[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 57 (Thursday, March 31, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1887-S1901]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   OCEAN SHIPPING REFORM ACT OF 2022

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 311, S. 3580.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 3580) to amend title 46, United States Code, 
     with respect to prohibited acts by ocean common carriers or 
     marine terminal operators, and for other purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, 
which had been reported from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation, with an amendment to strike all after the enacting 
clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 
     2022''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       Section 40101 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) ensure an efficient, competitive, and economical 
     transportation system in the ocean commerce of the United 
     States;'';
       (2) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``and supporting 
     commerce'' after ``needs''; and
       (3) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
       ``(4) promote the growth and development of United States 
     exports through a competitive and efficient system for the 
     carriage of goods by water in the foreign commerce of the 
     United States, and by placing a greater reliance on the 
     marketplace.''.

     SEC. 3. SERVICE CONTRACTS.

       Section 40502(c) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) any other essential terms that the Federal Maritime 
     Commission determines necessary or appropriate through a 
     rulemaking process.''.

     SEC. 4. SHIPPING EXCHANGE REGISTRY.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 405 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 40504. Shipping exchange registry

       ``(a) In General.--No person may operate a shipping 
     exchange involving ocean transportation in the foreign 
     commerce of the United States unless the shipping exchange is 
     registered as a national shipping exchange under the terms 
     and conditions provided in this section and the regulations 
     issued pursuant to this section.
       ``(b) Registration.--A person shall register a shipping 
     exchange by filing with the Federal Maritime Commission an 
     application for registration in such form as the Commission, 
     by rule, may prescribe, containing the rules of the exchange 
     and such other information and documents as the Commission, 
     by rule, may prescribe as necessary or appropriate to 
     complete a shipping exchange's registration.
       ``(c) Exemption.--The Commission may exempt, conditionally 
     or unconditionally, a shipping exchange from registration 
     under this section if the Commission finds that the shipping 
     exchange is subject to comparable, comprehensive supervision 
     and regulation by the appropriate governmental authorities in 
     a foreign country where the shipping exchange is 
     headquartered.
       ``(d) Regulations.--Not later than 3 years after the date 
     of enactment of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022, the 
     Commission shall issue regulations pursuant to subsection 
     (a), which shall set standards necessary to carry out 
     subtitle IV of this title for registered national shipping 
     exchanges, including the minimum requirements for service 
     contracts established under section 40502 of this title.
       ``(e) Definition of Shipping Exchange.--In this section, 
     the term `shipping exchange' means a platform (digital, over-
     the-counter, or otherwise) that connects shippers with common 
     carriers for the purpose of entering into underlying 
     agreements or contracts for the transport of cargo, by vessel 
     or other modes of transportation.''.
       (b) Applicability.--The registration requirement under 
     section 40504 of title 46, United States Code (as added by 
     subsection (a)), shall take effect on the date on which the 
     Federal Maritime Commission states the rule is effective in 
     the regulations issued under such section.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 405 of 
     title 46, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``40504. Shipping exchange registry.''.

     SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON RETALIATION.

       Section 41102 of title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Retaliation and Other Discriminatory Actions.--A 
     common carrier, marine terminal operator, or ocean 
     transportation intermediary, acting alone or in conjunction 
     with any other person, directly or indirectly, may not--
       ``(1) retaliate against a shipper, an agent of a shipper, 
     an ocean transportation intermediary, or a motor carrier by 
     refusing, or threatening to refuse, an otherwise-available 
     cargo space accommodation; or
       ``(2) resort to any other unfair or unjustly discriminatory 
     action for--
       ``(A) the reason that a shipper, an agent of a shipper, an 
     ocean transportation intermediary, or motor carrier has--
       ``(i) patronized another carrier; or
       ``(ii) filed a complaint against the common carrier, marine 
     terminal operator, or ocean transportation intermediary; or
       ``(B) any other reason.''.

     SEC. 6. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.

       Section 46106 of title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Public Disclosures.--The Federal Maritime Commission 
     shall publish, and annually update, on the website of the 
     Commission--
       ``(1) all findings by the Commission of false detention and 
     demurrage invoice information by common carriers under 
     section 41104(a)(15) of this title; and
       ``(2) all penalties imposed or assessed against common 
     carriers, as applicable, under sections 41107, 41108, and 
     41109, listed by each common carrier.''.

     SEC. 7. COMMON CARRIERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 41104 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``may not'' and inserting ``shall not'';
       (B) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) unreasonably refuse cargo space accommodations when 
     available, or resort to other unfair or unjustly 
     discriminatory methods;'';

[[Page S1888]]

       (C) in paragraph (5), by striking`` in the matter of rates 
     or charges'' and inserting ``against any commodity group or 
     type of shipment or in the matter of rates or charges'';
       (D) in paragraph (10), by adding ``, including with respect 
     to vessel space accommodations provided by an ocean common 
     carrier'' after ``negotiate'';
       (E) in paragraph (12) by striking ``; or'' and inserting a 
     semicolon;
       (F) in paragraph (13) by striking the period and inserting 
     a semicolon; and
       (G) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(14) assess any party for a charge that is inconsistent 
     or does not comply with all applicable provisions and 
     regulations, including subsection (c) of section 41102 or 
     part 545 of title 46, Code of Federal Regulations (or 
     successor regulations);
       ``(15) invoice any party for demurrage or detention charges 
     unless the invoice includes information as described in 
     subsection (d) showing that such charges comply with--
       ``(A) all provisions of part 545 of title 46, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (or successor regulations); and
       ``(B) applicable provisions and regulations, including the 
     principles of the final rule published on May 18, 2020, 
     entitled `Interpretive Rule on Demurrage and Detention Under 
     the Shipping Act' (or successor rule); or
       ``(16) for service pursuant to a service contract, give any 
     undue or unreasonable preference or advantage or impose any 
     undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage against any 
     commodity group or type of shipment.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Detention and Demurrage Invoice Information.--
       ``(1) Inaccurate invoice.--If the Commission determines, 
     after an investigation in response to a submission under 
     section 41310, that an invoice under subsection (a)(15) was 
     inaccurate or false, penalties or refunds under section 41107 
     shall be applied.
       ``(2) Contents of invoice.--An invoice under subsection 
     (a)(15), unless otherwise determined by subsequent Commission 
     rulemaking, shall include accurate information on each of the 
     following, as well as minimum information as determined by 
     the Commission:
       ``(A) Date that container is made available.
       ``(B) The port of discharge.
       ``(C) The container number or numbers.
       ``(D) For exported shipments, the earliest return date.
       ``(E) The allowed free time in days.
       ``(F) The start date of free time.
       ``(G) The end date of free time.
       ``(H) The applicable detention or demurrage rule on which 
     the daily rate is based.
       ``(I) The applicable rate or rates per the applicable rule.
       ``(J) The total amount due.
       ``(K) The email, telephone number, or other appropriate 
     contact information for questions or requests for mitigation 
     of fees.
       ``(L) A statement that the charges are consistent with any 
     of Federal Maritime Commission rules with respect to 
     detention and demurrage.
       ``(M) A statement that the common carrier's performance did 
     not cause or contribute to the underlying invoiced charges.
       ``(e) Safe Harbor.--If a non-vessel operating common 
     carrier passes through to the relevant shipper an invoice 
     made by the ocean common carrier, and the Commission finds 
     that the non-vessel operating common carrier is not otherwise 
     responsible for the charge, then the ocean common carrier 
     shall be subject to refunds or penalties pursuant to 
     subsection (d)(1).
       ``(f) Elimination of Charge Obligation.--Failure to include 
     the information required under subsection (d) on an invoice 
     with any demurrage or detention charge shall eliminate any 
     obligation of the charged party to pay the applicable 
     charge.''.
       (b) Rulemaking on Demurrage or Detention.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 45 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Federal Maritime Commission shall 
     initiate a rulemaking further defining prohibited practices 
     by common carriers, marine terminal operators, shippers, and 
     ocean transportation intermediaries under section 41102(c) of 
     title 46, United States Code, regarding the assessment of 
     demurrage or detention charges. The Federal Maritime 
     Commission shall issue a final rule defining such practices 
     not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (2) Contents.--The rule under paragraph (1) shall seek to 
     further clarify reasonable rules and practices related to the 
     assessment of detention and demurrage charges to address the 
     issues identified in the final rule published on May 18, 
     2020, entitled ``Interpretive Rule on Demurrage and Detention 
     Under the Shipping Act'' (or successor rule), including a 
     determination of which parties may be appropriately billed 
     for any demurrage, detention, or other similar per container 
     charges.
       (c) Rulemaking on Unfair or Unjustly Discriminatory 
     Methods.--Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Federal Maritime Commission shall initiate a 
     rulemaking defining unfair or unjustly discriminatory methods 
     under section 41104(a)(3) of title 46, United States Code, as 
     amended by this section. The Federal Maritime Commission 
     shall issue a final rule not later than 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
       (d) Rulemaking on Unreasonable Refusal to Deal or Negotiate 
     With Respect to Vessel Space Accommodations.--Not later than 
     30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal 
     Maritime Commission, in consultation with the Commandant of 
     the United States Coast Guard, shall initiate a rulemaking 
     defining unreasonable refusal to deal or negotiate with 
     respect to vessel space under section 41104(a)(10) of title 
     46, as amended by this section. The Federal Maritime 
     Commission shall issue a final rule not later than 6 months 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 8. ASSESSMENT OF PENALTIES OR REFUNDS.

       (a) In General.--Title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in section 41107--
       (A) in the section heading, by inserting ``or refunds'' 
     after ``penalties'';
       (B) in subsection (a), by inserting ``or, in addition to or 
     in lieu of a civil penalty, is liable for the refund of a 
     charge'' after ``civil penalty''; and
       (C) in subsection (b), by inserting ``or, in addition to or 
     in lieu of a civil penalty, the refund of a charge,'' after 
     ``civil penalty''; and
       (2) section 41109 is amended--
       (A) by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) General Authority.--Until a matter is referred to the 
     Attorney General, the Federal Maritime Commission may--
       ``(1) after notice and opportunity for a hearing, in 
     accordance with this part--
       ``(A) assess a civil penalty; or
       ``(B) in addition to, or in lieu of, assessing a civil 
     penalty under subparagraph (A), order a refund of money 
     (including additional amounts in accordance with section 
     41305(c)), subject to subsection (b)(2); and
       ``(2) compromise, modify, or remit, with or without 
     conditions, a civil penalty or refund imposed under paragraph 
     (1).
       ``(b) Determination of Amount.--
       ``(1) Factors for consideration.--In determining the amount 
     of a civil penalty assessed or refund of money ordered 
     pursuant to subsection (a), the Federal Maritime Commission 
     shall take into consideration--
       ``(A) the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the 
     violation committed;
       ``(B) with respect to the violator--
       ``(i) the degree of culpability;
       ``(ii) any history of prior offenses;
       ``(iii) the ability to pay; and
       ``(iv) such other matters as justice may require; and
       ``(C) the amount of any refund of money ordered pursuant to 
     subsection (a)(1)(B).
       ``(2) Commensurate reduction in civil penalty.--
       ``(A) In general.--In any case in which the Federal 
     Maritime Commission orders a refund of money pursuant to 
     subsection (a)(1)(B) in addition to assessing a civil penalty 
     pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(A), the amount of the civil 
     penalty assessed shall be decreased by any additional amounts 
     included in the refund of money in excess of the actual 
     injury (as defined in section 41305(a)).
       ``(B) Treatment of refunds.--A refund of money ordered 
     pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(B) shall be--
       ``(i) considered to be compensation paid to the applicable 
     claimant; and
       ``(ii) deducted from the total amount of damages awarded to 
     that claimant in a civil action against the violator relating 
     to the applicable violation.'';
       (B) in subsection (c), by striking ``may not be imposed'' 
     and inserting ``or refund of money under subparagraph (A) or 
     (B), respectively, of subsection (a)(1) may not be imposed'';
       (C) in subsection (e), by inserting ``or order a refund of 
     money'' after ``penalty'';
       (D) in subsection (f), by inserting ``, or that is ordered 
     to refund money,'' after ``assessed''; and
       (E) in subsection (g), in the first sentence, by inserting 
     ``or a refund required under this section'' after 
     ``penalty''.

     SEC. 9. DATA COLLECTION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 411 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 41110. Data collection

       ``The Federal Maritime Commission shall publish on its 
     website a calendar quarterly report that describes the total 
     import and export tonnage and the total loaded and empty 20-
     foot equivalent units per vessel (making port in the United 
     States, including any territory or possession of the United 
     States) operated by each ocean common carrier covered under 
     this chapter. Ocean common carriers under this chapter shall 
     provide to the Commission all necessary information, as 
     determined by the Commission, for completion of this 
     report.''.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section, and the 
     amendment made by this section, shall be construed to compel 
     the public disclosure of any confidential or proprietary 
     data, in accordance with section 552(b)(4) of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 411 of 
     title 46, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``41110. Data collection.''.

