[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 59 (Monday, April 4, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1923-S1930]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          MOTION TO DISCHARGE

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, pursuant to S. Res. 27, the Judiciary 
Committee being tied on the question of reporting, I move to discharge 
the Judiciary Committee from further consideration of Ketanji Brown 
Jackson, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Justice of the 
Supreme Court of the United States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the provisions of S. Res. 27, there will 
now be up to 4 hours of debate on the motion, equally divided between 
the two leaders or their designees, with no motions, points of order, 
or amendments in order.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


                             Toxic Exposure

  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I come to the floor this Monday afternoon 
to speak about the importance of

[[Page S1924]]

our committee, a committee that the Presiding Officer serves on, and 
the importance of passing toxic exposure legislation to deliver the 
right care and the right benefits to the right veterans in the most 
veteran-friendly way possible--to deliver the right benefits to the 
right veterans in the most veteran-friendly way possible.
  Our military men and women are willing to sacrifice much for our 
country. We must match that level of commitment by crafting thoughtful 
and effective solutions to make certain we provide the best outcomes, 
care and treatment, and benefits for those who have served our Nation.
  In the past 2 years, I have heard testimony from nearly every veteran 
service organization emphasizing the importance of fixing the process 
the VA uses to provide healthcare and benefits to toxic-exposed 
veterans and the need to grow our knowledge to help care for the toxic 
wounds of war.
  There have been calls for Congress to act more quickly, and I respect 
those calls. Our committee hears those calls. We are in lockstep on the 
challenge here and the need for a solution that is veteran centric. 
There is bipartisan consensus on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
that a phased approach--delivering healthcare now and reforming the 
benefits system next, in fact, as we go now--is the most effective 
pathway forward.
  The Senate has already acted on the first step, and we are actively 
participating and partnering with the Department of Veterans Affairs on 
the second.
  Senator Tester, the chair of the Senate Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, and I have been working together to craft a fair and 
transparent process for toxic-exposed veterans, beginning with the 
Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act, which unanimously passed the 
Senate and was sent to the House in February. This bill remains the 
quickest way to make certain that sick veterans who are suffering from 
the effects of exposure to toxic substances are immediately eligible 
for lifesaving healthcare.
  For 6 weeks--for 6 weeks--this bill has sat in the House of 
Representatives rather than being sent to the President's desk to start 
making an impact on those sick and ailing veterans.
  President Biden has called in March--I think it is March 12--called 
for the House to pass this legislation and is committed to signing it 
into law.
  This legislation was cosponsored by every single member of the Senate 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and each of my Senate colleagues showed 
their support of this legislation by voting yes. This legislation was 
crafted by the efforts between Senator Tester and I and members of the 
Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. The VA Secretary has stated this 
bill would deliver outcomes that he cannot achieve without 
congressional action.
  Again, the President called for this bill to be sent to his desk, so 
he can sign it, and last week, at a hearing before our committee, 
Secretary McDonough reiterated both of these facts, underscoring the 
need for action. However, the House has yet to take up this important 
piece of legislation and, rather, sent us the PACT Act. While the PACT 
Act includes the critical Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act, 
signaling broad support--again, signaling broad support in the House 
for this legislation, it also includes late additions that lack 
adequate review and provisions that will stretch the VA beyond its 
operational capacity, making it uncertain that veterans will be able to 
quickly access the benefits.
  The PACT Act needs to be amended. Secretary McDonough said as much 
before our committee last week. During that testimony, I learned about 
ways the PACT Act needed to be amended, and I heard about the 
importance of incorporating the results of the VA's ongoing pilot 
model, designed to determine how to better address the healthcare needs 
and benefits of our veterans.
  If Congress acts too hastily and legislates prematurely--again, it is 
hard to envision a Congress ever acting too hastily. We are slow in 
what we do, and I again understand the need for quick action, but if we 
do legislate prematurely, we could end up with a situation similar to 
what veteran caregivers are now experiencing.
  In the MISSION Act, we passed legislation giving veteran caregivers 
greater opportunities to care for those family members, but that 
system, as we saw in a hearing just a few weeks ago, is not working for 
veterans, and witness testimony before our committee is among the most 
compelling that we have ever had about the faults of the way that 
legislation is being implemented by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  A caregiver of a post-9/11 Army vet stated about the Comprehensive 
Assistance for Family Caregivers program.

       The program should have been a blessing. However, the 
     program has become unpredictable, stressful, and, frankly, 
     dehumanizing.

