Congressional Record, Volume 168 Issue 54 (Monday, March 28, 2022)

[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 54 (Monday, March 28, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1793-S1799]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.

Border Security

Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam President, during the first few months of
President Biden's term, he has tried to brush off the surge of illegal
immigrant apprehensions as nothing more than a seasonal trend. But
after month 6, seasonal migration was no longer a valid explanation for
what turned out to be a recordbreaking year.
This border surge wasn't by accident. President Biden pledged to
enact an open border agenda by halting border wall construction,
reversing successful Trump-era immigration policies, and hamstringing
our law enforcement officers. It was one promise he has kept.

[[Page S1794]]

And over a year into the Biden administration, we are seeing the
consequences of that promise.
Just last year, nearly 2 million illegal immigrants were apprehended
at our southern border from more than 160 different countries. And for
2022, it looks like we are on track to exceed that record, as this
February was the 12th--the 12th--consecutive month with over 100,000
illegal immigrant apprehensions. And if President Biden's
administration stops invoking title 42, and it doesn't secure the
border, the crisis is going to be dramatically different.
A lot of attention is paid to who is coming across the border, and
rightfully so, but it is time we all turn our attention to what is
coming across the border, and it is called deadly fentanyl.
Just as our border continues to be overwhelmed by illegal immigrants,
our communities are overwhelmed with this lethal drug. I have been to
the border, and I have seen firsthand the impact of President Biden's
open border policies and agenda.
At a checkpoint in McAllen, TX, I saw a truck bed filled with
fentanyl, filled to the brim--a deadly synthetic opioid.
Thankfully, our Border Patrol officer stopped this particular truck
from making it across the border, but for that one being stopped, there
are several more that get across the border. Thankfully, our Border
Patrol officer stopped this truck, stopped it from making it across the
border, and it saved many lives. But for every truck of fentanyl, many,
many more continue to come across.
It is hard to understand the significance of a truck bed full of
fentanyl, so just let me break it down.
Look at my chart. Two milligrams of fentanyl is considered a lethal
dose; 2 milligrams is the weight of a mosquito. Ten pennies weigh one
ounce. One ounce of fentanyl can kill nearly 30,000 people. A football
weighs 1 pound. Just 1 pound of fentanyl can kill over 200,000 people.
In October of last year, in South Alabama, Baldwin County sheriff
deputy seized 14 grams of fentanyl. That is enough to kill upward of
7,000 people. And, of course, in any arrest, sometimes you have
problems with fentanyl. One of his deputies just happened to touch
fentanyl and was immediately put into the hospital.
We are seizing these deadly drugs across America every day. Last
year, in San Diego, a trucker was arrested after attempting to smuggle
more than 389 pounds of fentanyl, which is enough to kill 88 million
people.
The connection between President Biden's open border policies and the
rise of fentanyl is clear, and the American people are paying a heavy,
heavy price.
Since President Biden's inauguration, Customs and Border Protection
seized nearly 3,000 pounds of illicit fentanyl. That is a 41-percent
increase from last year.
Over the last year, opioids took the lives of over 100,000 Americans.
To put that into perspective, that is half the size of our capital city
in the State of Alabama, which would be almost wiped off the map. This
is bone-chilling.
But these numbers are more important than a stat. They are the sons
and daughters, the mothers and fathers, the brothers and sisters who
were all taken too soon--bright futures darkened by deadly drug
addiction.
I spent 40 years traveling across this country visiting young
athletes and their families from every walk of life. I had players who
battled addiction or who had close friends who battled addiction. It is
a heartbreaking procedure to watch a student worry about stepping in
for a parent who is suffering from addiction. That happens daily. When
they should be only worrying about studying or getting ready for a
game, they are also covering for parents who are addicted to drugs.
It is true that drug addiction has plagued our country for decades,
but we have seen a sharp rise since the pandemic: isolations, loss of
work, depression, all making the problem worse. And the data confirms
this. So it only makes sense to do all we can to help Americans. That
would include cutting off the drugs at the primary source, which is the
southern border. Yet the President refuses to take decisive action to
stop these deadly substances from flooding into the country.
In fact, the answer from the Biden administration is there will be a
strategy for dealing with addiction and fentanyl crisis coming
``soon.''
When President Biden's drug czar, Dr. Gupta, was asked about the
administration's plans to address the addiction crisis, he responded
that the drug control strategy was in its ``advanced stages of being
finalized.''
To that I say, Americans are losing their lives right now. Lives are
being lost every day when we are coming up with a strategy. We don't
need a bureaucratic talking point or a bureaucrat wasting our time. We
need a plan--and we need a plan now--to stop these drugs.
Since President Biden has been in office, he has failed to take
charge in every situation. Sadly, the drug overdose epidemic is no
different. While the folks at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue continue to work
on their strategy, I propose President Biden take a logical and long-
overdue first step today: enforce our immigration laws at the border--
that would be a great start--end the free flow of fentanyl, and stop
the loss of innocent lives.
For a White House that is so laser-focused on the health of Americans
as it relates to the pandemic--masks, 6 feet apart, airports--the same
emphasis should be cast on the people's lives that we are losing and
the deadly drugs coming into our country illegally.
By creating and then failing to address this disastrous situation at
the southern border, President Biden has fueled another crisis as
fentanyl ravages our communities.
You know, we all watched this weekend as President Biden gave a great
speech in Poland. He put the wrath down on the Russian people,
military, and the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin. He showed
anger--and he should have--at the destruction that is going on in
Ukraine and the innocent lives lost.
President Biden needs to show the same anger. We will lose more
people in the next 6 months than they will lose in this war in
Ukraine--people in our country--and it is being overlooked. It is not
being worked on. The problem is not trying to be answered. It is like
we are having to just deal with it.
We have got a problem here, Mr. President, and we need to address it.
The President has the tools and the authority to act quickly and save
lives. I just hope, sooner or later, somebody recognizes it and does
something about it because, as we speak, we are not answering this
problem.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

