[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order for the quorum call be rescinded.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.
____________________