  I invite those who did not view this hearing to find it and watch to 
see a glimpse of the future we are seeking to avoid by making certain 
we get this right.
  The VA developed its pilot model last year to evaluate and implement 
presumptions for service-connection resulting in the establishment of 
12 presumptions for respiratory ailments thus far. The Secretary has 
cited the collaboration among the best scientists to devise and execute 
this model.
  Its potential has been demonstrated, and we should continue to review 
it in its entirety and allow for the process to conclude, which is to 
happen very shortly. The legislation we pass should not fail to take 
into account the work that is going on at the Department of Veterans 
Affairs utilizing input from veterans and the science and medical 
expertise of others.
  The VA concluded this pilot last week, and I look forward to 
examining this pilot in depth to help improve legislation while 
mitigating disruptions to the VA's work in caring for all of our 
veterans. Whether statutory or regulatory, reform must establish a 
consistent threshold of scientific evidence, and the decision-making 
process must be transparent for all who were involved in the care of 
veterans.

  Veterans who are sick and suffering have waited long enough, and they 
should be able to access healthcare without further delay. And when the 
Department completes its ongoing work, Congress can then meet the needs 
of veterans with the benefits they deserve.
  When our men and women suffer the consequences of military service, 
it is our responsibility--it is our responsibility--to see that they 
receive the healthcare and benefits they earned. It is the right thing 
to do, and it is the cost of going to war. We have no option.
  I highlight this for my colleagues, ask the House to proceed in 
passage of the legislation we sent them with unanimous consent, and I 
look forward to an expeditious resolution of the process the Department 
of Veterans Affairs is going through to make sure we know all the facts 
so that the legislation is right and we avoid pitfalls we have seen in 
other circumstances.
  And with that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                                Ukraine

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, over this last weekend, the world saw a 
much clearer picture about the atrocities being committed by Russian 
forces in Ukraine.
  As Russian troops withdrew from certain areas in the north, around 
Kyiv, Ukrainian forces are moving into these cities for the first time 
in weeks.
  In Bucha, a city just north of Kyiv, devastating images showed the 
carnage from the Russian occupation. Photos showed burned-out apartment 
buildings, bodies lining the streets, and mass graves. It appears that 
some of the victims died execution style, with their hands tied behind 
their backs.
  The world can be under no illusion about Putin's barbarity. Russian 
forces have targeted residential neighborhoods, humanitarian evacuation 
routes, and even a bread line. The discovery of hundreds of dead 
civilians in Bucha underscores the urgent need to hold Putin 
accountable for his crimes and to help the Ukrainians defend their 
country.
  Of course, people around the world have united in condemnation of 
Putin's heinous actions, but those statements must be accompanied by 
further action. Putin really doesn't care whether we like him or not. 
He has his own plans and his own aims.
  We need to take additional actions that impose even greater costs on 
Russia. Following Russia's unprovoked invasion, the United States and 
our allies

[[Page S1925]]