     SEC. 10. CHARGE COMPLAINTS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 413 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 41310. Charge complaints

       ``(a) In General.--A person may submit to the Federal 
     Maritime Commission, and the Commission shall accept, 
     information concerning complaints about charges assessed by a 
     common carrier. The information submitted to the Commission 
     may include the bill of lading numbers, invoices, or any 
     other relevant information.
       ``(b) Investigation.--Upon receipt of a submission under 
     subsection (a), with respect to a charge assessed by a common 
     carrier, the Commission shall promptly investigate the charge 
     with regard to compliance with section 41104(a) and section 
     41102. The common carrier shall--
       ``(1) be provided an opportunity to submit additional 
     information related to the charge in question; and

[[Page S1889]]

       ``(2) bear the burden of establishing the reasonableness of 
     any demurrage or detention charges pursuant to section 545.5 
     of title 46, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor 
     regulations).
       ``(c) Refund.--Upon receipt of submissions under subsection 
     (a), if the Commission determines that a charge does not 
     comply with section 41104(a) or 41102, the Commission shall 
     promptly order the refund of charges paid.
       ``(d) Penalties.--In the event of a finding that a charge 
     does not comply with section 41104(a) or 41102 after 
     submission under subsection (a), a civil penalty under 
     section 41107 shall be applied to the common carrier making 
     such charge.
       ``(e) Considerations.--If the common carrier assessing the 
     charge is acting in the capacity of a non-vessel-operating 
     common carrier, the Commission shall, while conducting an 
     investigation under subsection (b), consider--
       ``(1) whether the non-vessel-operating common carrier is 
     responsible for the noncompliant assessment of the charge, in 
     whole or in part; and
       ``(2) whether another party is ultimately responsible in 
     whole or in part and potentially subject to action under 
     subsections (c) and (d).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 413 of 
     title 46, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``41310. Charge complaints.''.

     SEC. 11. INVESTIGATIONS.

       (a) Amendments.--Section 41302 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), in the first sentence, by striking 
     ``or agreement'' and inserting ``agreement, fee, or charge''; 
     and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Agreement'' 
     and inserting ``Agreement, fee, or charge''; and
       (B) by inserting ``, fee, or charge'' after ``agreement''.
       (b) Report.--The Federal Maritime Commission shall publish 
     on a publicly available website of the Commission a report 
     containing the results of the investigation entitled ``Fact 
     Finding No. 29, International Ocean Transportation Supply 
     Chain Engagement''.

     SEC. 12. AWARD OF ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS.

       Section 41305(c) of title 46, United States Code is amended 
     by striking ``41102(b)'' and inserting ``subsection (b) or 
     (c) of section 41102''.

     SEC. 13. ENFORCEMENT OF REPARATION ORDERS.

       Section 41309 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``reparation, the person 
     to whom the award was made'' and inserting ``a refund of 
     money or reparation, the person to which the refund or 
     reparation was awarded''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), in the first sentence--
       (A) by striking ``made an award of reparation'' and 
     inserting ``ordered a refund of money or any other award of 
     reparation''; and
       (B) by inserting ``(except for the Commission or any 
     component of the Commission)'' after ``parties in the 
     order''.

     SEC. 14. ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Section 46106(b) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) an identification of any otherwise concerning 
     practices by ocean common carriers, particularly such 
     carriers that are controlled carriers, that are--
       ``(A) State-owned or State-controlled enterprises; or
       ``(B) owned or controlled by, a subsidiary of, or otherwise 
     related legally or financially (other than a minority 
     relationship or investment) to a corporation based in a 
     country--
       ``(i) identified as a nonmarket economy country (as defined 
     in section 771(18) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1677(18))) as of the date of enactment of this paragraph;
       ``(ii) identified by the United States Trade Representative 
     in the most recent report required by section 182 of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2242) as a priority foreign 
     country under subsection (a)(2) of that section; or
       ``(iii) subject to monitoring by the United States Trade 
     Representative under section 306 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2416).''.

     SEC. 15. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Section 41108(a) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``section 41104(1), (2), or (7)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (1), (2), or (7) of section 41104(a)''.
       (b) Section 41109(c) of title 46, United States Code, as 
     amended by section 8 of this Act, is further amended by 
     striking ``section 41102(a) or 41104(1) or (2) of this 
     title'' and inserting ``subsection (a) or (d) of section 
     41102 or paragraph (1) or (2) of section 41104(a)''.
       (c) Section 41305 of title 46, United States Code, as 
     amended by section 12 of this Act, is further amended--
       (1) in subsection (c), by striking ``41104(3) or (6), or 
     41105(1) or (3) of this title'' and inserting ``paragraph (3) 
     or (6) of section 41104(a), or paragraph (1) or (3) of 
     section 41105''; and
       (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``section 41104(4)(A) or 
     (B) of this title'' and inserting ``subparagraph (A) or (B) 
     of section 41104(a)(4)''.

     SEC. 16. DWELL TIME STATISTICS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
       (2) Marine container.--The term ``marine container'' means 
     an intermodal container with a length of--
       (A) not less than 20 feet; and
       (B) not greater than 45 feet.
       (3) Out of service percentage.--The term ``out of service 
     percentage'' means the proportion of the chassis fleet for 
     any defined geographical area that is out of service at any 
     one time.
       (4) Street dwell time.--The term ``street dwell time'', 
     with respect to a piece of equipment, means the quantity of 
     time during which the piece of equipment is in use outside of 
     the terminal.
       (b) Authority to Collect Data.--
       (1) In general.--Each port, marine terminal operator, and 
     chassis owner or provider with a fleet of over 50 chassis 
     that supply chassis for a fee shall submit to the Director 
     such data as the Director determines to be necessary for the 
     implementation of this section, subject to subchapter III of 
     chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code.
       (2) Approval by omb.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall approve an information collection 
     for purposes of this section.
       (c) Publication.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, not later than 240 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and not less frequently than monthly 
     thereafter, the Director shall publish statistics relating to 
     the dwell time of equipment used in intermodal transportation 
     at the top 25 ports, including inland ports, by 20-foot 
     equivalent unit, including--
       (1) total street dwell time, from all causes, of marine 
     containers and marine container chassis; and
       (2) the average out of service percentage, which shall not 
     be identifiable with any particular port, marine terminal 
     operator, or chassis provider.
       (d) Factors.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, to the maximum extent practicable, the 
     Director shall publish the statistics described in subsection 
     (c) on a local, regional, and national basis.
       (e) Sunset.--The authority under this section shall expire 
     December 31, 2026.

     SEC. 17. FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Public Submissions to Commission.--The Federal Maritime 
     Commission shall--
       (1) establish on the public website of the Commission a 
     webpage that allows for the submission of comments, 
     complaints, concerns, reports of noncompliance, requests for 
     investigation, and requests for alternative dispute 
     resolution; and
       (2) direct each submission under the link established under 
     paragraph (1) to the appropriate component office of the 
     Commission.
       (b) Authorization of Office of Consumer Affairs and Dispute 
     Resolution Services.--The Commission shall maintain an Office 
     of Consumer Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services to 
     provide nonadjudicative ombuds assistance, mediation, 
     facilitation, and arbitration to resolve challenges and 
     disputes involving cargo shipments, household good shipments, 
     and cruises subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.
       (c) Enhancing Capacity for Investigations.--
       (1) In general.--Pursuant to section 41302 of title 46, 
     United States Code, not later than 18 months after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Chairperson of the Commission 
     shall staff within the Bureau of Enforcement, the Bureau of 
     Certification and Licensing, the Office of the Managing 
     Director, the Office of Consumer Affairs and Dispute 
     Resolution Services, and the Bureau of Trade Analysis not 
     fewer than 7 total positions to assist in investigations and 
     oversight, in addition to the positions within the Bureau of 
     Enforcement, the Bureau of Certification and Licensing, the 
     Office of the Managing Director, the Office of Consumer 
     Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services, and the Bureau of 
     Trade Analysis on that date of enactment.
       (2) Duties.--The additional staff appointed under paragraph 
     (1) shall provide support--
       (A) to Area Representatives of the Bureau of Enforcement;
       (B) to attorneys of the Bureau of Enforcement in enforcing 
     the laws and regulations subject to the jurisdiction of the 
     Commission;
       (C) for the alternative dispute resolution services of the 
     Commission; or
       (D) for the review of agreements and activities subject to 
     the authority of the Commission.

     SEC. 18. TEMPORARY EMERGENCY AUTHORITY.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Common carrier.--The term ``common carrier'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 40102 of title 46, United 
     States Code.
       (2) Motor carrier.--The term ``motor carrier'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 13102 of title 49, United 
     States Code.
       (3) Rail carrier.--The term ``rail carrier'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 10102 of title 49, United 
     States Code.
       (4) Shipper.--The term ``shipper'' has the meaning given 
     the term in section 40102 of title 46, United States Code.
       (b) Public Input on Information Sharing.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Federal Maritime Commission shall 
     issue a request for information, seeking public comment 
     regarding--
       (A) whether congestion of the carriage of goods has created 
     an emergency situation of a magnitude such that there exists 
     a substantial, adverse effect on the competitiveness and 
     reliability of the international ocean transportation supply 
     system;
       (B) whether an emergency order under this section would 
     alleviate such an emergency situation; and
       (C) the appropriate scope of such an emergency order, if 
     applicable.

[[Page S1890]]

       (2) Consultation.--During the public comment period under 
     paragraph (1), the Commission may consult, as the Commission 
     determines to be appropriate, with--
       (A) other Federal departments and agencies; and
       (B) persons with expertise relating to maritime and freight 
     operations.
       (c) Authority To Require Information Sharing.--On making a 
     unanimous determination described in subsection (d), the 
     Commission may issue an emergency order requiring any common 
     carrier or marine terminal operator to share directly with 
     relevant shippers, rail carriers, or motor carriers 
     information relating to cargo throughput and availability, in 
     order to ensure the efficient transportation, loading, and 
     unloading of cargo to or from--
       (1) any inland destination or point of origin;
       (2) any vessel; or
       (3) any point on a wharf or terminal.
       (d) Description of Determination.--
       (1) In general.--A determination referred to in subsection 
     (c) is a unanimous determination by the commissioners on the 
     Commission that congestion of carriage of goods has created 
     an emergency situation of a magnitude such that there exists 
     a substantial, adverse effect on the competitiveness and 
     reliability of the international ocean transportation supply 
     system.
       (2) Factors for consideration.--In issuing an emergency 
     order pursuant to subsection (c), the Commission shall tailor 
     the emergency order with respect to temporal and geographic 
     scope, taking into consideration the likely burdens on common 
     carriers and marine terminal operators and the likely 
     benefits on congestion relating to the purposes described in 
     section 40101 of title 46, United States Code.
       (e) Petitions for Exception.--
       (1) In general.--A common carrier or marine terminal 
     operator subject to an emergency order issued pursuant to 
     this section may submit to the Commission a petition for 
     exception from 1 or more requirements of the emergency order, 
     based on a showing of undue hardship or other condition 
     rendering compliance with such a requirement impracticable.
       (2) Determination.--The Commission shall make a 
     determination regarding a petition for exception under 
     paragraph (1) by--
       (A) majority vote; and
       (B) not later than 21 days after the date on which the 
     petition is submitted.
       (3) Inapplicability pending review.--The requirements of an 
     emergency order that is the subject of a petition for 
     exception under this subsection shall not apply to the 
     petitioner during the period for which the petition is 
     pending.
       (f) Limitations.--
       (1) Term.--An emergency order issued pursuant to this 
     section--
       (A) shall remain in effect for a period of not longer than 
     60 days; but
       (B) may be renewed by a unanimous determination of the 
     Commission.
       (2) Sunset.--The authority provided by this section shall 
     terminate on the date that is 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (3) Investigative authority unaffected.--Nothing in this 
     section shall affect the investigative authorities of the 
     Commission as described in subpart R of part 502 of title 46, 
     Code of Federal Regulations.

     SEC. 19. BEST PRACTICES FOR CHASSIS POOLS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than April 1, 2023, the Federal 
     Maritime Commission shall enter into an agreement with the 
     Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of 
     Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine under which the 
     Transportation Research Board shall carry out a study and 
     develop best practices for on-terminal or near-terminal 
     chassis pools that provide service to marine terminal 
     operators, motor carriers, railroads, and other stakeholders 
     that use the chassis pools, with the goal of optimizing 
     supply chain efficiency and effectiveness.
       (b) Requirements.--In developing best practices under 
     subsection (a), the Transportation Research Board shall--
       (1) take into consideration--
       (A) practical obstacles to the implementation of chassis 
     pools; and
       (B) potential solutions to those obstacles; and
       (2) address relevant communication practices, information 
     sharing, and knowledge management.
       (c) Publication.--The Commission shall publish the best 
     practices developed under this section on a publicly 
     available website by not later than April 1, 2024.
       (d) Funding.--Subject to appropriations, the Commission may 
     expend such sums as are necessary, but not to exceed 
     $500,000, to carry out this section.

