[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 54 (Monday, March 28, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1789-S1793]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

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

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 4521, which the clerk will report.
  The 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.

  Pending:

       Schumer Amendment No. 5002, in the nature of a substitute.
       Schumer Amendment No. 5003 (to Amendment No. 5002), to 
     change the enactment date.
       Schumer Amendment No. 5004 (to Amendment No. 5003), to 
     change the enactment date.
       Schumer Amendment No. 5005 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by Amendment No. 5002), to change the enactment 
     date.
       Schumer Amendment No. 5006 (to Amendment No. 5005), to 
     change the enactment date.
       Schumer motion to commit the bill to the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation, with instructions to 
     report back forthwith, Schumer Amendment No. 5007, to change 
     the enactment date.
       Schumer Amendment No. 5008 (to the instructions of the 
     motion to commit (Amendment No. 5007), to change the 
     enactment date.
       Schumer Amendment No. 5009 (to Amendment No. 5008), to 
     change the enactment date.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Duckworth). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.


                            Budget Proposal

  Mr. McCONNELL. President Biden likes to say, and has said again 
today, that budgets are statements of values. Indeed, they can be, and 
the White House budget request that President Biden published today 
offers the clearest possible reminder that the Biden administration's 
far-left values are fundamentally disconnected from what American 
families actually need.
  I mentioned around President Biden's State of the Union that the 
speech gave the President a chance to pivot. He has had a chance to 
assess the poll numbers, read the tea leaves, and make a dramatic 
course correction back toward where Americans would like for him to be. 
But he chose not to, and this budget proposal is just the mathematical 
version of that failure to pivot.
  The White House is desperately spinning to call this budget centrist, 
but there is nothing remotely moderate about what is in it.
  First and foremost, at a dangerous time, the President's budget falls 
woefully short on defense spending. Our Commander in Chief has again 
failed to budget for the resources that our Armed Forces actually need. 
The Biden administration proposes a nominal 4-percent increase for 
defense over the bipartisan bill Congress just passed for this year.
  That is a nominal 4-percent increase before any of the Democrats' 
historic inflation is taken into account, and inflation right now is 
about twice that. So even if you accept the White House's rosiest 
predictions about where inflation is headed, this would amount to flat-
funding defense, with none of the robust growth we need to keep pace 
with Russia and China. Even in the best case scenario for their budget, 
it

[[Page S1790]]

would leave our Armed Forces simply treading water.
  And what if Democrats' historic inflation does not plummet downward 
as quickly as they would like? What if the inflation they have caused 
keeps sticking around? Then, President Biden's budget would actually 
cut funding for our Armed Forces in real dollars.
  Look, the world is a dangerous place and growing more dangerous by 
the day. Putin's escalation in Europe has created significant new 
requirements for the Pentagon and our defense industrial base. We have 
growing threats from Iran. China is pouring money into high-tech 
weapons systems. Beijing announced that they are increasing defense 
spending again this year by more than 7 percent.
  So, amid all this, the White House has proposed no meaningful 
increase in resources for protecting innocent Americans, promoting our 
interests, supporting our partners, assisting Ukraine, or replenishing 
our stockpiles. President Biden likes to give speeches about the need 
for American leadership in the world, but when the rubber meets the 
road, when it is time to invest so we can rise and meet challenges like 
Russia and China, this President has, again, decided to do exactly the 
opposite. Putin and Xi will sleep more soundly at night if the Biden 
administration gets its way on defense funding than if Republicans get 
ours.
  Now, let's look at the places where President Biden does want to pull 
out all the stops and hand out massive funding increases. Our Armed 
Forces may get the short end of the stick from this White House, but 
plenty, plenty of far-left domestic priorities will be literally 
swimming in cash.
  While they limit defense to 4 percent growth before inflation, 
nondefense spending would get a significantly larger increase--not all 
of domestic spending however. Border security and the Department of 
Homeland Security barely tread water, just like our troops. But other 
Agencies and Departments that are more useful for the far-left agenda, 
like the IRS, the EPA, Commerce, HUD, and Labor make out like bandits 
with gigantic--gigantic--increases of 20 and 30 percent since 2021.
  They want to pour money into absurdities like the U.N. Green Climate 
Fund--borrow from China to fund a global bureaucracy that will hand 
free money back to China. There is plenty of money for things like 
antigun regulations, free lawyers for illegal immigrants, and something 
called ``environmental justice.''
  This whole far-left feast leaves out the reckless taxing-and-spending 
spree that Democrats failed to pass last year and are now trying to 
revive. The Biden administration still wants all that spending, too, 
but they couldn't even budget for it honestly.
  And all of the bloated liberal nonsense comes paired with the biggest 
tax hike in American history--a 2.5-plus-trillion-dollar bomb of tax 
hikes dropped on top of an economy that the Democrats' policies have 
already hurt badly, literally--literally--the largest tax hike in 
history.
  Among those increases, President Biden wants to use colossal tax 
hikes to punish domestic producers of American energy. World events are 
reminding us every day how important American oil and natural gas 
production is for our national security and for our partners, but 
President Biden would rather grind his ideological ax and escalate his 
holy war on ``Made in America'' fossil fuels.
  This--this--is the budget request of an administration that is 
completely disconnected from reality, of a President who has decided 
not to pivot, of a Democratic Party that has chosen not to correct 
course on its own.
  Every data point suggests that the American people want and need a 
major course correction. It appears that in about 7 months, they may 
have to provide it themselves.
  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. DURBIN. Madam 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