Remembering Ray Mark Lindsey

Mr. YOUNG. Madam President, in May of 2013, one of my constituents,
Bob Evans from Lawrence County, was placed on the kidney transplant
list. His particular kidney ailment was hereditary, meaning family
members who might have been a match could not donate. So Bob was left
waiting for someone--someone--to step forward.
Unbeknownst to Bob, an acquaintance, Ray Lindsey, quietly went to get
tested. Now, Ray took several days off work, traveling 3 hours round
trip to Indianapolis to see if he would be a match. He was. And only
then did Ray tell Bob what he had been up to. In the summer of 2014,
Ray donated a kidney, and he saved Bob's life.
Yesterday, Ray, one of the most selfless people I have ever met,
passed away after a courageous battle with cancer.
Ray was a humble and unassuming family man with a sense of humor. On
his Facebook page, he called himself a ``part-time hillbilly.'' Ray
worked hard and, by the way, didn't get any compensation whatsoever for
the weeks he had to take off while recuperating from surgery.
Ray's sacrifice has made a lasting impact on public policy. His story
impacted and informed my interest in organ donation policy. I
introduced the PRISE Act to incentivize new breakthroughs in kidney
disease treatment options. In 2018, the Trump administration created a
similar program called KidneyX.
We know Ray saved one life, but his story and selflessness impacted
potentially thousands more.
Bob, by the way, is still going strong today, 8 years after the
transplant surgery.
Ray was a man of deep faith, and I can think of no better tribute to
Ray than words found in John, chapter 15:

[[Page S1795]]

My command is this. Love each other as I have loved you.
Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for
one's friends.

Ray lived those words, and I and countless others are going to miss
him deeply. I offer my condolences to all who loved Ray, including his
wife Debbie, three children, and eight grandchildren. Ray's incredible
life and impact will never be forgotten.
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.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. 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