     SEC. 20. LICENSING TESTING.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Motor 
     Carrier Safety Administration (referred to in this section as 
     the ``Administrator'') shall conduct a review of the 
     discretionary waiver authority described in the document 
     issued by the Administrator entitled ``Waiver for States 
     Concerning Third Party CDL Skills Test Examiners In Response 
     to the COVID-19 Emergency'' and dated August 31, 2021, for 
     safety concerns.
       (b) Permanent Waiver.--If the Administrator finds no safety 
     concerns after conducting a review under subsection (a), the 
     Administrator shall--
       (1) notwithstanding any other provision of law, make the 
     waiver permanent; and
       (2) not later than 90 days after completing the review 
     under subsection (a), revise section 384.228 of title 49, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, to provide that the 
     discretionary waiver authority referred to in subsection (a) 
     shall be permanent.
       (c) Report.--If the Administrator declines to move forward 
     with a rulemaking for revision under subsection (b), the 
     Administrator shall explain the reasons for declining to move 
     forward with the rulemaking in a report to the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives.

     SEC. 21. PLANNING.

       Section 6702(g) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``Of the amounts'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--Of the amounts''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Nonapplicability of certain limitations.--
     Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (c)(2) shall not 
     apply with respect to amounts made available for planning, 
     preparation, or design under paragraph (1).''.

     SEC. 22. REVIEW OF POTENTIAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST 
                   TRANSPORTATION OF QUALIFIED HAZARDOUS 
                   MATERIALS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall initiate a review of whether there have been any 
     systemic decisions by ocean common carriers to discriminate 
     against maritime transport of qualified hazardous materials 
     by unreasonably denying vessel space accommodations, 
     equipment, or other instrumentalities needed to transport 
     such materials. The Comptroller General shall take into 
     account any applicable safety and pollution regulations.
       (b) Consultation.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States may consult with the Commandant of the Coast Guard and 
     the Chair of the Federal Maritime Commission in conducting 
     the review under this section.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Hazardous materials.--The term ``hazardous materials'' 
     includes dangerous goods, as defined by the International 
     Maritime Dangerous Goods Code.
       (2) Ocean common carrier.--The term ``ocean common 
     carrier'' has the meaning given such term in section 40102 of 
     title 46, United States Code.
       (3) Qualified hazardous materials.--The term ``qualified 
     hazardous materials'' means hazardous materials for which the 
     shipper has certified to the ocean common carrier that such 
     materials have been or will be tendered in accordance with 
     applicable safety laws, including regulations.
       (4) Shipper.--The term ``shipper'' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 40102 of title 46, United States Code.

     SEC. 23. TRANSPORTATION WORKER IDENTIFICATION CREDENTIALS.

       (a) Definition of Direct Assistance to a United States 
     Port.--In this section:
       (1) In general.--The term ``direct assistance to a United 
     States port'' means the transportation of cargo directly to 
     or from a United States port.
       (2) Exclusions.--The term ``direct assistance to a United 
     States port'' does not include--
       (A) the transportation of a mixed load of cargo that 
     includes--
       (i) cargo that does not originate from a United States 
     port; or
       (ii) a container or cargo that is not bound for a United 
     States port;
       (B) any period during which a motor carrier or driver is 
     operating in interstate commerce to transport cargo or 
     provide services not in support of transportation to or from 
     a United States port; or
       (C) the period after a motor carrier dispatches the 
     applicable driver or commercial motor vehicle of the motor 
     carrier to another location to begin operation in interstate 
     commerce in a manner that is not in support of transportation 
     to or from a United States port.
       (b) Transportation Worker Identification Credentials.--The 
     Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration 
     and the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall jointly 
     prioritize and expedite the consideration of applications for 
     a Transportation Worker Identification Credential with 
     respect to applicants that reasonably demonstrate that the 
     purpose of the Transportation Worker Identification 
     Credential is for providing, within the interior of the 
     United States, direct assistance to a United States port.

     SEC. 24. USE OF UNITED STATES INLAND PORTS FOR STORAGE AND 
                   TRANSFER OF CARGO CONTAINERS.

       (a) Meeting.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary for 
     Transportation Policy, in consultation with the Administrator 
     of the Maritime Administration and the Chairperson of the 
     Federal Maritime Commission, shall convene a meeting of 
     representatives of entities described in subsection (b) to 
     discuss the feasibility of, and strategies for, identifying 
     Federal and non-Federal land, including inland ports, for the 
     purposes of storage and transfer of cargo containers due to 
     port congestion.
       (b) Description of Entities.--The entities referred to in 
     subsection (a) are--
       (1) representatives of United States major gateway ports, 
     inland ports, and export terminals;
       (2) ocean carriers;
       (3) railroads;
       (4) trucking companies;
       (5) port workforce, including organized labor; and
       (6) such other stakeholders as the Secretary of 
     Transportation, in consultation with the Chairperson of the 
     Federal Maritime Commission, determines to be appropriate.
       (c) Report to Congress.--As soon as practicable after the 
     date of the meeting convened under subsection (a), the 
     Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, in 
     consultation with the Administrator of the Maritime 
     Administration and the Chairperson of the Federal Maritime

[[Page S1891]]

     Commission, shall submit to Congress a report describing--
       (1) the results of the meeting;
       (2) the feasibility of identifying land or property under 
     the jurisdiction of United States, or ports in the United 
     States, for storage and transfer of cargo containers; and
       (3) recommendations relating to the meeting, if any.
       (d) Savings Provision.--No authorization contained in this 
     section may be acted on in a manner that jeopardizes or 
     negatively impacts the national security or defense readiness 
     of the United States.

     SEC. 25. REPORT ON ADOPTION OF TECHNOLOGY AT UNITED STATES 
                   PORTS.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     submit to Congress a report describing the adoption of 
     technology at United States ports, as compared to that 
     adoption at foreign ports, including--
       (1) the technological capabilities of United States ports, 
     as compared to foreign ports;
       (2) an assessment of whether the adoption of technology at 
     United States ports could lower the costs of cargo handling;
       (3) an assessment of regulatory and other barriers to the 
     adoption of technology at United States ports; and
       (4) an assessment of technology and the workforce.

     SEC. 26. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 46108 of title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``$29,086,888 for fiscal year 2020 and 
     $29,639,538 for fiscal year 2021'' and inserting 
     ``$32,869,000 for fiscal year 2022, $38,260,000 for fiscal 
     year 2023, $43,720,000 for fiscal year 2024, and $49,200,000 
     for fiscal year 2025''.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I further ask that the committee-reported 
amendment be withdrawn; that the amendment, which is at the desk, be 
considered and agreed to; and that the bill, as amended, be considered 
read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The committee-reported amendment, in the nature of a substitute, was 
withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 5017), in the nature of a substitute, was agreed 
to.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the bill having 
been read the third time, the question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The bill (S. 3580), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion 
to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the Senate has just passed very 
significant and much needed legislation that will reduce costs for the 
American people by passing a bipartisan bill to reform unfair shipping 
practices hurting exports and consumers alike.
  We have all seen pictures of scores of ships lining up in ports from 
Los Angeles to Seattle, to New York, to Savannah. Supply chain backlogs 
have made it harder for goods to leave these ports and get to their 
international destinations.
  Every single day that goods lie idle in our ports, it costs producers 
more and more money. It is a serious problem, rippling from one coast 
to the other.
  These backlogs have created serious price hikes. Today, according to 
one study, the price to transport a container from China to the west 
coast of the United States costs 12 times as much as it did 2 years 
ago--12 times. Talk about supply chain backlogs. This is it--a glaring, 
glaring example.
  And, of course, it hurts both ways when shipping costs go up. It 
affects exports that we send overseas. It affects many of our farmers, 
who need to export their goods. It also affects the imports that come 
back. It affects all the goods that Americans buy from overseas--
appliances and food and so many other things.
  When the cost of shipping is higher, the cost of the goods are 
higher, and people have to pay too much--a whole lot more.
  At the end of the day, it is the American consumer that pays the 
higher price. Thankfully, this bill will make it harder for ocean 
carriers to unreasonably refuse American goods at our ports while 
strengthening the Federal Maritime Commission's ability to step in and 
prevent harmful practices by carriers.
  This bipartisan shipping bill is exactly the sort of thing that the 
Senate should focus on. It is cost cutting; it is bipartisan; and it 
will directly give relief to small businesses and consumers alike.
  And I would like to thank a good number of my colleagues who helped 
with this legislation. It was put together and sponsored in a 
bipartisan way by Senators Klobuchar and Thune. And Senator Cantwell, 
who understands the maritime industry probably better than any other 
Member in this Chamber, was relentless in pushing this legislation. It 
went through her committee, and now it has passed the Senate and, 
hopefully, will become law soon, and she deserves our kudos and 
accolades for the good job she has done for American consumers, 
farmers, manufacturers, and everybody else.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Mr. Alex 
Wagner, the President's nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the 
Department of Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs; and Mr. 
Ashish Vazirani, nominee to be Deputy Under Secretary for Personnel and 
Readiness.
  As a Member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I know that 
the most important investment for our national security is in our 
servicemembers--our real competitive advantage with Russia and China.
  Mr. Wagner brings a combination of public and private sector 
experience to the table. He will be key in recruiting, training, and 
retaining the talent needed to compete in the 21st century.
  Absent his leadership, we may miss important opportunities to invest 
in our servicemembers at a time when we are still standing up a new 
military branch, the Space Force.
  Mr. Vazirani will be responsible for ensuring that we take care of 
our people, a priority for the Secretary and everyone in this body.
  Mr. Vazirani has significant private sector experience as a 
consultant and manager. Further, he served in the Navy and is the 
father of a marine. He has the firsthand experience and knowledge that 
we need to help improve the opportunities available to military 
families and spouses.
  Both of these nominees are needed to help implement important 
priorities, like the Independent Review Commission's sexual assault 
recommendations, improving diversity in the force, and addressing 
mental health and suicide.
  Both of these nominees are focused on taking care of our people and 
ensuring the Department has in place the workforce with the skill sets 
that we need to be successful in strategic competition with Russia and 
China.
  Put simply, if you are serious about countering Russia and China, you 
should allow these nominees to be confirmed. And if you are serious 
about taking care of those who serve, you should allow these nominees 
to be confirmed.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
executive session to consider the following nominations, en bloc: 
Calendar Nos. 477 and 599; that the Senate vote on the nominations, en 
bloc, without intervening action or debate; that the motions to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that any 
statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that 
the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that 
the Senate then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, it is now March. It has been 7 months 
since the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.
  Thirteen servicemembers lost their lives in the attack on Abbey Gate 
along with hundreds of civilians. As a result of the botched evacuation 
operation, hundreds, if not thousands, of American civilians were left 
behind to the enemy.

[[Page S1892]]

  We hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle that my 
insistence that we actually vote on nominees is unprecedented. I would 
humbly suggest that the Afghanistan crisis into which this President 
led our country was unprecedented.
  And who has been held accountable for that disaster? No one. Who has 
the President fired? Who has offered their resignation? Which of the 
planners at the Department of State or the Department of Defense or the 
National Security Council have been relieved of duty? No one.
  Until there is accountability, I am going to ask that the Senate do 
the simple task of its job, which is to actually vote on these 
nominees. The least we could do is observe regular order and vote on 
these leadership positions at the Department of Defense.
  My colleagues say that we have got to put national security first. I 
agree with them about that. But I believe that begins at the top, with 
the President of the United States and the leadership of the Department 
of Defense and the Department of State. I, for one, am not going to 
stand by and look the other way while this administration 
systematically endangers our national security, imperils the American 
people, and watches the sacrifice of our soldiers go by without any 
accountability, without any change in direction.
  Accountability for the Afghanistan disaster is all the more urgent 
given revelations last month from the U.S. Central Command 
investigation of the Abbey Gate bombing. The investigative report makes 
clear that the Administration had ample warning prior to mid-August 
that Kabul could collapse rapidly in the face of the Taliban's 
offensive. It shows further how the Administration refused to 
acknowledge those warnings and act in a timely manner to prepare for 
Kabul's fall. And it shows in astounding detail just how chaotic the 
final evacuation effort was, with U.S. servicemembers often left 
without clear guidance, the State Department constantly missing in 
action, and the Administration itself intent only on evacuating as many 
people as possible, regardless of whether those individuals were 
eligible for evacuation or might pose a threat to America's own 
security.
  I am not willing to look the other way and just pretend that 
Afghanistan didn't happen, which seems to be the posture that many in 
this body have adopted. I am not willing to do that. I can't do that 
because I promised the parents of the fallen that I wouldn't do that.
  I am going to discharge my responsibility. And as long as it takes, I 
will continue to draw attention to what happened at Abbey Gate and to 
demand accountability for the disaster that this administration has 
pushed upon this country and upon the people of my State.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Ms. BALDWIN. I am disappointed that my Republican colleague blocked 
confirmation of these nominations.
  These nominees have been held up since last year. They were approved 
by the Armed Services Committee with a bipartisan vote and only one 
Member recorded as a no. It is time to end these delays and confirm 
these nominees.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


         Recognizing the Commissioning of the USS ``Delaware''