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, last week, the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, which I chair, held its hearing on the nomination of Judge 
Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve as Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme 
Court.
  It was an opportunity to learn a lot about her: her qualifications, 
her experience, her approach to cases, her judicial temperament, and 
her temperament before the committee.
  She proved to the public what many of us suspected and some knew: She 
is, without a doubt, ready to serve on the Supreme Court.
  I have spoken before about Judge Jackson's background and 
qualifications, but some of it bears repeating because this is the 
critical week before we consider her nomination next week on the floor 
of the Senate.
  She is the daughter of two school teachers, public school teachers. 
Judge Jackson discovered her passion for the law at the age of 4. See, 
her dad decided to give up teaching. He had another profession in mind; 
he was going to become a lawyer. And so he would sit at the kitchen 
table with his law books all stacked up, and Judge Jackson, at the age 
of 4, would gather her coloring books and sit next to her daddy. She 
was going to study too.
  She believes that might have been the first time that she thought 
seriously about becoming a lawyer.
  After graduating from public high school in Miami--she had 
distinguished herself as president of the student body and as the lead 
on the high school speech and debate team. She competed nationally 
successfully and visited the campus of Harvard University. She loved 
it. She decided that she was going to apply to go to school there.
  When she went back to her high school in Florida, she sat down with 
her counselor to talk about that option. The counselor discouraged her; 
she was aiming too high. But she did it anyway, and she was accepted 
and then went on to Harvard Law School.
  She has clerked at every level of the Federal judiciary. If you are 
not a lawyer, that may not mean much; but if you are a lawyer, it is a 
big deal. To think that she started off at the lowest Federal district 
court level clerking for a judge, then was accepted to move up a level 
to the circuit judge position to serve as a clerk as well, and then to 
finally grab the gold ring of being a Supreme Court clerk to none other 
than Justice Stephen Breyer whose vacancy she is hoping to fill.
  She worked in private practice as a lawyer, and she proved that she 
was a consensus builder all the way along. On the bench, she served as 
a district court judge and now circuit court in the DC Circuit.
  It is no surprise that she has won the admiration and friendship of 
so many people throughout her career. In fact, she has come before the 
same Senate Judiciary Committee on three separate occasions with her 
background carefully reviewed and emerged with the approval of the 
committee with bipartisan support.
  In fact, when you look at it, if you watched last week's hearing 
before the Judiciary Committee, no one questioned her qualifications, 
her knowledge, her experience. She really has a platinum resume when it 
comes to that.
  On the final day of the hearing, the committee heard from Anne 
Williams. Anne Williams is well-known to the Presiding Officer as well 
as to myself. She served as a district court judge in the Northern 
District of Illinois and then as a circuit judge on the Seventh 
Circuit. I believe she was the first African-American woman to do so.
  She is retired at this point, but she has volunteered with the 
American Bar Association to do the careful review of Judge Jackson to 
make certain that we know every comment that has been made by 
professionals who have been familiar with her work experience.
  Judge Williams is an anomaly politically. Those who are looking for 
evidence as to whether she is Democrat or Republican, she was initially 
appointed to the district court by President Reagan and then to the 
circuit court by President Clinton--a bipartisan nominee all the way.
  She came to report to the committee that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, 
who had been reviewed with careful personal interviews of 250 separate 
individuals in her legal career, had emerged unanimously well-qualified 
to serve on the Supreme Court.