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, well before we gaveled in to last
week's Supreme Court confirmation hearing, our friends in the
mainstream media had made it clear what the approved narrative was
going to be. According to them, we were supposed to talk about what a
historic moment it was and what a historic nominee Judge Jackson is.
My Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee spent most of
their time focusing on the approved talking points memo, but those of
us who didn't play along were punished in print.
But, back home in Tennessee, these unhinged attacks by the media went
over like a lead balloon, and I think my Democratic colleagues would
benefit from listening to what people outside of Washington, DC, have
to say because they--the people--are the ones who will bear the
practical consequences of what happens here in DC.
Now, on Thursday, my Democratic colleagues declared victory for Judge
Jackson, but Tennesseans I talked to this weekend still have a lot of
questions. They expected more from her. They don't appreciate being
called racist for saying they expected more. They wanted her to answer
tough questions about the Constitution. They wanted assurance that a
Justice Jackson would protect their constitutional rights.
They have no problem with having a former public defender on the
Court. That could even be a good thing. But they wanted her to account
for her record of granting light sentences to dangerous criminals. Why
did she choose to let some of them out of jail on compassionate
release?
I asked those questions, and I commend all of my colleagues on the
committee who dug in and did the same thing. Many of my Democratic
colleagues, on the other hand, accused us of ``tarnishing'' their
historic moment. But Tennesseans didn't see it that way. They say it
was the Democrats who tarnished the proceedings by ignoring their duty
to vet Judge Jackson, who is up for a lifetime appointment to the
highest Court in the land. They feel it was the media that tarnished
the moment by politicizing--politicizing--the hearings.
Now, I cannot support Judge Jackson's nomination to the Supreme
Court, but I am withholding my support for reasons my Democratic
colleagues and the media have chosen to ignore. For all the focus my
colleagues placed on ``judicial philosophy'' in previous confirmation
hearings, I had hoped that Judge Jackson would come ready to tell us
about hers, but she didn't. Instead, she came armed with a methodology
that spoke to the thoroughness of her process but said very little
about her approach to constitutional interpretation.
After the hysteria that broke out during Justice Barrett's hearings
about the so-called dangers of originalism, I thought we might discover
what sort of jurist my Democratic colleagues think would be more
effective than a constitutionalist. But oh no--to ask that--you are not
supposed to do that.
But, suddenly, judicial philosophy meant nothing. As I said, don't
ask that question. What role the Constitution plays in Judge Jackson's
``methodology'' meant nothing to them. Don't ask that question.
Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this is not a subject
the American people are willing to ignore. They want you to ask the
questions and get answers. They don't expect to agree with a Justice
100 percent of the time, but they do expect those nominees to adhere to
a standard. They want a constitutionalist, not a judicial activist, and
at this point, they have no idea what rules she will follow if indeed
she is confirmed.
All we can do is look at her record. Judge Jackson spent a lot of
time defending her work. Tennesseans are just as worried about what she
was trying to distance herself from. What did she want us to not know?
Associations are important. You can tell a lot about a person by
looking at who their friends are, and, as it turns out, Judge Jackson
has some pretty controversial friends.
Over the past few years, we have seen progressive activists use
critical race theory to try and redefine our history and change the way
Americans view their place in the world. It is a pernicious
philosophical lens, and the effect it has on kids in the classroom is
weighing heavily on the hearts of Tennessee parents.
Now, in her hearing, Judge Jackson brushed aside my questions about
her views on CRT. She wrote it off as an ``academic theory,'' which it
is, but my questions were about how she may or may not apply that
academic theory to her decisions. Why does she choose to give that
academic theory the same weight as administrative law or constitutional
law when she is making those decisions?
One particular item she tried to distance herself from is her praise
for the so-called progressive curriculum at Georgetown Day School,
where she sits on the board. Here is what she said in the winter 2019
edition of the school's magazine.

Since becoming part of the GDS community 7 years ago, I
have witnessed the transformative power of a rigorous
progressive education.

As Judge Jackson pointed out, Georgetown Day is a private school--an
elite private school. They can teach what they want, and parents can
choose to take their kids out and go elsewhere if they don't like it.
But here is the wrinkle. It is getting harder for parents in
Tennessee to do that because so-called progressive education is taking
over public schools also. And part of that progressive education
requires getting in between parents and their children.

Here is why it was so important to air this out during a confirmation
hearing. We were examining a nominee who has spent nearly a decade on
the bench yet cannot describe her fundamental approach to the law--not
her approach to deciding cases or sentencing criminals but to reading
and interpreting the Constitution.
So when Tennesseans hear a nominee refuse to answer these questions--
when she gives an opening statement and talks about how she makes
decisions by starting from a point of neutrality, by looking at the
facts of the case, by looking at precedent, you have to say: Where does
the Constitution fit into your decision?
At the same time that she is practicing that methodology of deciding
cases, she is associating herself with philosophies meant to divide
children from their parents. They feel entitled to know what role these
associations are going to play in her decision matrix.
Questions are not attacks, and that is a point that needs to be made.
To ask questions is not an attack. How do we keep our Nation free and
strong? We do it by robust, respectful debate. That requires that you
ask questions of individuals who come before you, that you ask
questions of individuals who have a different opinion than you have or
who hold a different political or governmental philosophy than you
hold. Questions are not attacks.
Challenging the application of CRT in elementary school classes is
not ``racism.'' Standing firm on the definition of ``woman'' is not
``transphobia.'' This isn't personal. We are talking about a lifetime
appointment, and the people deserve to know who this nominee is and
what she believes.
I thought it was so interesting that so regularly through the
hearing, people would reference her background and her family and the
strong connections as part of what makes her who she is and informs her
decisionmaking and how important that is. The letters of support to her
all mention that. But if you question some of this, then the media,
then my Democratic colleagues