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today to mark a moment in history 
for the First State, your neighboring State, to celebrate the first 
U.S. Navy vessel to be named after Delaware in more than 100 years.
  In 2 days, I will be joined by the Secretary of the Navy, the First 
Lady of the United States, and what will feel like half of Delaware at 
the Port of Wilmington to commemorate the commissioning of the Virginia 
Class of nuclear submarine, the USS Delaware.
  And while the vessel was first officially commissioned underwater and 
underway on a mission at sea due to the COVID restrictions on April 4, 
2020--a first in Navy history--a first in Navy history--this weekend, 
we will get to give the USS Delaware, its crew, and the people of 
Delaware a fitting celebration above the surface of the water.
  It has been a long time coming for the USS Delaware. So many people 
across Delaware and in the Navy have worked hard not just for weeks, 
not just for months, but for years to make this weekend a reality for 
our State and the crew.
  I would be remiss not to mention my wingman in the U.S. Senate, 
Senator Chris Coons, and our wing-woman in the U.S. House of 
Representatives, Lisa Blunt Rochester, as well as our Governor John 
Carney for their long-standing support for the USS Delaware. They will 
be joining us on Saturday to celebrate.
  You probably wouldn't be surprised to learn that SSN 791--that is the 
number assigned to the USS Delaware, is not the first Navy vessel to 
bear the name ``Delaware.''
  The first USS Delaware was launched in 1776. Its role? Delaying the 
British Fleet's approach to Philadelphia and thus impeding the ability 
of the British to resupply their army in our War of Independence. That 
was the first USS Delaware.
  The sixth USS Delaware was completed in April of 1910. Armed with ten 
12-inch guns, it was the most powerful battleship in the world at the 
time. Over 100 years would pass before another US Naval vessel would 
bear the name ``Delaware.''
  Then, one day in 2012, I came across a letter to the editor from a 
constituent in Delaware whose name is Steven Llanso. He wrote to the 
editor. He said: You know, it has been a long time since a ship was 
built and named after the State of Delaware. Maybe somebody should do 
something about it.
  I thought about it for a while. I thought about it for a couple of 
weeks, actually. I pulled my staff together and said, ``Why don't we do 
something about this?'' And they said ``Let's do,'' and we did.
  The next week, I was on the phone with then-Secretary of the Navy Ray 
Mabus, former Governor of Mississippi--us both being former Governors--
and a long-time friend, and he would go on to become the longest 
serving Secretary of the Navy in the history of our country.
  I explained the situation to Secretary Mabus. He graciously heard me 
out and agreed 100 years was a long time. Before we hung up, he said to 
me, ``Let me think about it, Tom. I will get back to you in a couple of 
months.'' And true to his word, 3 months later, he gave me a call and 
said that over the next several years, the Navy would begin 
construction on not one, not two, but three, maybe four Virginia Class 
nuclear submarines, and the first one off the line would be named the 
USS Delaware.
  Now, I was talking on a mobile phone, but if I had a landline--if I 
was talking with him through a landline, I could have reached through 
the landline and kissed him. I was so happy. And I didn't do that. But 
it was a wonderful moment, one that I relished in, and I certainly do 
today. He is a great friend, a great leader of the Navy then and a 
patriot, and he has done so many things for our country. So thank you, 
Ray.
  So this weekend, almost a decade since I first spoke with then-
Secretary Mabus, I will have the honor of finally introducing the 
newest USS Delaware to the people of Delaware. And there is a whole lot 
of it to take in.
  The USS Delaware is a Virginia Class U.S. nuclear submarine. The 
Delaware will carry 26 MK-48 torpedoes, which enable it to conduct the 
sub's more traditional role of tracking and, if necessary, sinking 
enemy submarines, as well as a wide range of surface vessels.
  The Delaware is also designed for versatile operations in shallow 
water, closer to land, performing reconnaissance activities, delivering 
Special Forces. It is also configured to launch Tomahawk cruise 
missiles which can be launched while the Delaware is on patrol. The 
Tomahawk can strike targets nearly 1,000 miles away with pinpoint--
pinpoint--accuracy.
  This is one hell of a fighting machine. You know, they have a saying 
down in Texas you have probably heard. It says ``Don't mess with

[[Page S1893]]

Texas,'' and I would just add to that, to our adversaries, ``Don't mess 
with the USS Delaware because, if you do, we will eat your lunch. I 
promise.''
  And, oh, yes. There are 136 crewmembers aboard the USS Delaware. They 
hail from 20 States across our country. Almost half of the States are 
represented in the crew of our sub. The crew also includes 15 officers 
and 121 enlisted men, a dozen or so who are chief petty officers. My 
dad was a chief petty officer for nearly 30 years, World War II and 
beyond. And he always told me when I was a midshipman, he used to say, 
``Tom, the chiefs run the Navy.'' And you know, they did, and my guess 
is they still do.
  But in addition to having an opportunity to introduce the crew of the 
USS Delaware to the people of Delaware this weekend, we will also have 
an opportunity to introduce Delaware to the crew of the State that they 
are representing.
  With tongue in cheek, I like to describe Delaware as the 49th largest 
State in the Union, and it is comprised of three counties and 1 million 
people. We are about 100 miles from north to south and about 50 miles 
from east to west along our southern border with Maryland, the 
Presiding Officer's State.
  Native Americans, including the Lenape Indians, lived in Delaware for 
hundreds of years before the Dutch arrived some 400 years ago and 
established Lewes, DE, the first town in the first State, located where 
the Atlantic Ocean meets the Delaware Bay.
  A quick story: The Dutch were not all that kind to these Native 
Americans who lived in that greater area which is now Lewes. And the 
Native Americans literally wiped out the Dutch colony. Later on, the 
Dutch would come back in greater numbers, be more kind to the Native 
Americans, and the colony of Lewes grew and prospered.
  The British looked askance at this and worried about the growth of 
this Dutch colony surrounded by British settlements and forces. One 
night, the Dutch went to bed to sleep in Lewes, DE, and the Brits 
burned the town to the ground. The next morning, when the Dutch 
surveyed what happened, there was one house still standing, the Ryves 
Holt House, believed to be maybe the oldest permanently standing house 
in North America. The Ryves Holt House is now a part of a national 
park.

  Later on, in 1631, the first Swedes and Finns sailed by what would 
become the Port of Wilmington. Their sailing ships--the Kalmar Nyckel 
and the Fogel Grip--took a turn to the west for a couple miles on a 
smaller river that they named the Christina after Sweden's 12-year-old 
child queen. Along its banks, they established the colony of New 
Sweden, where Wilmington stands today. The church they built there is 
believed to be perhaps the longest continuously serving church in North 
America--Old Swedes church--and believe it or not, there are now more 
Swedish-Americans than there are Swedes in Sweden.
  Fifty-one years later, William Penn would sail up the Delaware, past 
Wilmington, past the Port of Wilmington now, to what is called Penn's 
Landing, about 25 miles north of Wilmington, and carried with him the 
deeds from the King of England to what would later become the Colony of 
Pennsylvania and something called ``the Lower Three Counties.'' That 
would be us, Delaware. But the real Penn's Landing, ironically, was in 
what is now New Castle, DE--not Pennsylvania, but New Castle, DE.
  And there is a legend. Legend has it that not only did he stop there, 
but he spent the night in Delaware. And later on, he was asked why did 
he stop in Delaware, and he said, ``Tax-free shopping.'' ``Tax-free 
shopping.''
  A few hundred years later, up the Christina River, 10,000 
shipbuilders, mostly women, would build many of the ships, including 
destroyer escorts and troop landing ships that enabled us to emerge 
victorious in World War II. And that is only part of the storied 
history that the USS Delaware joins today.
  Throughout Delaware history, the letter ``C'' has figured 
prominently. Our first settlers planted corn--a lot of it. They raised 
chickens, a lot of them, and fed them corn. Our State bird is, believe 
it or not, the ``fightin''' blue hen. Today, there are nearly 300 
chickens for every person who lives in the First State of Delaware. 
Later, we become known as the ``Chemical Capital of the World.'' Thank 
you, DuPont, for hundreds of amazing, amazing inventions. Delaware's 
coastline is not large, but the last I checked, it was home to the most 
five-star beaches than any other State coastline in America--and one of 
them is Rehoboth. And Rehoboth is a name that is translated to mean 
``room for all.''
  Not long ago, we built more cars in Delaware per capita than any 
other State. Not surprising is that they were Chryslers and Chevrolets.
  And while we have no sales tax, Delaware is the home of incorporation 
of half the Fortune 500 and half the New York Stock Exchange. So 
corporations are important to us. While I don't know what credit card 
is in the wallet of most of the people on the floor today, there is a 
good chance it is issued by a bank with operations in Delaware.
  Now, that is a lot of C's, but even our political leaders have gotten 
into the act with names like Carvel, former Governor; Castle, former 
Governor; Carney, current Governor; Coons, our senior Senator; and 
Carper, his wingman. And even though Joe Biden didn't start out as one 
of the C-boys, he was close, just off by one letter. Joe Biden has 
ended up, as you know, as our Nation's Commander-in-Chief. That is a 
lot of C's put together in a very nice way. Not bad for a scrappy kid 
from Scranton, PA.
  By far, the greatest contribution that Delaware has made since the 
founding of our country occurred on December 7, 1787, when Delaware 
became the first State to ratify our Constitution. I like to say we are 
the first to ratify, followed shortly thereafter by Maryland, 
Pennsylvania, and others; but for 1 whole week, Delaware was the entire 
United States of America. We opened it up and let others in. And I 
think for the most part, it turned out pretty well, at least until now. 
But the Constitution that we ratified on December 7, 1787, would become 
the most enduring Constitution in the history of the world and by far 
the most replicated.

  You know, none of us are perfect--certainly not me--and our 
Constitution was not perfect either; but over time, we have made it 
better, a lot better. Along with the Bill of Rights, it provides a 
framework, if you will, and a path that has made our country the envy 
of much of the rest of the world.
  But at the end of the day, our Constitution and our Declaration of 
Independence are words on a piece of paper without the resolve made 
real by the commitment and sacrifice of men and women who wear and have 
worn the uniform of our country.
  Let me end with this. I suspect that most of my colleagues remember 
studying the Constitution in school--maybe in grade school, maybe in 
middle school. I remember it. In fact, my sister and I had to learn and 
actually recite the Preamble in middle school. As you know, it begins 
with something like this:

       We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more 
     perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic 
     Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the 
     general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to 
     ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this 
     Constitution of the United States of America.

  The Preamble of our Constitution doesn't say ``in order to form a 
perfect Union''; it says ``a more perfect Union.'' Why is that? Because 
as citizens of our great country, it is up to each of us to do our part 
to ensure that the arc of American history bends toward perfection and 
justice, even knowing that we will probably never fully achieve it.
  The men who serve and will serve aboard the USS Delaware will bear 
our State's namesake literally for decades to come, maybe a half-
century or more, in defense of our Nation. The crewmembers are 
answering the call of our Nation written over 230 years ago. Through 
their sacrifice, through their service, may we grow even closer to that 
more perfect Union. We are--I know I am--grateful for their service 
today.
  May God bless and protect the crew of the USS Delaware, both now and 
in the decades to come, and may each of us live our own lives in ways 
to ensure

[[Page S1894]]

that America remains a nation worthy of their sacrifice so that a 
government of the people, by the people, and for the people will not 
perish from this Earth.
  USS Delaware, long may she sail.
  And before I yield back my time, I guess we have been joined on the 
floor by our friend and colleague, John Cornyn from Texas. And Senator 
Cornyn, I think maybe before he arrived, I used the phrase--I 
acknowledged the phrase, ``Don't mess with Texas.'' ``Don't mess with 
Texas.'' And I went on to explain all the weapons systems that the USS 
Delaware has on board. It is a pretty amazing, incredible submarine. 
And I said: It is all right not to mess with Texas, but you better not 
mess--for our adversaries, you better not mess with Delaware, either.