imposed powerful sanctions on Russian businesses and oligarchs and cut 
off Russian banks from the global financial system.
  The goal, of course, is to make it impossible for Putin to fund his 
war machine. And in the beginning, the results were encouraging. In the 
immediate aftermath of the invasion, the ruble plummeted to a record 
low, but, unfortunately, in the last few weeks, it has slowly 
rebounded.
  One of the biggest drivers of that stabilization is Russia's sale of 
oil and gas. Fortunately, the United States is no longer one of its 
customers, and I hope we never will be again.
  Our European allies depend on Russian energy to keep the lights on, 
but even they are reevaluating their energy dependency and looking for 
alternative energy producers. Poland has committed to ending its import 
of Russian energy by the end of this year, and I hope more countries 
will follow suit. But we can't sit around and just wait for that to 
happen. We need to do more to raise the cost of this war, this 
unprovoked invasion on Ukraine.
  Every day Putin persists, more innocents die. It appears Russia has 
found a loophole in some of our current sanctions. The Russian 
Federation is buying gold to offset the devaluation of the ruble and 
then selling gold on the international markets in exchange for high-
value currency. In short, Russia is laundering money through the 
international gold markets, and we need to stop it.
  That is why a bipartisan group of Senators, including myself, have 
introduced the Stop Russian GOLD Act that would bring an end to this 
circumvention of our sanctions. This legislation would apply sanctions 
to parties who help Russia finance their war by buying and selling this 
blood gold.
  That means anyone who buys or transports gold from Russia's central 
bank holdings would themselves be the target of sanctions--a big 
deterrent for anyone considering doing business with Russia.
  We need to take every measure possible to cut the financing of 
Putin's war machine, and this is one important way to do so.
  This is not just a matter of countering Russia or supporting Ukraine, 
we must remain clear-eyed in our efforts to do both. We have to do 
both. Of course, the ultimate goal is to help Ukraine vanquish Russian 
forces entirely. The United States and our allies have already provided 
a large quantity of military assets to Ukraine. And there is no 
question: These resources have been critical in the Ukrainians success 
so far.
  But there is no substitution for the will to fight and the leadership 
being provided by President Zelenskyy. That, I believe, has been the 
difference--and certainly not what Vladimir Putin anticipated.
  But as we continue to hear from President Zelenskyy and our partners 
in Europe, we know we need to do more, and we need to do it faster. I 
know it is easy to think, well, we will just let the supply chains and 
the logistic systems work as they always have, but we are not being 
bombarded by Russian artillery or being attacked by cruise missiles, as 
are the Ukrainians.
  Last month, I traveled to Poland and Germany with Senator Ernst and a 
bipartisan group of Senate colleagues to hear directly from those who 
are most in harm's way.
  The primary message we heard was: We need more. We need more 
humanitarian aid; we need more weapons; and we need it faster--more 
Stingers, more Javelins, more air defenses, more lethal aid, including 
the need for aircraft.
  I remain somewhat confused and disappointed that the Biden 
administration still publicly refuses to transfer MiG-29 aircraft to 
Ukraine so that they can use them.
  I know it is easy for us to sit back and say, Well, they really don't 
know how to use them, or they don't need them, but the fact is 
Ukrainian pilots are trained to fly these Russian aircraft--and who are 
we to deny President Zelenskyy and the valiant Ukrainians whatever they 
think they need in order to do the job?
  President Biden explicitly said Putin ``can't remain in power.'' But 
then his administration seems to blame something like a simple transfer 
of aircraft as too provocative.
  This doesn't make any sense. We can't play into Putin's hand by 
withholding needed or desired military assets to Ukraine. We in 
Congress need to play our part as well to make sure that anything and 
everything we can do to help the brave Ukrainians, we are doing. And we 
can't move at the speed of the normal bureaucracy.
  Every day, Ukrainians are being killed--both the military and 
civilians alike--by Putin's war machine. They need help now, not after 
the Senate's next work period, not after the Biden administration 
succumbs to a public pressure campaign. They need help now.
  Unfortunately, Congress doesn't have the authority to insist upon the 
transfer of the Polish MiGs, but we can remove some of the redtape that 
prevents the timely transfer of other defense articles Ukraine needs. 
Mr. Cardin, the senior Senator from Maryland, and I have introduced 
bipartisan legislation called Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act 
to ensure that Ukrainian forces have the resources they need to win 
this fight.
  Our bill is rooted in the same principles as the original Lend-Lease 
Act in World War II that was largely responsible for supplying Britain 
and our other allies the planes, the ammunition, and the weapons they 
needed in order to defeat Nazi Germany. President Roosevelt, at the 
time, vowed to transform the United States into the arsenal of 
democracy, and the Lend-Lease Act was one way we did that.
  I think it is important, particularly at this perilous time, for us 
to send another strong bipartisan message that we are not just in this 
for the short haul, we are in this for the long haul, for however long 
it lasts, for however long the Ukrainians are willing to fight to 
defend their country against this invasion, and this is one way we can 
do it.
  This legislation authorizes the President to enter into lend-lease 
agreements directly with Ukraine and provide Ukrainian forces with the 
lethal weapons needed to defend their sovereignty.
  Part of the difficulty of transferring these weapons is the supply 
chains and production lines for the weapons that are being used at a 
high rate.
  What the Lend-Lease Act would do would be to send the message that, 
again, we are in this for the long haul, and the manufacturers of these 
weapons can be assured that if they are willing to be part of that 
arsenal of democracy, they won't be left hanging or left high and dry.
  In short, this will also allow us to answer Ukraine's call to provide 
more of what they need and get it to them as quickly as possible.
  So far, more than 20 Senators from both sides of the aisle have 
cosponsored this legislation, and I hope we can pass it and pass it 
soon. This is an emergency. We don't have time to dither, and Congress 
has the opportunity right now to do more to provide support to Ukraine.
  So I say, let's pass this legislation and ensure Ukrainians have what 
they need when they need it. It is absolutely critical for the Senate 
to pass this legislation, and it doesn't matter which route they take 
to the President's desk. They could move as stand-alone bills or as 
part of a larger package of bills or as amendments to a bipartisan 
piece of legislation that passed the House last month. The actual 
vehicle isn't important. What matters is that we get these bills to the 
President's desk as soon as possible. Every day that goes by without 
action on our part is a day wasted and another day that innocent 
Ukrainians are being killed.
  To have the best shot at winning this conflict, Ukraine needs two 
things: a strong defense and a weak opponent. This week, the Senate has 
an opportunity to pass two bipartisan bills that address both of those 
efforts, and I hope we will do so this week.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Inflation

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, it has just come over the wire--the news