[[Page S1796]]

say that is an attack. No, my friends, it is not. It is not an attack
because words have meaning. You don't leave words like ``parenthood''
and ``womanhood'' up for interpretation. You know what they mean.
Judge Jackson had 3 days to convince this country that her
methodology--not her judicial philosophy but her methodology--can help
her answer these questions. In my opinion, she failed at that task.
In this building, I don't speak for myself; I speak for the people of
the great State of Tennessee. I cannot in good conscience give their
endorsement to a nominee who by all accounts is legally and
constitutionally adrift. What is her standard? We still don't know.
What keeps her grounded in the law? We are not sure about that one
either. What keeps her from infusing politics into her rulings? We
don't have an answer for that. Those are things that, this weekend,
Tennesseans would say: I want to know this.
My Democratic colleagues don't want to talk about this; neither does
the media. They have spent their time whipping up people, looking for
outrage, looking for click bait. But here is what I will say in
conclusion: Every single one of Judge Jackson's contemporaries have
been more than happy to answer these questions. They do regularly as
they have come before us for Supreme Court confirmation hearings. So
why will not Judge Jackson?
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

Biden Family

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today, Senator Johnson and I begin a
series of speeches on our investigations into the Biden family's
financial deals. We will make these presentations with two themes.
First, we will refute and we will dismantle the talking points that
the liberal media and our Democratic colleagues pushed onto the
American people. Their talking points said that our investigations over
the years advanced and spread Russian disinformation. On November 29,
2021; May 11, 2021; March 18, 2021; December 14, 2020; December 10,
2020; October 19, 2020; and September 29, 2020, I came to this Senate
floor to rebut those false charges.
Now--or at least then--the liberal media and my Democratic colleagues
ought to be ashamed of themselves for the outright lies that they
peddled about our investigative work. As a result, Senator Johnson and
I did what any good investigator would do: We gathered even more
records to prove all these people wrong, which brings me to the second
theme.

Senator Johnson and I will produce new records to show additional
connections between the Biden family and the communist Chinese regime.
Before we get to those records, I am going to discuss the background of
our investigation.
We started this investigation last Congress. Then, I was chairman of
the Finance Committee, and at that time, Senator Johnson was chairman
of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
It began in August 2019. I started at that time an inquiry into a
transaction involving Hunter Biden that was reviewed by the Federal
Government's Committee on Foreign Investment.
On September 23, 2020, Senator Johnson and I released our report. On
November 18, 2020, we released our supplement to that report. Those
reports were based in large part on Obama administration government
records and also almost a dozen transcribed interviews of government
officials.
In both reports, Senator Johnson and I made financial information
public that hadn't ever been known before. Our report exposed extensive
financial relationships between Hunter and James Biden and Chinese
nationals connected to the communist regime. More precisely, these were
Chinese nationals connected to the Chinese Government's military and
intelligence service.
One of those individuals was a person by the name of Patrick Ho.
According to reports, Hunter Biden said of Patrick Ho:

I have another New York Times reporter calling about my
representation of Patrick Ho--

Then Hunter Biden says the f-word--

[denoting] the spy chief of China who started the company
that my partner, who is worth $323 billion, founded and is
now missing.

We will get into more detail with respect to Patrick Ho in future
speeches. We will do the same with Gongwen Dong, another close
associate of Hunter Biden's who was connected to the communist regime.
Now, Hunter Biden's reference to ``my partner'' is an apparent
reference to Ye Jianming. Ye had connections to the People's Liberation
Army. Ye had a company called CEFC, which had multiple variations.
Today and in future speeches, Senator Johnson and I will simply refer
to that company as CEFC.
Documents show that CEFC's corporate mission was ``to expand
cooperation in the international energy economy and contribute to
national development.'' Now, let me emphasize that word ``national'' in
that quote, ``national development.'' CEFC existed for the communist
state. Indeed, records show that CEFC is dedicating itself to serving
China's national energy strategy, developing national strategic
reserves for oil, and ``partnering with centrally-administered and
state-owned enterprises.''
Records prepared by one of Hunter and James Biden's business
associates, James Gilliar, say the following about this company, CEFC:

At the time, China was hungry for crude, but its state-
backed companies were having difficulty closing some deals
abroad. The optics of China's state-backed giants marching
into a country to buy and extract oil weren't great for
central Asian politicians. This paved the way for private
firms like CEFC, which can strike oil deals in Europe and the
Middle East where Chinese State Owned Enterprises could bring
political liabilities.