  With that, I yield the floor to my friend from Texas, Senator Cornyn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                  Nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, next week, the Senate will vote on the 
confirmation of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve as a member of the 
Supreme Court of the United States.
  Since Judge Jackson's nomination was announced, I made it clear that 
I would go into this process with an open mind, just as I have tried to 
do with each Supreme Court nominee who has come before the Judiciary 
Committee during my time in the Senate. This is now my eighth Supreme 
Court Justice to participate in the confirmation of.
  Now, I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly when it comes to 
judicial confirmation hearings, and I know that some people expressed 
concerns about the tough questions that Judge Jackson fielded. I 
thought she did a credible job answering those questions. She is 
obviously incredibly smart, but I found her personally very charming as 
well.
  Judge Jackson has received two degrees from Harvard, completed a 
Supreme Court clerkship, and served on the Federal bench for nearly a 
decade. I hear no one questioning Judge Jackson's legal credentials, 
but a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court requires a lot more 
than just the right resume. Our constitutional Republic requires judges 
who rule based on the law, not based on their personal policy 
preferences or beliefs and certainly not based on a result and working 
your way back to a justification for that particular result. Judges are 
required to go wherever the law may lead them.
  Justice Scalia, during his lifetime, said: If you haven't made a 
decision as a judge that you personally disagree with because the law 
compels it, you are really probably not doing your job as a judge. And 
I think there is a lot of truth to that. As I say, the job is not to 
start with the desired result and work backwards and cherry-pick the 
legal reasoning to justify the decision.
  The question we tried to answer--those of us who serve on the 
Judiciary Committee--last week is, Where would Judge Jackson fit in 
this mold if confirmed to the Supreme Court? Would she be an impartial 
umpire who follows the letter of the law or would she attempt to 
legislate from the bench? The reason that is important is because, 
under our Constitution, Members of the Senate are supposed to 
legislate. But that is also the reason why we run for election, and we 
are held accountable each election for the votes we take and the policy 
positions we embrace. That is how public policy in America is supposed 
to be made, not by judges who serve for a lifetime and whom the voters 
cannot unelect, like they can Members of the Senate. That is why their 
job is very different.
  Before Judge Jackson was named as the nominee for this seat, 
President Biden outlined what he was looking for in a candidate. Among 
the many qualities and beliefs that he specified, the President said, 
tellingly, he wanted someone with a judicial philosophy that ``suggests 
that there are unenumerated rights in the Constitution, and all the 
amendments mean something, including the Ninth Amendment.'' Those are 
code words, and let me explain.
  This wasn't a one-off comment by President Biden. He even said on the 
campaign trail that he would not nominate somebody for the Supreme 
Court who did not have a view that unenumerated rights exist in the 
Constitution. Now, translated into English, that is tantamount to 
saying that judges shouldn't be bound by a written Constitution.
  You might wonder, if they are not bound by the text and the words of 
the Constitution, where does their authority come from?
  The President stated and restated a litmus test for his desired 
Supreme Court candidate, and he has clearly determined that Judge 
Jackson fits the bill. So I spent my time during the Judiciary 
Committee hearing asking her about unenumerated or what you might call 
invisible rights during her confirmation hearing--invisible because 
they are not in the text.
  I told Judge Jackson it is deeply concerning to me and to the people 
I represent that five unelected and unaccountable Justices could upend 
the will of the people by invalidating laws or inventing a new right 
out of whole cloth. We talked a lot about substantive due process. I 
suggested that she and I nerd out together, since that is not a topic 
that people typically talk about around the kitchen table, but maybe 
they do in a sense I will talk about in a moment.
  Substantive due process is this theory that somehow, when you combine 
the 5th Amendment due process clause with the 14th Amendment due 
process clause, that out of that formula, unwritten and invisible 
rights can suddenly appear. This is really just judge-made law.
  We have seen many examples of this. For example, in Plessy v. 
Ferguson, the Supreme Court established the shameful doctrine of 
separate but equal when it came to the treatment of African Americans 
in our country. Thankfully, that was later overruled by Brown v. Board 
of Education. But it is an example of the sort of horrific outcomes 
that can occur when judges--five judges, unelected, lifetime tenured--
decide to become policymakers in their own right.
  Perhaps most famous in legal circles--certainly in law school--you 
learn about Lochner v. New York. That was another example of 
substantive due process where the Supreme Court invalidated some labor 
regulations with regard to how long bakers could work. In that, the 
Supreme Court discovered a freedom to contract right--again, nowhere 
written in the Constitution but another example of a result-oriented 
outcome based on unwritten constitutional rights.

  Now, one of the most famous examples is Roe v. Wade in which the 
Supreme Court found a constitutional right to an abortion. I asked 
Judge Jackson if the word ``abortion'' or the word ``marriage'' was 
found anywhere in the Constitution, and she agreed with me that, no, 
they are not mentioned in the Constitution.
  Now, here is my point. It is not the outcome necessarily, because 
substantive due process can be used for good or for ill. In other 
words, the good is when I agree with the outcome, and the ill is when I 
disagree. But the main problem is that unelected judges are making 
policy, binding the entire country under the guise of substantive due 
process, which is nothing but judicial lawmaking. So this doctrine of 
substantive due process can be used for things you agree with and 
things you disagree with.
  The point is that this has, I think, helped us hone in on the 
limitless abilities of five Justices to discover new rights that aren't 
even mentioned in the Constitution and then to eliminate any sort of 
debate or democratic process where people actually get to vote on 
public policies because essentially the Supreme Court has taken the 
issue out of the public square. They said: We have already decided it, 
and we don't really care what you think.
  Even Justice Hugo Black, a noted liberal in the classical sense, said 
the due process clause itself in the 5th and 14th Amendments was 
designed to make certain that men would be governed by law, not the 
arbitrary fiat of the man or men in power. And you would have to update 
to say ``man or woman,'' obviously.
  We all know judges on the Supreme Court and on the Federal bench are 
unelected and therefore unaccountable to the people. Federal judges 
discovering rights that do not exist in the written Constitution 
essentially provides a rudderless and, I would argue, eventually 
lawless authority to the Supreme Court.
  The very nature of our three branches of government is to divide 
responsibilities among those branches.

[[Page S1895]]

As I mentioned, the political branches are the executive branch, the 
President; legislative branch, obviously that is Congress, the House 
and the Senate. Our job is far different, and it is important to have 
judges understand their limited but vital role under the Constitution. 
Their job is to interpret the laws as written, not to make them up as 
you go along or to use a smokescreen, like substantive due process, to 
identify new rights that do not appear anywhere in the Constitution.
  If the American people want to amend the Constitution, which they 
have done 27 times during our Nation's history, there is a way to do 
that. Sure, it is a tough battle. You have to win a supermajority of 
both Houses, and you have to get it ratified by the States. But you can 
do it, and it has been done 27 times.
  But there are people who want to take a shortcut, and they want 
judges to abuse their authority by identifying these unwritten rights.
  Well, what is at stake when that happens? When judges invent new 
rights, decide issues that are not in their lane, as Judge Jackson 
liked to say--she would say ``making policy is not in my lane''--or 
when a judge acts as a policymaker, like Congress is supposed to do, 
like the executive branch is supposed to do, when judges act that way, 
they necessarily undermine the American people's right to choose.
  The Declaration of Independence notes that the authority of 
government is derived from the consent of the governed. But how do 
judges, when they identify unmentioned rights out of whole cloth, how 
do we, as the American people, get to consent or withhold that consent? 
Thus, it is easy to see how judge-made law and these smokescreens, like 
substantive due process, are really methods by which some members of 
the judiciary undermine the basic and fundamental premise and 
legitimacy of our laws because the consent of the governed to those 
judges is irrelevant.
  Now, one unfortunate consequence of judge-made law that is not in the 
Constitution as written, is that anybody who disagrees with you--and 
this act of judicial activism--can easily be accused of discrimination 
or even labeled a bigot, even if their belief is derived from religious 
conviction, which is expressly protected by the Constitution. This is 
what happens when invisible rights conflict with rights that are 
actually written into the Constitution, like the First Amendment, like 
the right to religious liberty.
  President Biden assured the American people that he would nominate 
somebody who believed in unenumerated rights, so I asked Judge Jackson 
a logical question: What unenumerated rights are there?
  The American people deserve to know. Certainly, in casting our vote 
for or against a nomination, the Senate deserves to know. But she 
refused to provide an answer.
  This isn't the only place where Judge Jackson was less than candid. 
My colleagues and I repeatedly asked Judge Jackson about her judicial 
philosophy, a standard question during these confirmation hearings. 
Now, Judge Jackson has a marvelous legal education. She has vast 
practical experience because she was a public defender, a Federal 
district judge, a circuit court judge, and now will serve on the 
Supreme Court.
  So when you ask a judge with that sort of pedigree, ``Tell us about 
the way you decide cases: What is your judicial philosophy?'' Well, it 
is not a trap or a trick question. It is something that every Supreme 
Court nominee has been asked to describe.
  Most recently, Judge Barrett identified her judicial philosophy, 
describing herself as a ``textualist'' and an ``originalist.'' Now, 
those are awkward terms, but I think what that means is she believes in 
interpreting the law as written and as understood at the time it was 
written. That is what she refers to as a ``written Constitution.''
  Judge Jackson previously suggested she didn't have a judicial 
philosophy at all--something I find impossible to believe with somebody 
with this sort of experience and background and incredibly impressive 
education.
  During her confirmation hearing, she failed to provide much clarity 
beyond offering vague statements about her methodology. But her 
methodology is not a philosophy. We need a clear understanding of how 
Judge Jackson views judge-made law and the invisible--you might say 
``unenumerated,'' in the words of President Biden--rights that she 
finds in the Constitution.
  In order for me to fulfill my responsibility as a Member of the 
Senate to provide advice and consent, I need to know and understand how 
Judge Jackson interprets the law and the Constitution, not asking her 
to make specific commitments on results or outcomes. I would never do 
that because judges are supposed to interpret, apply the law to a case-
by-case method. But after repeated questioning, the judge refused to 
answer that question.
  The prism or philosophy through which a Supreme Court nominee views 
the law and interprets the Constitution is a critical indicator for 
determining if the judge will ``stay in her lane''--again, those were 
the terms that Judge Jackson used--or whether she will become a 
policymaker that President Biden and outside groups like Demand Justice 
want her to be.
  Demand Justice is an advocacy group that advocates defunding the 
police and progressive solutions to society's problems. They don't want 
her calling balls and strikes; they want her putting her thumb on their 
side of the scale and judging in a results-oriented fashion.
  As I reviewed Judge Jackson's record, I saw some examples of activism 
bleeding through her decisions. One of Judge Jackson's opinions from 
her time on the DC district court demonstrates the serious concerns 
that I have about her ability to follow the letter of the law as 
expressed by Congress as opposed to her personal preferences.
  In the case Make the Road New York v. McAleenan, a progressive 
organization challenged the Trump administration's regulation of 
expedited removal proceedings for people who illegally enter our 
country without the appropriate paperwork. The Immigration and 
Nationality Act gives the Department of Homeland Security ``sole and 
unreviewable discretion'' to apply expedited removal proceedings. 
Expedited removal is actually a deterrent for illegal immigration 
because if migrants realize that without authorization they enter the 
country and they are going to be removed on an expedited basis, a whole 
lot of them won't spend the money and take the time on that dangerous 
journey from their home to our shores or to our border if they know 
they are not going to be successful. So this was not a minor matter. 
But the Immigration and Nationality Act doesn't leave any gray area for 
interpretation. Sole and unreviewable discretion is as clear as it 
comes.
  Judge Jackson, who presided over this case, decidedly did not stay in 
her lane. She went beyond the unambiguous text to deliver a political 
win to a progressive group and, in the process, entered an injunction 
barring the use of this tool that is needed by our Border Patrol and 
immigration authorities in order to deter people from violating our 
immigration laws.
  Unsurprisingly, her decision was appealed and ultimately overturned 
by the DC circuit court. I think this is a clear-cut example of Judge 
Jackson ignoring the law as written in order to achieve a result that 
she preferred.
  The critical point to underscore is that as Members of Congress, we 
are elected and accountable. We can get elected, and we can get 
unelected when our constituents don't like what we are doing. But our 
authority comes from the electoral process, which is another way of 
saying the consent of the governed, as I mentioned, in the Declaration 
of Independence.
  With each bill that is signed into law, we are interacting with the 
will of our constituents. And if they don't like what we are doing, you 
can bet we hear from them and certainly will in the next election, if 
not before.
  But by ignoring these laws passed by Congress and signed by the 
President, Judge Jackson is doing more than just disregarding Congress; 
she is rejecting the right of the American people to govern themselves, 
to consent to the laws or withhold their consent.
  If given a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, I have to 
wonder: How many other laws would Judge Jackson ignore? How many other 
precedents would she seek to overturn simply because she doesn't agree 
with them? How far would she go to achieve

[[Page S1896]]

a specific result by discovering unenumerated and, hence, invisible 
rights, whether it relates to immigration, abortion, religion, the 
Second Amendment, or anything else you might imagine that the Supreme 
Court might consider?
  The separation of powers between the three coequal branches of 
government is a central feature of our constitutional democracy. Not 
only do we have three branches, we also have multiple levels of 
Federal, State, and local governments--a Federal system. That is 
because the Founders of this great country and the people who ratified 
the Constitution believed that the best way to protect their liberty 
was by enacting checks and balances on the authority of government 
because they didn't trust any person to stay in their lane. They wanted 
checks and balances to make sure there was a method of enforcing 
elected officials, including judges, to stay in their lane.
  Sixth Circuit Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton recently wrote a book whose 
title sums up the overarching debate with a single, succinct question. 
Ultimately, this is a question of who decides. Do we the people decide? 
Do our elected representatives whom we delegate the authority to make 
decisions on our behalf, do they decide or do unelected, lifetime-
tenured, unaccountable Federal judges--are they free to be roaming 
policymakers, enacting judge-made law, which actually contradicts or 
conflicts with the will of the American people, as evidenced by the 
laws passed by their elected representatives? When there is a conflict 
between the different levels or branches of government, who decides is 
how we determine who holds the power to make decisions that impact 
every citizen in this country. And as I said, all power, political and 
government authority, is derived from the people.
  Voters select Senators, Congressmen, even the President of the United 
States, but they have no direct say in the process of selecting Supreme 
Court Justices. That is why our responsibility, part of the 
Constitution known as advice and consent--that is why our 
constitutional obligation is so important.
  We have the responsibility to determine whether a nominee understands 
the important but limited role of Federal judges and can be expected to 
act with restraint, fairness, impartiality, and ultimately in the best 
interest of the American people.
  Ultimately, I fear Judge Jackson has a blind spot when it comes to 
judge-made law, and she would use her seat on the Supreme Court to 
create new rights out of whole cloth and engage in result-oriented 
decision making.
  For that reason, I will oppose Judge Jackson's confirmation to the 
Supreme Court of the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here on a very important 
bipartisan bill, but I first wanted to address the fact that I am proud 
to be supporting Judge Jackson.
  I think she has incredible legal experience--more experience as a 
judge going into the job than four of the people had when they went on 
to the Supreme Court.
  She is in the top two for trial experience. She showed incredible 
grace under pressure when one over-the-top, inappropriate question was 
asked of her after another.
  She will be walking into that Supreme Court with her head held high, 
and she is going to be confirmed next week.
  As I said, I will speak more to this later. I spoke a lot about it in 
the Judiciary Committee, but she is going to be a great Supreme Court 
Justice.


