price of gas is soaring and major oil companies 
are making huge, huge profits. Amazon recently raised the price of its 
Prime membership by 16.8 percent. Meanwhile, it increased its profits 
by 75 percent to a record-breaking $35 billion.
  In terms of food, everybody knows food prices are going up. The price 
of beef is up 32 percent, price of chicken is up 20 percent, price of 
pork is up 13 percent. Meanwhile, Tyson Foods, a major producer of 
chicken, beef, and hot dogs, increased its profits by 140 percent last 
quarter to $1.1 billion. The price of food is soaring, and food 
companies are enjoying huge profits.
  While Americans are finding it harder and harder to pay for the 
outrageous costs of prescription drugs--we pay the highest prices in 
the world for our medicine--last year Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and 
AbbVie, three major pharmaceutical companies--increased their profits 
by over 90 percent to $54 billion. People can't afford the price of 
prescription drugs, but pharmaceutical industry profits are soaring. 
Again, all of which kind of takes me to the legislation that is on the 
floor right now, the so-called Competitiveness Act.
  Do we need to increase computer chip production in the United States? 
Yes, we do. But we need to do it in a way that does not provide massive 
amounts of corporate welfare to an already enormously profitable 
industry.
  In my view, it makes zero sense to provide $53 billion in corporate 
welfare. That is a blank check: Here it is, microchip industry, no 
strings attached, no protections for the American taxpayer to the 
microchip industry.
  And as part of this legislation, in addition--I don't know how many 
people know this--some may think I am actually kidding when I say 
this--but this legislation provides $10 billion in bailout to Jeff 
Bezos--the second wealthiest person in America who is worth over $180 
billion--so that his company, Blue Origin, can launch a rocket ship to 
the Moon.
  A word about the microchip industry. We are talking about an industry 
that has shut down over 780 manufacturing plants in the United States 
and eliminated 150,000 American jobs over the last 20 years, while 
moving most of its production overseas. Got that? So this is an 
industry that said: Hey, we are making money, but we can make even more 
money by going to low-wage countries. Let's do that. Let's throw 
150,000 American workers out on the street. We are going to go abroad.

  Now, in terms of this $53 billion bailout, nobody knows exactly who 
will be receiving that money. My guess is that the bulk of that money 
will go to five major semiconductor companies, and that is Intel, Texas 
Instruments, Micron Technology, Global Foundries, and Samsung. These 
five companies in line for tens of billions of dollars of corporate 
welfare made over $75 trillion in profit last year.
  The American people are sick and tired of our government working for 
wealthy campaign contributors and for the Big Money interests. I know 
it is a radical concept to suggest, but maybe--just maybe--we might 
want to be working for ordinary working-class and middle-class 
Americans.
  Let me talk a little bit about what our amendments would do. Our 
amendments are very simple.
  The first amendment, obviously, would prevent microchip companies 
from receiving taxpayer assistance unless they agree to issue warrants 
or equity stakes to the Federal Government. If private companies are 
going to benefit from over $53 billion in taxpayer subsidies, the 
financial gains made by these companies must be shared with the 
American people, not just wealthy shareholders. In other words, all 
this amendment says is that if these companies want taxpayer 
assistance, we are not going to socialize all of the risks and 
privatize all of the profits. If these investments turn out to be 
profitable as a direct result of these Federal grants, the taxpayers of 
this country have a right to get a return on this investment.
  This is not a radical idea. These are exact conditions that were 
imposed on corporations that received taxpayer assistance in the 
bipartisan CARES Act, which passed the Senate 96 to 0. It is not a 
radical idea.
  I believe in industrial policy. That means the government works with 
the private sector. It does not mean that the government simply gives 
the private sector everything they want with no protection to the 
taxpayer. So if the result of these $53 billion in grants is these 
companies make money, that is good--that is good--but the taxpayers who 
helped invest in these new production facilities should be able to 
enjoy some of those profits as well and get some of that money returned 
to them.
  The second amendment is really a very, very simple one. It asks: Why 
in God's name would we be giving $10 billion to a company owned by the 
second wealthiest person in this country, Jeff Bezos? If Mr. Bezos 
wants to go to the

[[Page S1769]]

Moon, if he wants to go to Mars, he wants to go to Saturn, that is his 
business. He has every right in the world to do that, but he does not 
have a right to ask the taxpayers of this country for $10 billion to 
help him make his trip to outer space. This second amendment simply 
eliminates that $10 billion grant that goes to Mr. Bezos.
  I look forward to winning the support for these two important 
amendments, which I think are strongly supported by the American 
people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warnock). The majority leader.

                          ____________________