Documents also show that CEFC ``is building an energy storage and
logistics system in Europe'' to connect China, Europe, and the Middle
East. You may ask, why? Plainly, to serve ``China's ambitions to have
overseas storage locations connected with world markets.''
The document further states that CEFC's investment bank division has
investments in the energy sector ``which are in tandem with the
government's 4 trillion dollar One Belt One Road foreign investment
program.''
Then CEFC operated under the guise of a private company but was for
all intents and purposes an arm of the Chinese Government.
Hunter Biden and James Biden served as the perfect vehicle by which
the communist Chinese Government could gain inroads here in the United
States through CEFC and its affiliates.
And these inroads were focused on Chinese advancement into the global
and U.S. energy sector. Hunter and James Biden were more than happy to
go along, of course, for the right price.
So now let's turn to the first poster, which shows bank records that
haven't been made public before now. This is a portion of a document
that we--meaning Senator Johnson and I--will release in full.
The topic of this poster shows a wire transaction on August 4, 2017,
from CEFC to Wells Fargo Clearing Services for $100,000.
Now, look at the bottom of the poster. This is the underlying data of
this transaction. It states:

Further credit to OWASCO.

OWASCO is Hunter Biden's firm.
Now, there is no middleman in this transaction. This is $100,000 from
what is, effectively, an arm of the communist Chinese Government direct
to Hunter Biden.
So a second question, a question to the liberal media and my
Democratic colleagues, who accused us, over the last 2 years, of
distributing Russian disinformation: Is this official bank document
Russian disinformation?
Now, beyond this document, in future speeches, Senator Johnson and I
will show you more transfers between and among such companies as CEFC,
Northern International Capital, Hudson West Three, Hunter Biden's
OWASCO, and James Biden's Lion Hall Group.
In doing so, please keep in mind the players in this game: Hunter
Biden, James Biden, Ye Jianming, Gongwen Dong, Mervyn Yan, and Patrick
Ho, to name a few. All of these individuals mixed and mingled with
related corporate entities over a period of years and with respect to
millions of dollars.
Now, the next poster, those connections are illustrated by this
second poster which I made public last November. It is an original bank
record with one typographical error and all. Here

[[Page S1797]]

you have Hunter Biden, Gongwen Dong, and Mervyn Yan executing an
assignment and assumption agreement together.
Now, a third question to those who accuse us of disseminating Russian
disinformation, so especially to the liberal media who are the ones who
ought to be policing our government system to make sure that everything
is done honest--they shouldn't have to have Members of Congress giving
all this information out--but is this official record Russian
disinformation?
In our next speeches, we will show you more records that haven't been
seen before, records that undeniably show strong links between the
Biden family and communist China.
Today is just a small taste. I would like to note one thing before
Senator Johnson takes over. He is going to describe to you the
ridiculous attacks that we received, claiming that our reports were
Russian disinformation.
On March 16 of this year, the New York Times unwittingly
substantiated our reports by reporting on Hunter Biden's connection to
foreign corporations and his potential criminal exposure.
So what Senator Johnson and I made public last Congress is now a
prevailing fact pattern that even the liberal media can't ignore any
longer and falsely label ``Russian disinformation.''
I will turn it over to Senator Johnson to provide additional examples
of the media's attack last Congress.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I first want to thank the senior
Senator from the State of Iowa for his tenacity in pursuing the truth
and ignoring all of the false attacks lobbed against us during the
course of our multiyear investigations into corruption at the highest
levels of the Federal Government.
Both of us have been firsthand witnesses and at the same time victims
of the dishonesty of our Democratic Senate colleagues and their willing
accomplices in the media.
When it comes to our investigation into the vast web of foreign
financial entanglements of the Biden family, those attacks have had one
goal in mind, to cover up the extent to which President Biden might be
and almost certainly is compromised.
Over the course of our investigation into how Hunter Biden used his
father's position and name to enrich himself and his family, the
dishonest press published countless stories reporting on the Democrats'
false charge that Senator Grassley and I were soliciting and
disseminating Russian disinformation.
Once we issued our September and November 2020 reports, which were
based almost exclusively on U.S.-sourced documents and interviews with
U.S. citizens, the media largely ignored it. When they did write a
story, they declared that our reports found nothing new, a classic
media coverup.
I have always said the bias in the media is revealed far more in what
they don't report than what they actually do report. But all the false
attacks did not deter us. We have continued to uncover the truth and,
fortunately, our reports also served as a catalyst for others to come
forward and for more investigative journalists to keep digging.
The American people deserve the truth. That is why we are presenting
additional evidence today and over the next few days. For example, this
is the first time this document is being made public. As Senator
Grassley described in detail, it shows that money from CEFC, which is
effectively an arm of the Chinese Government, went directly to Hunter
Biden.