                       Ocean Shipping Reform Act

  Mr. President, I rise today to highlight my bill with Senator Thune, 
which just passed the Senate, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act.
  We worked for months together on this bill to come to an agreement. 
We did everything right and got cosponsors on both sides of the aisle. 
I particularly want to thank Baz, my staff member on the Commerce 
Committee, who did such a great job in working on this. And I also want 
to thank Senators Cantwell and Wicker for their support of the bill as 
the chair and ranking member on the Commerce Committee. We worked 
together on some changes to the bill, and I appreciated their input.
  As U.S. Senators representing Minnesota and South Dakota, Senator 
Thune and I know how crucial it is for American businesses to be able 
to export throughout the country and across the globe. American farmers 
feed the world, and consumers and businesses look to them for in-demand 
agricultural goods like soybeans, corn, dairy, poultry, pork, and beef, 
just to name a few. And American manufacturers support so many of the 
essential parts and products that fill our jobs, businesses, and store 
shelves.
  As I look at our economy as we come out of this economic downturn, we 
must be an economy and a country that makes stuff, that invents things, 
that exports to the world. No matter how much American ingenuity we 
have--and there is a lot of it--if ships owned by foreign interests are 
going to other countries with empty containers and exporting nothing 
but air and then come to our country filled with foreign goods, that is 
not exactly an even playing field.
  As the past 2 years have highlighted, significant supply chain 
disruptions and vulnerabilities have occurred. There are many answers 
here, one of them being workforce, one of them being port 
infrastructure and rail infrastructure and the like, but what we have 
seen when it comes to shipping--and I am so glad my colleague from 
South Dakota has joined me here on the floor--what we have seen in the 
middle of the country, where people are pretty sensible, all of a 
sudden they are looking at this, and they see the price of shipping 
containers increase by four times in just 2 years. Four times--that is 
not normal.

  We have also heard from U.S. companies that they have only been able 
to ship 60 percent of their orders because they can't access the 
shipping containers. At the same time, these ocean carriers--almost all 
foreign-owned--have reported record profits. It is estimated that the 
container shipping industry made a record $190 billion in profits in 
2021, a sevenfold increase from the previous year.
  Their financial performance isn't a result of improved performance 
when our manufacturers and farmers can't ship out their goods, no. They 
are fleecing consumers and exporters because they know they can get 
away with it, and this is all while exporters and consumers are 
literally paying the price for the supply chain disruptions caused by 
unreliable service.
  (Ms. CORTEZ MASTO assumed the Chair.)
  We need to get exports to those who need them, but it is plainly 
obvious that the ocean carriers are prioritizing non-American shipments 
at the expense of both American exporters--as in manufacturers, so many 
of them in Minnesota and South Dakota, as Senator Thune knows, being 
small businesses--as well as farmers and American consumers. It isn't 
sustainable, and it isn't acceptable. We can't let ocean carriers slow 
down our supply chain while shaking down our American businesses and 
farmers for their own profit.
  That is why we introduced the Ocean Shipping Reform Act. It just 
passed the Senate. Our bill protects American farmers and manufacturers 
by making it easier for them to ship ready-to-export goods waiting at 
our ports. Our bill aims to level the playing field for American 
exporters by updating the Federal rules for the global shipping 
industry.
  It will give the Federal Maritime Commission greater authority to 
regulate harmful practices by these big international carriers. It 
directs the Federal Maritime Commission to issue a rule prohibiting 
international ocean carriers from unreasonably declining shipping 
opportunities for U.S. exports. This will make it harder for them to 
leave our products behind, just sitting there at a port, in favor of 
shipping over to China, sailing over to China, and then bringing their 
products back to us.
  In addition to giving the FMC more authority to investigate bad 
practices by ocean carriers, the bill also directs the Federal Maritime 
Commission to set new rules for what the international carrier 
companies can reasonably charge and require them to certify and 
ultimately prove that fees that they charge are fair. As rates continue 
to climb, this is more urgent than ever.

[[Page S1897]]

  And I personally believe that, even before this rule goes into 
effect, the fact that we passed this unanimously in the U.S. Senate 
sent a pretty strong shot across the bow because there is so much more 
we could do and we will do if this practice continues.
  As I was working on this bill with Senator Thune, I heard about 
exporters who wanted to speak out against these predatory practices but 
were scared into silence because they feared that the ocean carriers 
would retaliate. That is why our bill includes strong anti-retaliation 
protection for shippers. In short, this bipartisan legislation says to 
the foreign-owned shipping alliances: Charge fair prices, stop 
profiting off our backs, and fill your empty crates with American-made 
products.
  Senator Thune and I have a bipartisan group of 29 cosponsors 
representing a variety of regions: Senators Cantwell; Wicker; Baldwin; 
Hoeven; Stabenow; Marshall; Peters; Moran; Blumenthal; Young; Kelly; 
Crapo; Smith of Minnesota; Blackburn; Booker; Ernst; Cortez Masto, the 
Presiding Officer; Braun; Warnock; Risch; Bennet; Cramer; Wyden; Blunt; 
Van Hollen; Boozman; Fischer; Padilla; and Hickenlooper.
  The legislation earned the endorsement of the American Association of 
Port Authorities, which represents more than 130 Port authorities 
across North and South America, including my own port of Duluth. This 
bill is also endorsed by more than 100 organizations, including the 
Agriculture Transportation Coalition, the National Retail Federation, 
the American Trucking Associations, and the Consumer Technology 
Association.

  I also want to mention the House leaders on this bill--
Representatives   John Garamendi and Dusty Johnson of South Dakota--
whose companion legislation has already passed the House. I see this as 
a truly bipartisan solution to a problem that is impacting millions of 
Americans and a great example of what is possible when we work 
together.
  I want to congratulate Senator Thune for his great leadership. He may 
be a bit taller than I, but we have worked together on many, many 
things across our borders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, let me just join my friend and colleague 
and neighbor from across the border, Senator Klobuchar, in just 
acknowledging the passage of something that is really important and 
credit to her staff, who I know worked tirelessly on this, and members 
of my staff--in particular Chance Costello--who worked tirelessly 
trying to find that common ground and thread the needle to get this 
done in a way that would expedite its passage here in the Senate.
  As Senator Klobuchar pointed out, the leadership on the Commerce 
Committee--Senators Cantwell and Wicker--and their staffs also were 
instrumental in helping us get this across the finish line. But as 
Senator Klobuchar pointed out, I think this is a good example of how, 
if you are willing to keep grinding and keep working at it, you can 
come up with solutions that are bipartisan and solutions that really 
get at problems that we are facing in this country.
  I don't think anybody would argue that we have a supply chain crisis 
in America. It has heightened the importance of addressing some of 
these shipping challenges; and our legislation, although it may not be 
the end-all, certainly takes us a long way toward addressing what have 
been identified as many of the problems associated with trying to get 
the goods and products through our port system into the United States 
and, as importantly, trying to get those products, those things that we 
raise and grow and manufacture here in the United States, to their 
destinations around the world.
  And there have been lots of examples which Senator Klobuchar has 
alluded to that she and I and our staffs have, in visiting with 
stakeholders out there, people who were impacted by these bottlenecks 
that exist today--as we have listened to them, much of that input and 
feedback was incorporated into this legislation.
  So it does take strong measures to help tackle supply chain 
slowdowns, and it does level the playing field for American exporters, 
including South Dakota ag producers. It does this in several ways. She 
has covered it well, but let me just briefly touch on a couple of 
things. It does this by giving the FMC, or the Federal Maritime 
Commission, new authorities to crack down on unfair ocean carrier 
practices, whether that is a refusal to carry certain cargoes or 
discrimination against certain commodities for export.
  We have all heard these examples--Senator Klobuchar alluded to this--
of containers leaving the ports in the United States that are empty, 
filled with air, or the carriers making determinations based upon the 
value of certain products instead of--and then assessing detention and 
demurrage fees sometimes on shippers that are unfair and unrelated, 
really, to anything that they have done.
  So providing the FMC with more tools to quickly resolve detention 
disputes, bringing greater efficiency and transparency to a process 
that leaves many shippers frustrated--and especially small businesses--
is what this legislation is all about. These improvements, we believe, 
are going to bring long-term, positive changes to the maritime supply 
chain, which I hope will benefit not only exporters but importers and 
consumers alike.
  The legislation not only levels the playing field for producers in 
South Dakota and across the Nation, but it will also benefit exporters, 
small businesses, and, as I said, consumers across this country.
  So I hope, as she does, that our colleagues in the House will be able 
to take this up and pass it. There has been some good work done there 
already, much of it by my colleague in South Dakota, a Member of the 
congressional delegation from our State, Dusty Johnson, who has been 
the leader on this legislation in the House of Representatives when it 
passed earlier this year. And now, we have our chance here in the U.S. 
Senate.
  And it is a product of a tremendous amount of work. Senator 
Klobuchar's staff and my staff spent not weeks but months negotiating--
and, you know, there are always disagreements. There are always 
differences. Of course, when you present it to the rest of our 
colleagues on the Senate Commerce Committee, they have their ideas, 
unique ideas, about things that they want to fix and change and make 
better. So it went through that process.
  But, ultimately, when we brought it up for consideration in front of 
the Senate Commerce Committee, there were some amendments that were 
offered and voted on. People got a chance to have their voices heard. A 
lot of the ideas that people had were incorporated into the base text, 
but, ultimately, when it was voted out, it was voted out of the Senate 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee unanimously. It came 
out without a dissenting vote, and that, I think, set us up here on the 
floor of the U.S. Senate to process in a way that, again, included a 
high level of bipartisanship.
  And I credit, too--as we brought it to the floor, there were a couple 
of issues we had to again deal with, individual Members who had 
concerns--some with the legislation, some with other issues. But as is 
always the case here in the U.S. Senate, an individual Senator can 
assert their rights in a way that enables them, gives them leverage on 
the process; but we were able to work through those things, and that 
product today has now passed the U.S. Senate.
  Hopefully, if the House is inclined to do so, it would be great if 
they would pick it up, pass it, put it on the President's desk, and 
have him sign it into law because I think it will take us a long way 
down the road toward leveling that playing field and addressing many of 
the concerns that have been identified by our exporters.
  I know that the farm organizations in my State of South Dakota have 
been very active in influencing this, very concerned about the 
bottlenecks and their ability to reach export destinations in a way 
that allows them to maximize their profitability and, in doing so, 
increase the prosperity of people all across the Midwest in States that 
we represent where agriculture is the No. 1 industry.
  So congrats to those who worked on this, again, to the staff who have 
labored, and to my colleague from Minnesota. This is not the first time 
we have collaborated on issues. We share not only a border but, 
obviously, a lot of commonality in terms of the issues that impact our 
States; and this is one