[[Page S1791]]

  Judge Williams said that in interviewing these lawyers and judges, 
they asked the hard questions--the ones that you can ask in confidence 
and in private--and the answers were all the same.
  Judge Jackson has a career that has distinguished her as outstanding, 
excellent, superior, superb, the list of accolades went on and on. The 
ABA found that Judge Jackson has a sterling reputation for 
thoughtfulness and collegiality and exceptional competence.
  I also asked Judge Williams, serving as the spokesperson for the ABA, 
to comment on the allegations that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is 
somehow soft on crime. It is a common mantra coming from the other side 
of the aisle. And I said, in the course of asking 250 different judges, 
prosecutors, defense lawyers, and all the people who worked with and 
around her, Was there any evidence that she was soft on crime? No. 
None. None. That is amazing when you think that is the No. 1 talking 
point against her from the Republican side of the aisle. ``None 
whatsoever'' is exactly what Judge Williams said. Another ABA witness, 
Jean Veta, said that the ABA ``heard consistently from not only defense 
counsel, but [from] prosecutors'' of how unbiased Judge Jackson was 
throughout her career.
  And just as impressive as her qualifications was her performance and 
candor before the Senate Judiciary Committee. If you ask her a question 
about stare decisis, she will start responding by defining it in plain 
English, just to make sure everybody at home, lawyer or nonlawyer, can 
follow along. She expresses her thinking with surgeon-like precision, 
which I am sure her husband, Dr. Patrick Johnson, who is an actual 
surgeon at Georgetown University Hospital, deeply admires. Clarity and 
impartiality, that is Judge Jackson.
  During the hearing, several of my colleagues asked her to describe 
her judicial philosophy. Pick a label: Are you an originalist; are you 
a textualist; are you a liberal; are you a conservative? Previous 
Supreme Court nominees like Chief Justice Roberts have said that they 
do not have an ``overarching judicial philosophy'' that they bring to a 
case.
  That was a good enough answer for many Republicans if it was given by 
Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Amy Coney Barrett, but they have 
complained now that she just won't come up and admit to a label.
  She did us one better. She gave a thorough, step-by-step explanation 
of how she decided a case--every case--and she has some 580 separate 
written opinions. You don't need an electron microscope to find this 
judge's judicial philosophy. She has written it down and published it 
over and over and over again.