Bank records like this piece of evidence are pretty hard to deny and
sweep under the rug. Our reports were chockful of irrefutable evidence
like this, and yet the media buried those details in an attempt to keep
it hidden from the American people.
Because the mainstream media and our Democratic colleagues had no
substance to refute our reports, they reverted to their time-honored
tradition of lying, making false accusations against us, and engaging
in the politics of personal destruction.
Again, their goal was to destroy the credibility of our reports
before the American people even had a chance to read them. They were
fully aware that the lie can travel halfway around the world before the
truth has a chance to put on its shoes. For example, listen to what New
York Times journalist Nicholas Fandos said about our report: ``lack of
meaningful new information'' and, again, ``overlap [of the] Russian
disinformation campaign.''
The then-Democratic minority leader was quoted saying about our
report, ``as if Putin wrote it, not United States Senators.'' A
Democratic Senator described our investigation as being ``rooted in
disinformation'' from Russian operatives.
Separately, a Democratic Senator also said about our report:

Bottom line: the Johnson-Grassley investigation is
baseless. It's laundering Russian propaganda for circulation
in the U.S.

But, of course, all those quotes were disinformation, disinformation
designed to distract all of us from the truth. As Senator Grassley
reiterated, our reports were based almost exclusively on government
records from the Obama administration and transcribed interviews of
government officials.
So how did the Democrats and the liberal media allies carry out this
false attack on us? We describe part of what they did in section 10 of
our September 2020 report. Their disinformation and smear campaign
against us in our reports was extensive, but in the interest of time, I
will give you a shorter Cliff's Notes version.
On July 13, 2020, then-Minority Leader Schumer, Senator Warner,
Speaker Pelosi, and Representative Schiff sent a letter to the FBI to
express a purported belief that Congress was the subject of a foreign
disinformation campaign. The letter included a classified attachment
that had unclassified elements that attempted to tie Senator Grassley's
and my work to Andriy Derkach, a Russian agent.
The Democrats speculated that, based on this unclassified
information, Senator Grassley and I had received materials from
Derkach. This was false. Nothing could be further from the truth, but
this information purportedly linking Senator Grassley and I to Derkach
was leaked to liberal media outlets to start a false narrative to smear
us.
Until news reports of this false allegation surfaced, I had never
even heard of Andriy Derkach. We immediately and forcefully denied the
false allegation, but Democrats and the media continued to spread the
lie. To this day, no one has ever apologized to either of us for
spreading that lie, even though it was proven conclusively to be a lie
and disinformation.
Next, my staff and Senator Grassley's staff did a transcribed
interview with George Kent. During that interview, Democratic staff
members introduced Derkach's materials into our record. Then Democratic
staff members asked Mr. Kent about it. He stated:

What you are asking me to interpret is a master chart of
disinformation and malign influence.

That was Mr. Kent's evaluation of the Derkach disinformation that
Democrats were spreading that they entered into our record.
So the actual truth of the matter is that Democrats--not Senator
Grassley nor I--introduced known Russian disinformation into our
investigatory record. They did the exact thing they were falsely
accusing us of doing.
Again, not my staff, not Senator Grassley's staff, Democrats were
disseminating Russian disinformation just like they did with the Steele
dossier. Then-Ranking Members Wyden and Peters sent me and Senator
Grassley a letter asking for an intelligence briefing relating to our
investigation.
Now, such a briefing was completely unnecessary, but it was an effort
by our Democratic colleagues to further falsely taint our
investigation, hoping to discredit it and discredit the truth.
On July 28, 2020, Senator Grassley and I reminded them that the FBI
and relevant members of the intelligence community had already briefed
the committees in March of 2020 and assured us that there was no reason
to discontinue our investigation.
Then, in August 2020, Senator Grassley and I were provided a briefing
from the FBI, a briefing that we did not request that was also leaked
to the press to further smear us.
This unsolicited FBI briefing was also not necessary and was
completely