[[Page S1898]]

in particular where I think the farmers, ranchers, small business 
people, manufacturers in Minnesota and in South Dakota will all derive 
a benefit once it is enacted into law.
  We are going to do everything we can now to continue to press 
forward. We have gotten it this far. We need to now get some additional 
action by the House of Representatives. I am not sure exactly what that 
looks like, whether that is going to conference with them. Preferably, 
obviously, they pick up and pass this bill, put it on the President's 
desk and turn it into law.
  I am pleased to be able to be a part of this and to get a result 
today.
  Ms. STABENOW. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. THUNE. I would be happy to yield to our colleague and the 
chairman of the Senate Ag Committee, who also has big equities in this 
discussion.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I thank Senator Thune and Senator 
Klobuchar. I know that the chair of the Commerce Committee is coming 
down to speak.
  I just wanted to say congratulations. Thank you for your wonderful 
leadership on this. Obviously, with my hat on as chair of the 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, this is a big deal, as 
they would say. This is a very big deal to, certainly, all of our 
growers in Michigan but, I know, across the country.
  So thank you for your great bipartisan work, and hopefully, we can 
get this all the way across the finish line. I know the President is 
anxious to sign it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I, too, would like to come to the 
floor and thank my colleagues from the Upper Midwest for their great 
work on this legislation, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022.
  Our colleagues from the Upper Midwest know how important agriculture 
products are, and they know how important it is for them to reach their 
destination. As Senator Thune was the previous chair of the Commerce 
Committee, he knows all too well about how products can get boxed out 
because of other products on the rails.
  My colleague from Minnesota knows all too importantly about exports 
and has been a big supporter of our export economy in general and 
represents a State that is very robust on the global economy. So her 
leadership on a very tough issue has been very, very appreciated.
  I would like to thank, from the Commerce Committee staff, a variety 
of people, and from Senator Wicker's staff and from Senator Thune's. A 
lot of people worked on this: Nicki Teutschel, Alexis Gutierrez, Dave 
Stewart, Grace Bloom, Charles Vickery, Eric Vryheid, Michael Davisson, 
Matt Filpi, and Megan Thompson. From Senator Wicker's staff: Andrew 
Neely, Fern Gibbons, Brendan Gavin, Paul Wasik, Kyle Fields. And from 
Senator Klobuchar's staff: Obviously Baz Selassie--couldn't have done 
it without all of his hard work. He is really the guy behind this. And 
Senator Thune's staff: Chance Costello. And certainly Rob Hickman from 
Senator Schumer's staff.
  So, today, the passage of this bipartisan legislation couldn't come 
at a more important time for our growers and producers and exporters; 
that is, today we are saying that American farmers matter, and their 
survival matters more than the exorbitant profit of international 
shipping companies. That is what we really tried to tackle in this 
legislation. Our two colleagues brought forth this legislation in 
record time. It was passed in the House of Representatives, led by 
Congressmen Garamendi and Johnson. Those two passed that in December, 
and our colleagues got this bill here in the Senate in February, and we 
were able to pass it now here at the very end of March.

  I thank again our two colleagues--Senator Klobuchar for her 
leadership and Senator Thune for getting it done so quickly. Literally, 
it was introduced in February and passed in March. I hope it is an 
example of what we can do on other legislation that is affecting our 
supply chain.
  Our economy is built on trading goods in a timely manner with our 
partnerships from all over the world. Anderson Hay Grain in Washington 
said:

       The agriculture economy in our region does not work if we 
     don't have competitive access to world markets.

  Right now, the supply chain isn't working. Our ports have been 
clogged. Shipping companies have struggled to keep up with demand, and 
the costs for American exporters who are trying to get hay and milk and 
apples to the global market have gone through the roof. It is hurting 
our consumers here at home as they see prices increase, and it is 
hurting our exporters when they are looking at products that they are 
trying to get to market.
  American exporters are being charged more and more for containers due 
to shipping delays that are really out of their control. They are 
trying not to increase these costs. But, basically, consumers are 
paying more, and our exporters are having a tough time getting their 
products to market.
  According to the freight index, by September 2021, shipping a 
container had gone from $1,300 a container to $11,000 a container. 
Reports and news articles talk about how that has affected our supply 
chains, that there have been increases in costs in consumer 
electronics, like computers and other equipment, and in furniture and 
apparel. They are all seeing increases because of the increases in our 
shipping costs.
  The Federal Maritime Commission found that between July and September 
of 2021, American businesses were charged $2.2 billion in fees in 
addition to freight rates. That is a 50-percent increase compared to 
the 3 prior months.
  Getting overcharged is only part of the problem. Some of our 
businesses can't even get their containers on the ship. During 2021, 
there was a 24-percent drop in full shipping containers leaving from 
the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma. That drop increased to 30 percent in 
January and February of this year. That means 30 percent less 
containers are leaving for international markets that are full of 
American products. American exporters and their products are being left 
on the docks. That is why we wanted to act quickly.
  The American farmer, with growing season upon us, can't afford to 
wait another minute for the Federal Maritime Commission to do its job 
and help police this market and make sure that our products and our 
farmers are not being overcharged or left on the dock.
  The Washington State Potato Commission reported an 11-percent 
decrease in exports in 2020 from 2019. According to Darigold, American 
dairy producers lost $1.5 billion last year due to port congestion and 
related challenges.
  All of this means that getting this legislation onto the President's 
desk could not be more important. That is why we acted fast in moving 
this legislation today to give the first reforms to the Federal 
Maritime Commission in two decades. Those new tools given to the 
Commission are to increase the rules to prevent American products from 
being left on the docks; increase transparency so that the fees the 
shippers are charged are known and they can't be overcharged; and 
three, prevent the shipping companies from retaliating against our 
local American businesses.
  These three changes are significant changes to the authority, and the 
committee made sure in the changes to the legislation that these new 
rules need to be in place in the next few months. We cannot continue to 
wait for those rules to take place until next year. They need to be 
done now. That is why the Commerce Committee I am sure will work in a 
bipartisan fashion to see the implementation of this law and to make 
sure that the Commission is aggressive in going after the exorbitant 
fees that are being charged by these international shipping companies.
  It is a huge task. The Commission is charged with regulating a $14 
trillion international shipping industry. But this industry has done 
nothing but become more concentrated in the last several decades. As 
the supply chain challenges unfold, it is clear that the Commission is 
left trying to rein in the practices of five very large international 
companies. That is why we had to act fast and we had to be aggressive 
in making sure the Federal Maritime Commission would work to put rules 
in place that will help American ag exporters and help protect American 
consumers.
  Again, I thank my colleagues for their great work on this 
legislation.

[[Page S1899]]

The State of Washington desperately needed to see the Federal Maritime 
Commission reform. I am proud to say that we were able to get a new 
Federal Maritime Commissioner, Max Vekich--who I think will officially 
be sworn in soon--from the State of Washington, who has been working on 
the docks for 40 years. He knows what it takes to move product. He also 
knows that we need aggressive action by the Federal Maritime Commission 
to protect all of us from these exorbitant shipping costs and to help 
us in making sure that products--good American exports, like our apples 
and hay and wheat--are not left on any dock but reach their destination 
in foreign markets.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, before I give my remarks, I want to 
give a shout-out again to our great leader, the chair of the Commerce 
Committee, Senator Cantwell. I don't know if this is a record, but 
Senator Cantwell moved this bill so fast through the committee, it is 
amazing. It is just building on the great work of the committee with 
the Innovation and Competition Act and so on.
  Again, on behalf of all the farmers in Michigan and across the 
country, this is really important legislation.
  (The remarks of Ms. Stabenow pertaining to the introduction of S. 
3979 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Ms. STABENOW I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                         Tribute to Leah Seigle

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, before I get underway with the 
business that brings me to the floor, I would like to take a moment to 
say farewell and thank you to a member of my staff who is going on to 
other pursuits. Her name is Leah Seigle. She is right behind me, and 
she was my scheduler for many, many years.
  As every Senator knows, there is a special relationship between a 
Senator and a scheduler. They have to be on duty, more or less, 24/7 
when we are up and about. They have to deal with our day-to-day life 
and how it integrates with our offices. They very often are close to 
and involved with our families, because of having to deal with keeping 
our family time extant and busy schedules.
  So I want to say a word of appreciation to Leah.
  I don't know how many speeches she has scheduled me here on the floor 
for--all the ``Scheme'' speeches, probably all of the ``Time to Wake 
Up'' speeches, and this one today. This one today she actually gets to 
be here for and doesn't have to watch on television.
  So to Leah Seigle, thank you very much, and to schedulers everywhere, 
you are important to us.


                  Nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson

  Madam President, the reason I am here is to announce my intention to 
vote for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to be an Associate Justice of the 
Supreme Court and to congratulate her on the grace and dignity with 
which she withstood what Chairman Durbin called her ``trial by ordeal'' 
in the Judiciary Committee.
  Last week, Judge Jackson set the gold standard for patience and 
courtesy from a Supreme Court nominee. She demonstrated, hour after 
hour after often-agonizing hour, in plain view the qualities that Rhode 
Islander and Reagan First Circuit appointee Judge Bruce Selya has 
praised in her, an outstanding legal mind, an exemplary judiciary 
temperament, and a depth of experience in the courtroom that none of 
the sitting Justices possesses.
  Judge Jackson reminded us, through her personal story of perseverance 
and hope, how historic and important it is to have a Black woman about 
to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. That story of perseverance and hope 
stretches back beyond Judge Jackson's own life and work into the 
experience of Black women through American history, and it illuminates 
a brighter American future. So I will be proud to cast my vote for her 
confirmation.
  During the Judiciary Committee hearing, there were persistent efforts 
to rewrite Judge Jackson's own history, to assign to her beliefs she 
has never espoused. She dispensed with those attempts so effectively 
that I won't dwell on them here. But there were other attempts in that 
hearing to rewrite history that I feel obliged to correct here today.
  The first is the notion that a Justice must have a ``judicial 
philosophy.'' That is news to me. If a nominee has a judicial 
philosophy, it is definitely fair game. It is important to explore 
that, and it is particularly important to explore that because 
predisposition can come masked as judicial philosophy. But I don't see 
where a nominee has to have one, and I would actually suggest we are 
better off if judges don't, because judicial philosophy can so easily 
be code for predisposition.
  Republicans persisted in that ``judicial philosophy'' quest, asking 
about ``judicial philosophy'' over 50 times. The favored theme appeared 
to be the so-called judicial philosophies of originalism and 
textualism, doctrines which illustrate my concern about predisposition.
  The big, dark money donors who ushered the last three Justices onto 
the Supreme Court love the backward look of originalism. A backward 
look to an era when industry regulation did not exist because big 
industry did not exist. Moreover, Republican Justices completely 
ignore originalism when it suits them. As I pointed out in committee, 
the entire vast structure of corporate political power in America 
erected by Republican Justices over years is a continuing affront to 
originalism.

  There was no corporate role in politics in the Constitution or the 
Philadelphia debates or the Federalist papers. Any of the customary 
wellsprings of originalism would say that this is a country to be run 
by we the people. But how happy--how happy--corporate political power 
makes big Republican donors. So originalism goes out the window, and 
corporate power gets baked into our system.
  Unlike those judicial philosophies of predisposition and of 
convenience, Judge Jackson said her judicial philosophy is her 
methodology--``consistently appl[y]'' the ``same level of analytical 
rigor'' to a case ``no matter who or what is involved in the legal 
action.'' For a judge, following your oath of office, the 
constitutional precedents of the Court, and the text of the 
Constitution itself should suffice. You don't need a judicial 
philosophy.
  So where did this Republican fascination with judicial philosophy 
come from? Here are talking points distributed by twinned rightwing, 
dark money influence groups, the so-called Independent Women's Law 
Center and the affiliated so-called Independent Women's Voice. These 
groups are tied in with Leonard Leo's massive, secretive $580 million-
plus archipelago of front groups, like these, that make up the 
rightwing donors' Court-capture operation.
  They sent these talking points to Republican Senators even before 
Judge Jackson was selected. These dark money groups noted that ``this 
nominee is likely to be a woman of color'' and urged the Republicans 
not argue, ``that the president's selection process led him to choose 
someone who may not be the best person for the job.''
  They said:

       It is . . . important that you focus not on the selection 
     process or on the nominee's paper qualifications, but rather 
     on the need to learn more about the nominee's judicial 
     philosophy.