  She established her independence, she says, by ``clearing [her] mind 
of any preconceived notions'' when she gets a case, sets aside her 
personal views, evaluates the facts, listens to the arguments, and then 
she interprets and applies the law, keeping in mind the limits of 
judicial authority.
  What I have just described is what she told the committee, and it is 
exactly what we look for and should look for in every judge. I can't 
recall ever hearing a nominee give such a clear and thorough 
explanation of their approach to deciding a case. And Judge Jackson's 
evenhanded record on so many different issues--criminal law, labor 
relations, executive power--shows that it works.
  Finally, the Judiciary Committee hearing allowed the public to 
observe Judge Jackson's incredible judicial temperament. We spend a lot 
of time as Senators with the authority under the Constitution to advise 
and consent, interviewing nominees for courts, trying to determine just 
what kind of a judge they will be. What will their temperament be? Will 
they be all swollen and big-headed over this black robe and lifetime 
appointment, or will they remember the real-life experiences that many 
people in their courtroom have lived through?
  Well, I can tell you, Judge Jackson's temperament has shown through. 
Frankly, she was tested time and time again. You see, I might just go 
out on a limb and tell you: There are some Senators that don't show a 
very good temperament themselves under these circumstances. And they 
tested her over and over and over again with baseless, wild charges, 
some of which were just offensive on their face.
  I listened to those, and I would look up and think, if she stands up 
at this point and says, ``That's enough. I am taking my family, and I'm 
going home,'' nobody would have faulted her for it--some of the 
questioning was just that bad--but she didn't.
  My Republican colleagues promised a fair and respectful hearing. The 
majority of them, starting with Senator Grassley, did just that; and I 
commended them for it today in the committee. They set an example of a 
minority party with a Supreme Court nominee and how the questioning 
should come down. Unfortunately, others, however, on that side of the 
table did not.
  But in the face of the constant badgering and interruptions, 
offensive insinuations by a select few Republicans, Judge Jackson never 
lost her composure--never. She was patient, calm, and dignified.
  Many times, the questions were so mean-spirited. And I thought, there 
sits her husband and her daughter listening to these charges on how she 
is soft on crime and doesn't care about the plight of children. And 
when you think about that, what they must think of to hear those things 
said about the doctor's wife and the kid's mother. It is just hard to 
take.
  She was patient and kind. She didn't lose her temper at one time. 
Some of my colleagues attended the committee's hearing intent on 
tearing her down. It didn't work. Instead, she showed America that she 
can rise to any challenge as a Justice on the Supreme Court.
  And despite some of my colleagues' behavior in the committee 
hearings, last week was an inspiration for so many people across this 
country. I invited law students from Howard University and my alma 
mater Georgetown Law to come over and sit through the hearing. We 
invited interns from the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. They 
wanted to be there at this history-making moment.
  They watched her prove that through hard work, a commitment to the 
law, and in the words of Senator Booker, her grit and grace, she has 
earned a seat on the highest Court in the land.
  I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a 
look at this woman and what she will bring to the Court.
  It is time, America, after all these years, never having had an 
African-American woman serve on the Court. It has got to be a challenge 
to find somebody who is ready to take on the job and take on the 
challenge. She can meet that challenge and will successfully. She is 
the best and deserves our support.


                     Remembering Madeleine Albright

  On another topic, Madam President, last week, America and the world 
lost another trailblazing woman and defender of justice and democracy--
and a friend.
  Madeleine Korbel Albright came to the United States at age 11 as a 
refugee. Her family had been driven out of their native Czechoslovakia 
twice by murderous regimes, in 1938 by the Nazis and 10 years later by 
the communists.
  Those searing childhood upheavals helped to produce in this young 
woman a lifelong vigilance against dictators and a fierce commitment to 
democracy.
  Her father had been a diplomat who received political asylum in 
America. Like nearly all immigrants and refugees who come to this 
country fleeing the tyranny of autocracy, he was keenly aware that this 
was a land of freedom. He told his daughter many times, ``Americans 
don't know how fragile their democracy is--and how resilient it is.''

  She also knew persistent autocracy. It can rise at any age in any 
nation. We see it today in the leadership of Russia. That is why we 
must protect the rule of law, the most potent defense against 
dictators.
  In 1997, she made history. She became America's first woman Secretary 
of State under President Clinton, previously serving as our Nation's 
Ambassador to the United Nations. She was a hardline critic of tyrants 
and despots who advocated the policy of assertive multilateralism, and 
she called the United States ``the indispensable nation.''