[[Page S1798]]

irrelevant to the substance of our investigation.
The FBI briefers did tell us that they weren't there to ``quash,
curtail, or interfere'' in our investigation in any way.
No government entity ever warned us that our investigation into the
Biden family's financial deals was connected to any kind of Russian
disinformation campaign--because it wasn't.
But, again, the substance of that FBI briefing was later leaked and
contorted to smear us, which was exactly why we suspect we were given
the unsolicited briefing in the first place.
Those briefers promised confidentiality. Clearly, that
confidentiality was breached and resulted in another smear operation on
Senator Grassley and me to deflect allegations of corruption and
conflict of interest that could compromise a President Biden.
To date, we do not know who all was involved in this smear campaign,
but even after repeated requests, Director Wray and Director Haines
have refused to come in and fully explain who requested and directed
this briefing and why it was provided.
I think we know why it was provided.
So to review, senior Democrats and liberal media cooperated to smear
Senator Grassley and me with false accusations of receiving and
spreading Russian disinformation. They created documents, leaked them,
asked for briefings, and then leaked those, too, and then they
themselves disseminated Russian disinformation.
You can't make this up.
Fortunately, they failed to discredit our investigation because we
stayed true to government records. We stayed true to the facts and the
evidence. And the evidence is stunning, and it is growing.
Over the next few days, Senator Grassley and I will come to the floor
to present additional evidence that has not yet been made public. These
records show extensive connections between the Biden family and
elements of the communist Chinese regime. We are talking high-dollar
transactions, some of which we have already highlighted in our
September and November 2020 reports, but our speeches will introduce
new financial documents into the record for all to see.
Now, we expect Democrats and the media to continue to use their power
to smear us and cover up for the Bidens. But the truth has a power of
its own, and we intend to continue to reveal the truth.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able
to complete my remarks before the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

H.R. 4521

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I come to the floor tonight happy that
the Senate is going to move forward on substituting what is originally
the Senate-passed Schumer-Young bill on the U.S. Innovation and
Competition Act. That is what we are going to be voting on and then
sending that over to the House of Representatives to basically convey
that that is our desire here in the Senate and, hopefully, get this
process of going to conference and a response back from the House of
Representatives so we can move forward on reinvigorating America's
supply chain.
Madam President, I know you know how important this is, but the
Senate bill, again, brought to us by Senators Schumer and Young, I
think, was quite prescient on the problems that we were going to face
as it relates to supply chains. But I don't think that everybody really
understands that the Senate position is really about the fact that we
need to have technology transfer happen at a faster rate; that other
countries, because the United States has been such a prolific publisher
of information and content, actually have taken that content and
information and been able to turn it into actual commercial
applications.
So in the United States we want to do something to create, while
still protecting NSF, the National Science Foundation, on basic
research and advanced research and the Department of Energy on
research, and also work faster at translating the successes of our
science into true application and translating that into helping our
manufacturers here in the United States of America.
This is so important because we know that in various sectors of our
economy, we are seeing much of the supply chain controlled in other
parts of the world. We see that Asia now controls much of the supply
chain for pharmaceuticals.

We are having a big debate about how we are going to drive down the
cost of pharmaceuticals. We are going to invest here in the United
States, I think, in more biotechnology and synthetic biology to find
new ways to discover and make lifesaving drugs, and it is very
important that we do that research here.
In the Senate bill, we are very focused on: In what areas do we want
to do faster translational science to help bring the supply chain back
to the United States?
As we talked last week, we see that Taiwan makes more than 90 percent
of the world's leading-edge chips which drive our national security and
our economic security, and we want to do the research here in the
United States through the acceleration with the Tech Directorate to
invent the next generation of chips and build them here domestically.
And we have heard about the risk of Americans falling behind on
advanced communications, like 5G or 6G, and so we have ideas here about
how to translate that into faster deployment of technology that could
help our manufacturing base.
So I am actually very excited about all of that innovation because if
we all work together, we collaborate, we have done the R&D, and we
actually work harder at getting it translated, I think there are lots
of solutions that we can put before our manufacturers here to help them
with their competitiveness on a worldwide basis.
That is what the Tech Directorate does. The Manufacturing USA
Institutes, the technology hubs, and the technology centers are all
parts of this legislation that would help us move technology out into
the world at a faster pace and work collaboratively to solve these
problems that, again, would bring the manufacturing and the supply
chain back into the United States of America.
I get really excited about the issues related to the automobile
sector and the grid. Coming from a State that has had cheap electricity
for a long time, it has built our economy over and over and over again;
that is, that people want to locate there because the electricity is so
affordable.
It is one of the reasons why we have one of the highest deployments
of electric vehicles in the country, because it really only costs you
about a dollar a gallon to fill up versus the rising, well-above $4 a
gallon that we are seeing today.
So people are very excited about an electricity grid and a supply
chain here in the United States that would build here the battery
technology, implement this faster integration into our economy, and get
a grid that works and enables that kind of electrification of the
transportation sector.
I guarantee you the United States could be world leaders in the
deployment of this if we get this legislation passed and we continue to
make investments in the National Science Foundation and the Tech
Directorate.
Now, I know some of our colleagues have been concerned that this
somehow takes away from the National Science Foundation's focus on
basic research. I would tell you that it does both. The Senate bill
that we will be voting on does both. It basically continues to invest
in the NSF in their traditional role and also gets this idea of a Tech
Directorate which focuses on the translational science--again, to help
us get more of the supply chain back in the United States. It does
both.
This underlying bill, also, as I said, is the Senate version which
made the same investment in the Department of Energy, which was so
important because the Department of Energy plays such an important
aspect in this.
It also does something that my colleague Senator Wicker and I and
others worked on, which is trying to make sure that we are getting more
technology development in a variety of places; that is, that we are
building on STEM and the amount of investment in STEM education--the
fact that we want to have innovation everywhere so that opportunity is
also anywhere.