  The marching orders were clear, and 50 efforts at ``judicial 
philosophy'' discussion later, we saw these talking points play out in 
that hearing.
  This rewrite of history, to presume that every nominee should have a 
judicial philosophy, just because rightwing nominees have a fake 
judicial philosophy of originalism that turns out to be sourced to 
rightwing dark money talking points, it seems to me to be an effort to 
erase the dangers of having a judicial philosophy, particularly a 
judicial philosophy that masks predisposition and is selectively 
applied.
  Another rewrite of history came through the witness chosen to 
highlight Judge Jackson's amicus brief defending a 2000 Massachusetts 
law establishing buffer zones for protests around abortion clinics.
  The witness was a sidewalk counselor, someone who encourages women 
not to go in and exercise their rights. She seemed like a very nice 
woman, and she testified that she acted with compassion and love. But 
history and

[[Page S1900]]

my experience don't align with that image of clinic protesters, as I 
recall personally.
  Crowds outside of clinics in Rhode Island in those years leading up 
to the 2000 law were hostile and intimidating, screaming and accusing 
of murder, to the point where patients coming in required security 
escorts to protect them.
  I remember pink sweatshirts that safety escorts wore outside Planned 
Parenthood so that patients could identify who was there to help them 
and then pass safely.
  Activists went back and forth between Massachusetts and Rhode Island 
to protest outside of clinics.
  On the morning of December 30, 1994, bad went to worse. A man walked 
into a pair of abortion clinics in Brookline, MA. At the first clinic, 
he shot and killed the receptionist with a modified semiautomatic 
rifle, then turned on others present--patients, their accompanying 
partners, staff. He left that clinic and traveled to the second clinic 
and there continued the slaughter. The man killed two people and 
wounded five others in this rampage, which shook New England to the 
core.
  I was the U.S. attorney when word came out of these shootings at 
clinics just 1 hour up the road and that the shooter was still at 
large. I thought Rhode Island might very well be next. So I went and 
stood outside the Planned Parenthood clinic just off the highway with 
my friend and Federal law enforcement colleague U.S. Marshal Jack 
Leyden, and we stood there on that cold morning until a police cruiser 
could be posted outside.
  I will just say that the environment that led to Massachusetts' 
buffer zone law passing in 2000 was not an atmosphere of compassion and 
love, and it is a disservice to the facts to try to rewrite history and 
pretend that it was.
  Another rewrite of history that took place in this hearing was a 
rewrite of the Brett Kavanaugh hearings.
  The Judiciary Committee had been provided evidence in those hearings 
that young Brett Kavanaugh was an out-of-control drinker with a bad 
history of behavior around women--most particularly the testimony of 
this woman that she had been physically assaulted as a young woman.
  You would never know of her testimony from the history rewrite 
offered by Republicans in the recent hearings. You would never know 
that she came to the Judiciary Committee; that she testified under oath 
and intense public scrutiny; that she weathered the attentions of a 
professional prosecutor hired by the Republicans; that she was calm and 
credible.
  And you would never know that the FBI tanked its supplemental 
background investigation into these allegations, including a tip line 
whose tips received zero FBI investigation. I have described it before 
as a tip dump, not a tip line.
  The tips related to the nominee were segregated from the regular 
stream of tips in the FBI tip line and sent, without investigation, to 
the White House.
  Republicans sought to erase all of that by rewriting Kavanaugh 
hearing history during this Supreme Court hearing. Well, she has a face 
and she has a name: Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.
  And the big rewrite--the big rewrite is to ignore all the evidence 
that our Supreme Court is now a captured Court, captured in the same 
way that Agencies and Commissions are sometimes captured by big special 
interests.
  There is a whole literature in administrative law, there is a whole 
literature in economics about Agency capture or regulatory capture.
  Well, even before the Trump Presidency, big, powerful, rightwing 
donor interests began spending massive sums of money to install 
Justices on the Supreme Court whom they expected to rule reliably in 
their favor.
  Very often, as the Presiding Officer knows, if you can pick the 
judges, you can pick the winner.
  The 5-to-4 and now 6-to-3 Republican majority on the Court has been 
steadily delivering for those big donors; over 80--eight, zero--80 5-
to-4 partisan wins for big corporate and partisan donor interests under 
Chief Justice Roberts.
  In those 5-to-4 partisan decisions, by the way, where there was an 
identifiable Republican donor interest involved, it wasn't just the 80 
decisions that stood out; it was the fact that the score was 80-to-0. 
Every single one went their way.
  Dark money lurked behind the Federalist Society turnstile that picked 
the Justices. Dark money lurked behind the secretive Agency down the 
hall from the Federalist Society that ran the ads for them. Dark money 
lurks behind the flotillas of front group amici curiae that tell the 
Justices, in orchestrated chorus, how to rule.
  You would never know any of this from our Republican friends in the 
committee.
  But the American people have seen those decisions, and more and more 
they understand that the Court is rigged; that it is now the Court that 
dark money built.
  Judge Jackson, by contrast, is a walking reminder of what the Court 
ought to be. She didn't pass through the dark money-funded turnstile at 
the Federalist Society. She arrived after a lifetime of accomplishment, 
against unimaginable odds, through a fair and honest selection process, 
through her merit and abilities.
  The attacks on her in the committee were unseemly, but there is no 
need to dwell on that because at the end of the day, they were sound 
and fury, signifying nothing.
  Judge Jackson will excel on the Supreme Court, and I will proudly 
cast my vote to put her there.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warnock). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                                  Iran

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, Donald Trump relit the fuse that leads to 
an Iranian nuclear bomb by abandoning the Iran nuclear deal. Now 
Republicans are urging President Joe Biden to let it go boom.
  President Barack Obama crafted the Iran nuclear deal in 2015 to 
prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon. He had inherited two quagmires in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, and he was right to prioritize diplomacy to 
prevent us from falling into a third quagmire.
  Donald Trump's unilateral exit from the Iranian deal in 2013 created 
a nuclear crisis where one did not exist. In the years since that 
withdrawal, Iran has crept closer to a bomb, restricted access to 
international inspectors, and set us on a potential collision course to 
war with Iran.
  Our European allies wanted to build upon the Iran nuclear deal, but 
President Trump and his arms control assassin, John Bolton, used it as 
target practice, leaving the Biden administration and our allies to 
pick up the pieces.
  On the Republicans' watch, Iran's breakout time, or time required to 
build enough nuclear material for its first nuclear bomb, went from 
more than 1 year down to just weeks.
  There is simply no good alternative to reentering the Iran nuclear 
deal. Trump has already tried the alternative. It has failed miserably 
and made the United States more vulnerable and made the Middle East 
more vulnerable.
  Then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo laid out a series of demands for 
Iran in 2018 that read more like a fantasy novel than a foreign policy 
speech. And where did it get us? Absolutely nowhere, except it got Iran 
closer to a nuclear weapon than it has ever been before.
  No, the reality is that the alternative to diplomacy, our Plan B, is 
likely to include more sanctions which will lead to more enrichment of 
uranium and the prospect of another Middle East conflagration. In 
short, Plan B stands for ``Plan Bad.'' That is what is being urged by 
the Republican Party, by the Trump supporters. ``Plan Bad'' would 
endorse Trump's disastrous policy of ``maximum pressure,'' one that 
gave us maximum enrichment of uranium and other activities prohibited 
under the Iran nuclear deal.
  Plan B means that China's reported work to give Saudi Arabia--Iran's 
nemesis--the building blocks for a nuclear weapon will only accelerate, 
and other Gulf countries will jump into the race for a nuclear bomb as 
well.
  Plan B means that Iran's nuclear facilities that are above ground 
will go underground.

[[Page S1901]]

  Plan B means that cameras and international inspectors that keep a 
continuous eye on Iran's facilities will be shuttered permanently, 
leaving us in the dark about Iran's nuclear intentions.
  Under Trump, we saw ``maximum pressure'' generate ``maximum tension'' 
that put us on a perilous path to war. Trump's Plan B to diplomacy was 
and continues to be a complete failure.
  Indeed, we saw this in 2019, when tensions rose to a decades-long 
high with the assassinations of Qasem Soleimani, followed by Iran's 
retaliatory strike that injured 200 U.S. troops at an Air Force base in 
Iraq. Never had we been closer to a war with Iran.
  If the sides currently negotiating a new Iran deal are unable to get 
to yes on a deal, I fear that we will see increasing calls from my 
Republican colleagues to take military action against Iran. That is not 
a good option.
  My Republican colleagues need to be honest with the war-weary 
American people that doubling down on the failed policies of the Trump 
era will likely lead Iran to retaliate by lobbing greater numbers of 
missiles at our troops or at the region's energy infrastructure. Iran 
will double down on these failed policies, and that may lead to Iran 
creating a sea wall to stop traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, creating 
more of a supply chain pain. And my colleagues need to be honest that 
doubling down on these policies risks adding to the number of Gold Star 
mothers who have lost children to unnecessary wars far from home. And, 
perhaps, most importantly, my colleagues should be honest with the 
American people that these failed policies have led Iran closer to a 
nuclear weapon--not further away from a nuclear weapon, closer to a 
nuclear weapon--day by day, week by week that we have followed the 
Trump plan.
  These are life-and-death stakes. Doubling down on the failed policies 
of Trump and expecting a different result in Iran is truly the 
definition of insanity.
  The Iran nuclear deal is not a panacea nor was it ever intended to be 
a panacea. What it is, is a verifiable agreement that cuts off each of 
Iran's three pathways to a nuclear bomb.
  First, Iran will, again, have to cap its enrichment level and ship 
out its stock of enriched uranium that would otherwise be potential 
feedstock for a nuclear bomb.
  Second, Iran will finish the conversion of its Arak reactor, which 
will close off its plutonium path to a nuclear bomb.
  And, third, and most importantly, inspectors from the international 
watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, will once 
again get access to the soup to nuts of Iran's nuclear fuel cycle.
  If we listen to the same voices who rejected a good deal in search of 
the impossible, who preached brinksmanship over diplomacy, we will find 
ourselves stuck, as we are today, with an Iran that could have the 
ultimate weapon to back its coercion--a nuclear bomb.
  Fortunately, this screenplay does not have to end with American men 
and women marching off to another war in the Middle East, and it does 
not have to end with Iran entering the worst of exclusive clubs, those 
with nuclear weapons.
  Russian President Vladimir Putin's recent nuclear saber rattling has 
brought home the stakes of nuclear diplomacy with Iran. A homicidal 
leader armed with weapons of annihilation is a threat to global peace.
  When Putin ordered an increase in the alert level of Russia's nuclear 
forces a couple of weeks ago, he postponed U.S. intercontinental 
ballistic missile tests for fear that, in the fog of war, Russia could 
misinterpret an ICBM launch off the coast of California as a first 
nuclear strike against Russia. That also explains President Biden's 
reticence to impose a NATO-enforced no-fly zone over Ukraine.

  Putin is failing. Ukraine and its people are winning, with our help. 
Every fabricated justification for Putin's senseless and illegal war 
has crumbled. But a direct U.S.-NATO military intervention would pull 
the world's two largest nuclear powers closer to a war. No simulation, 
no exercise, no war game can assure us that such a war does not 
metastasize to engulf all of Europe and lead to the use of nuclear 
weapons.
  Mr. President, here is the scary reality: Vladimir Putin could kill 
millions upon millions of Americans right now using a fraction of his 
4,500 nuclear weapons. That is the perennial threat of nuclear arms.
  Conventional logic says that we are safe because a Russian nuclear 
strike would be both homicidal and suicidal for Putin, but we cannot 
bank on the fact that Putin, the pariah, has a moral basement. 
President George W. Bush famously said he looked into Vladimir Putin's 
eyes and he saw his soul. Thank goodness President Biden sees it for 
the dark space that it is.
  As a result, Russia's war in Ukraine calls on us to challenge tired, 
old Cold War assumptions that basing our nuclear posture on the balance 
of terror and relying on the rationality of our leaders will keep the 
peace--no, it will not. That assumption has to be completely reanalyzed 
in view of what Putin is doing right now, that pursuing President 
Reagan's star wars fantasy to knock out nuclear-tipped missiles in 
space before they fall on American cities is wise; it is not. There is 
no guarantee that some of those nuclear weapons would not come and 
destroy American cities and that we should spend a quarter of a 
trillion dollars to replace the very same U.S. intercontinental 
ballistic missiles that the President won't even test during a conflict 
due to fears of escalation; we should not.
  Unfortunately, our American democracy and Russia's autocracy do share 
one major thing in common: Both our systems give the United States and 
Russian Presidents the God-like powers known as sole authority to end 
life on the planet as we know it by ordering a nuclear first strike.
  As President Richard Nixon grimly described these powers once:

       I can go into my office and pick up the telephone and in 25 
     minutes, 70 million people will be dead.

  We know all too well that American Presidents are not infallible, 
neither is our early warning system, which is why we need an emergency 
break to ensure that a case of mistaken identity--a false missile 
launch--or a President gone wild does not trigger the unthinkable.
  We cannot uninvent the atom, its military applications, and 
technological know-how. The nuclear Pandora's box is sadly forever 
opened. We must, however, do everything in our power to be able to look 
the next generation in the eye and say that we did everything--
everything--in our power to avert the unfathomable, a nuclear war on 
this planet; and that includes supporting negotiations that not only 
end Russia's war in Ukraine, but also future negotiations to end the 
budding 21st century nuclear arms race which is spinning out of 
control.
  Mr. President, I was a teenager during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Had 
President Kennedy listened to his generals rather than to his better 
angels, we might not be here today. This building might not be here. 
``Bert the Turtle'' public service advertisements told us to duck and 
cover under our school desks. Backpack nukes designed to repel the 
Soviet advance on West Germany rolled off the assembly lines. U.S. and 
Soviet leaders were awoken in the middle of the night to false alarms 
of nuclear Armageddon. These events must forever belong to our past, 
not to our future.
  A future held together by the fear of annihilation is a burden, not 
an inspiration. But Congress can shape a safer more inspiring future by 
supporting President Biden's efforts to reenter a good Iran nuclear 
deal, and we can and we must hold ourselves to a higher standard than 
Russia when it comes to resting the fate of humanity in the hands of 
just one human being.
  This is a subject that should command the attention of every single 
American. We have to move further away from the threat of a nuclear 
catastrophe, not get closer to it; and that is why we must support a 
reentry into a good Iran nuclear deal. The alternative is frightening 
for the future, not just of the Middle East, but for our country and 
the entire planet.

                          ____________________