[[Page S1792]]

  She believed that the best hope for a free and peaceful world lay in 
America, exercising leadership and working with the family of 
Democratic nations to protect democracy, just as we are today in 
Ukraine.
  She was deeply committed to NATO. As Secretary of State, she 
supported NATO expansion to include Poland, Hungary, the Czech 
Republic--three nations that lived under the boot heel of Soviet 
oppression. Today, all three nations are providing a haven for 
Ukrainian civilians, mostly women and children, who are fleeing Putin's 
unprovoked and barbaric war on that young democracy.
  Madeleine Albright understood that any democracy could fall victim to 
the siren song of autocracy if its citizens were not vigilant. After 
her historic career in public service, she was chair of an organization 
called the National Democratic Institute, helping young democracies 
build independent court systems and a vibrant civil society.
  She spoke to me about this important work and understood that for 
democracies to endure, they must offer more than promises. In one of 
her last interviews, Madeleine Albright offered a warning that we in 
this Senate should be wise to remember. She said:

       What is important is that democracy has to deliver. People 
     want to vote and eat. And therefore it is very important for 
     democracies, and certainly for the world's oldest, to 
     understand the rule of law--because corruption is the cancer 
     of democracy . . . The people need to be the beneficiaries of 
     [democracy].

  Likely because of her family's own experience with fleeing tyranny, 
Madeleine Albright was quicker than many at recognizing dictators when 
she saw them. She first met Vladimir Putin in the year 2000, 1 year 
after his meteoric rise from a mid-level, mediocre KGB apparatchik to 
President of the Russian Federation. She recorded her first impressions 
of Vladimir Putin over 20 years ago. She wrote:

       Putin is small and pale, so cold as to be almost reptilian.

  She went on to note presciently that Putin was ``embarrassed about 
what happened to his country and determined to restore its greatness.''
  The violence and destruction that Vladimir Putin is willing to wage 
in pursuit of this delusion to make Russia great again is now 
horrifyingly obvious to the entire world.
  Let me say at the outset: I have no quarrel with the people of 
Russia. They are good people and have a great history. There were 
chapters in there that were oppressive and terrible to their neighbors 
and the countries that suffered under Stalin and the reach of the 
Soviet Union. But at their heart, I believe the Russians are good 
people. Sadly, I cannot say the same about their leader.
  The brutal assault on Ukraine is now in its second month. Yesterday, 
at the water tower in downtown Chicago, we had a rally for Ukrainians. 
It was cold. This time of year, it is cold in Chicago. It was probably 
30 degrees, and the wind was blowing. But what a crowd showed up--
several hundred people--many bearing Ukrainian flags and, of course, 
proud of their Ukrainian heritage, but from so many other places as 
well. Groups of people were there who were Indian Americans who wanted 
to show support.
  I was proud that the Baltic Americans--Lithuanians, Latvians, 
Estonians--once again were there in force. I was also proud that the 
Polish people came, because they have a special kinship to Ukraine at 
this moment in history.
  Poland is accepting more refugees from Ukraine than any other nation 
and is making great personal sacrifice to do it.
  As the Polish Ambassador told us 2 weeks ago, when people get off 
that train for the first stop in Poland, finally, they are on safe 
soil, out of Ukraine. They don't look for people--soldiers and police--
to guide them. What they find is that people are in their cars, 
waiting, with the doors open, to bring them in even if they are total 
strangers.
  The Polish Ambassador said: You don't see any refugee camps in 
Poland.
  No. People are going into the homes of other Polish families and are 
being welcomed into those homes.
  He said: The reason we are feeling this way about our neighbors is 
that, when it happened to us many years ago, no one would take us in. 
We remember those days.
  What a reminder to us in the United States.
  You know, when the President said last week that he wants to accept 
100,000 refugees from Ukraine, I applauded it, as did others, but just 
for a point of reference, a nation of 5 million, known as Ireland, has 
also agreed to accept 100,000 refugees. So the United States is showing 
some charity, but we can do more. We shouldn't limit it just to 
refugees from Ukraine. There are refugees from wars and calamities 
around the world who also need an opportunity to be in a safe place. 
The United States has enjoyed that reputation for almost 80 years, and 
we did it after World War II. We should return to those days.
  The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees calculates that 10 million 
Ukrainians--almost a fourth of the population--have been driven from 
their homes and displaced--1 out of 4. Another 3.5 million Ukrainians 
have fled to neighboring nations, especially to Poland. The city of 
Warsaw alone is admitting 1,000 Ukrainian children to its schools every 
day--1,000 Ukrainian kids a day into Poland.
  Joe Biden, our President, understands the same truth that Madeleine 
Albright saw--that the struggle between dictatorships and democracy did 
not end with the defeat of Nazism or the fall of the Berlin Wall. It 
continues in this century, and Ukraine is now the new frontline in this 
old battle.
  Critics of the President's will no doubt fixate on one unscripted 
line of his speech in Poland. I say to those critics: Who among you has 
not uttered the same thought? Who doubts for one second this world 
would be more secure without the likes of such a tyrant?
  The Russian people have to make that decision, and if they are given 
the truth, I am sure they will make the right decision. That is why 
Vladimir Putin is trying to control the media. The Russian people will 
decide for themselves whether Putin stays or goes.
  The duty of democracy is to make sure that people have the final word 
as to their own destinies within their own borders. President Biden is 
leading a historic effort of the NATO alliance on behalf of the people 
of Ukraine. I salute him for his leadership.
  I yield the floor.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                            Budget Proposal

