[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

     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. 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.

                          ____________________