[[Page S1799]]

And we also make more investments in the idea of our EPSCoR Program,
which is helping areas of the United States that may not have as much
tech investment, to continue to increase the investment in their
institutions.
I hope this is something my colleagues understand, that this is about
growing the capacity for us to innovate in many different parts of the
United States and across many different sectors of our economy and with
increasing the capacity of women and minorities to also participate in
the kinds of programs that will help America be competitive.
So I encourage my colleagues to support the underlying Senate bill.
Help us get it moved forward and to also send this over on the second
vote to the House and continue the process to get us to real
negotiations and get us working on these supply chain issues.
I yield the floor.

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair
lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the
clerk will state.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on amendment No.
5002 to Calendar No. 282, H.R. 4521, a bill to provide for a
coordinated Federal research initiative to ensure continued
United States leadership in engineering biology.
Charles E. Schumer, Patty Murray, Benjamin L. Cardin,
Tammy Duckworth, Mark R. Warner, Robert P. Casey, Jr.,
Jack Reed, Tina Smith, Brian Schatz, Christopher
Murphy, Mazie K. Hirono, Mark Kelly, Tammy Baldwin,
Jacky Rosen, Ron Wyden, Margaret Wood Hassan, Maria
Cantwell.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 5002, offered by the Senator from New York, to H.R. 4521,
a bill to provide for a coordinated Federal research initiative to
ensure continued United States leadership in engineering biology, shall
be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham) would have voted ``yea''.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 68, nays 28, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 108 Leg.]

YEAS--68

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Crapo
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Grassley
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Tillis
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NAYS--28

Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Cramer
Cruz
Ernst
Fischer
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
Paul
Rubio
Sanders
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Tuberville

NOT VOTING--4

Blunt
Cotton
Graham
Kennedy
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). On this vote, the yeas are 68,
the nays are 28.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, in a few minutes, the Senate is going to
take a final vote on the major bipartisan jobs and competitive
legislation.
As we all know, it has been a long road to reach this point. I want
to thank my Democratic and Republican colleagues for working in good
faith on the bill. Nearly every Member of this Chamber has had a hand
in shaping this legislation.
There are three important reasons for passing the bill. It will
create more American jobs. It will lower costs for American families.
It will help ignite another generation of American scientific research
and innovation.
After we pass this bill, we will be one step closer to initiating a
conference committee so we can resolve the House and Senate bills. I am
hopeful we will be able to reach a conference committee before the end
of this work period.
I thank all my colleagues for their good work on this bill and ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Cloture having been invoked, the motion to
commit falls, as inconsistent with cloture; and, under the previous
order, the remaining amendments are withdrawn, amendment No. 5002 is
agreed to, the cloture motion on the bill is withdrawn, and the bill,
as amended, is considered read a third time.
The amendments were withdrawn.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

On page S1799, March 28, 2022, second column, the following
appears: The amendments (Nos. 5003, 5004, 5005, and 5006) were
withdrawn.

The online Record has been corrected to read: The amendments
were withdrawn.

========================= END NOTE =========================

The amendment (No. 5002) was agreed to.
The cloture motion on the bill (H.R. 4521) was withdrawn.
The bill, as amended, was ordered to a third reading and was read the
third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass?
The yeas and nays have been requested.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham) would have voted ``yea.''
The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 28, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 109 Leg.]

YEAS--68

NAYS--28

NOT VOTING--4

Blunt
Cotton
Graham
Kennedy
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 68, the nays are
28.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for passage of this bill,
the bill, as amended, is passed.
The bill (H.R. 4521), as amended, was passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

____________________