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, this morning, President Biden released 
his budget for fiscal year 2023.
  When you compare the President's agenda with the nasty Republican 
proposals, like the one from the Senator from Florida, it is clear that 
the contrast between the two parties is stark and glaring. One budget 
is for the ultrarich, and the other budget is for the middle class and 
those working to get there.
  President Biden's vision for America is refreshingly bold, 
responsible, and taps into our Nation's greatest strength--the American 
people themselves. It is a good, strong budget that will help build on 
the historic growth of the past year.
  For starters, the President's budget zeros in on fighting inflation. 
It calls, for instance, on increasing domestic manufacturing and 
relieving supply chain bottlenecks, especially at our ports.
  It increases help for American families to afford childcare, pre-K, 
and provides more funding to help schools with the academic and mental 
health resources to help students thrive.
  It builds on the President's promise to expand healthcare and 
supports efforts to lower prescription drug costs. Lowering 
prescription drug costs is one of the highest priorities of Senate 
Democrats, and we are eager and ready to work with the administration 
on this front.
  After years of Trump budgets that didn't even mention the word 
``climate,'' President Biden's plan would boost investments in clean 
energy, lower the costs of energy for low-income Americans, and speed 
up our transition to clean cars made right here in America, which will 
create thousands and thousands of good-paying new jobs.
  Critically, the President's budget will grow our country while making 
sure the richest Americans pay their

[[Page S1793]]

fair share. Most Americans think it is unacceptable for those at the 
top to pay less in taxes than teachers and firefighters. God bless the 
rich--I have nothing against them--but I applaud the President's 
proposal for making sure the ultrarich chip in to growing our country.
  Finally, I commend the President for releasing a budget that honors 
our Nation's promise to Ukraine while keeping Americans around the 
world safe from harm.
  Now compare the President's budget, President Biden's budget, to the 
bewildering vision laid out by Senate Republicans in recent weeks.
  While Democrats want to lower costs for American families, 
Republicans are openly calling on raising taxes on most Americans.
  Yesterday, the junior Senator from Florida went on FOX News Sunday to 
deny this part of his plan, only for the anchor--the FOX anchor--to 
remind everyone watching: ``No, it's in the plan.''
  While Democrats want to strengthen Medicare and make healthcare more 
affordable, Republicans have resurrected calls to repeal healthcare and 
even possibly put Medicare on the chopping block. And lest anyone 
forget, a few months ago, the junior Senator from Florida, in another 
example, openly said inflation was a ``gold mine''--a gold mine--for 
the Republican Party, a gold mine. People are hurt; it is a gold mine 
for the Republican Party.
  Just how callous, how retrograde, how backward is the Republican 
vision for America? raising taxes on working people? cheerleading 
inflation? stoking divisions and even putting things like Medicare at 
risk while pushing tax breaks for the ultrarich? If that is their pitch 
to the American people, God help Republicans.
  In the meantime, I thank President Biden for releasing a strong, 
optimistic, and responsible plan that will build on the historic 
recovery our Nation has seen in the past year.
  Senate Democrats will work with the administration to put these 
proposals into concrete legislation in the weeks and months to come.


                               H.R. 4521

  Madam President, now on the competition bill, it is an important day 
here on the Senate floor. In a few hours, we will hold a vote on final 
passage for the bipartisan jobs and competitiveness legislation many of 
us have worked on for over a year.
  For the information of all, today's action will come in two steps. We 
will first vote on cloture on the substitute amendment, which contains 
the text of the Senate-passed United States Innovation and Competition 
Act. Then we will proceed to final passage. Both votes are set at a 60-
vote threshold, and I am confident that we will wrap up this important 
work by the end of the day.
  As I have said since the beginning of this process, the actions we 
are taking on the Senate floor will enable us to enter a conference 
committee with the House, which we need in order to finalize our 
competitiveness bill. I believe we can see a conference committee 
initiated by the end of this work period.
  If enacted, I believe this legislation will be one of the most 
important accomplishments of the 117th Congress. This bill, for all its 
provisions, is really about two big things: creating more American jobs 
and lowering costs for American families.
  It will help lowering costs by making it easier to produce critical 
technologies here at home, like semiconductors. It will create more 
jobs by bringing manufacturing back from overseas.
  And just as importantly, this legislation will fuel another 
generation of American innovation. Whichever nation is the first to 
master the technologies of tomorrow will reshape the world in its 
image. America cannot afford to come in second place when it comes to 
technologies like 5G, AI, quantum computing, semiconductors, 
bioengineering, and so much more.
  This bill is a necessary step toward securing the bright future of 
American ingenuity, which has always helped us lead the way.
  I want to thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for 
everything they have done to help us each this moment. It has been a 
long, hard road, but almost every Member of this Chamber has had a hand 
in putting this bill together. It was a blend of various proposals 
across various committees, and it was a product of a healthy amendment 
process both in committee and on the floor.
  We are, hopefully, just a few hours away from reaching the next 
important step in the process, putting us on a glidepath to initiating 
a conference committee with the House.


                              Coronavirus

  Madam President, on COVID, over the past few weeks, our country has 
made major strides in the fight against COVID. Cases, deaths, and 
hospitalizations are coming down and staying down. Schools and 
communities are opening up and staying open.
  But in order to preserve this progress, Congress must now act to make 
sure that our communities, our healthcare workers, and our families 
have the resources they need to keep our country open. Sadly, public 
funding for COVID relief is in critical danger of actually running out.
  That is why right now I am working with my Republican colleagues to 
reach a bipartisan agreement on another COVID-19 package. The White 
House has been unambiguous in saying they need more funding with all 
due haste, so that is what we are working to secure ASAP.
  A new bipartisan bill will pay for all the tools we know work best 
against new variants: It will ensure we have enough vaccines; enough 
testing; enough therapeutics, which do amazing things if you get them 
in time; and support our schools to stay open in a safe way. We also 
need to do more to boost global vaccination efforts and support 
cutting-edge research into new vaccines.
  We already know what to do in order to keep life going as normally as 
possible should another variant threaten to unravel our progress. Now 
we simply need to secure the funding to make sure we can keep schools 
open and our communities as safe as possible. If you don't go for the 
funding and a new variant hits and it gets bad, shame on you. Everyone 
should be for this.
  Over the next few days, we will keep negotiating with our Republican 
colleagues in good faith. While we are not there yet, talks have been 
encouraging, and I hope we can reach an agreement very soon.

                          ____________________