[[Page S1926]]

just broke in the last couple of days--that corporate profits are at 
the highest they have been since 1950. In other words, corporations are 
making more money in the calendar year 2021 than any year since 1950. 
That is 70-plus years. Corporate profits are through the roof.
  We also know--and that came out today--the Wall Street Journal, a 
very pro-business, pro-corporate America newspaper, pointed out that 
CEO compensation has gone up stratospherically.
  We know, as the Presiding Officer from Illinois has pointed out in 
the past, too, that corporate profits have continued to go up, that CEO 
pay has been stratospheric, and that workers' wages have essentially 
been flat.
  We also know that corporations--especially oil companies, shipping 
companies, meatpacking companies, and drug companies--have raised their 
prices dramatically higher than inflation.
  So what we are seeing is that corporate profits are the highest in 70 
years; CEO compensation is the highest ever--big raises last year; and 
prices have gone up, especially in those four industries, because they 
have essentially taken advantage of the pandemic, the opportunity 
during the pandemic for them to raise prices.
  So one of the biggest reasons we have inflation is not because we 
invested in the American people with the Recovery Act and the 
bipartisan infrastructure bill; one of the biggest reasons for 
inflation is corporate executives saw an opportunity during the 
pandemic. All these supply chain issues, all these problems of 
outsourcing jobs to China--in the meatpacking industry and the oil 
industry and the prescription drug industry, in industry after 
industry--the shipping industry--these CEOs are thinking they can raise 
their prices more. So they have raised their prices more, their profits 
have gone up, executive compensation continues to go up dramatically, 
and then they blame inflation on the President or blame inflation on 
the Congress or whatever.

  The fact is that these companies have abused the public trust, as we 
know, by dramatically raising prices in one of the most difficult times 
in our Nation's history, during this pandemic. They should be ashamed 
of themselves, but many of them brag to stockholders ``Look how well we 
are doing,'' and that is a serious problem.
  In fact, there is a company in Ohio that not too long ago announced--
a big, storied U.S. company, Goodyear--that they were going to expand 
manufacturing in the United States. Do you know what happened? Their 
stock price went down because these companies decided that maybe that 
is not such a good thing. The stockholders decided it.
  Starbucks' CEO has come back--the CEO and the founder--and he 
announced that his company was going to cut back or eliminate some of 
the executive compensation, some of the stock buybacks. His stock price 
went down.
  So investors are saying: Yeah, we love our country, but if it is 
going to help workers, maybe we are not so excited, or if it is going 
to help communities, maybe we are not so excited.
  It is sort of capitalism upside down. We know from this President and 
from what we are doing, our economy is growing faster than China's--
first time in 20 years. We know that the President and the Senate and 
the House are putting workers in the center of our economic policy. But 
we know CEOs aren't following that playbook. They are squeezing workers 
as hard as they can. They are paying themselves more in stock buybacks. 
Their profits are up. Their stock prices, when they talk--we know all 
those things. Yet CEO behavior simply hasn't changed.
  Our mission as Members of this body is to continue to invest in 
workers, to continue to invest in the middle class, to continue to 
advocate for the dignity of work, and continue to put workers in the 
center of our economy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                            Border Security

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, last week, the Biden administration 
announced their truly incomprehensible decision to suspend the use of 
title 42 authority along the southern border. Now, this is just the 
last in a long line of decisions that this White House has made that 
defy both reason and a mountain of evidence suggesting they are about 
to make a deadly mistake.
  Even with those title 42 protections in place, this February was the 
worst February for illegal immigration and border crossings in almost 
20 years. The past year was the worst year for illegal border crossings 
since at least 1960, and according to public reports, the Department of 
Homeland Security predicts that it is only going to get worse. We will 
soon see the crossings increase.
  They are preparing for up to 18,000 attempted border crossings per 
day. That is right--18,000 attempted crossings per day. Now, I want to 
put this in perspective for you. About 90 percent of the 345 towns in 
my State of Tennessee have a population smaller than 18,000 people--
smaller than the number of people DHS expects are going to try to enter 
the country illegally every single day. This is chaos. This is border 
chaos. Think about this: That is like a small Tennessee town every 
single day of the week, of the month, of the year.
  So we have to ask ourselves, how long can we sustain this? And when 
we look at this border that is in chaos and 18,000 a day--a small town 
a day coming into the country, trying to claim asylum, illegally 
entering the country. And we have evidence that this is going to 
escalate sooner rather than later. And this is the moment that the 
Biden administration chooses to strip away one of the most important 
and effective border control tools that we have at our disposal--take 
it away just as we know that people are coming to the border in record 
numbers.

  And how do we know this? We know that the cartels are now working in 
countries all across the globe. They are doing this because they are 
saying: Hey, now you are really going to get in. Pay up. Make the 
cartels richer because you know this, President Biden--he is all for 
doing away with the border. He is all for opening that border up and 
saying: Come on. Come on.
  I think that we have to keep in mind a few things. Now, when you keep 
that in mind--those 18,000 people a day--think about the new set of 
statistics that we have coming from Border Patrol this month. So far 
this year, CBP officers in Memphis have seized more than 2,500 pounds 
of drugs. You know, I had a sheriff tell me: We used to look at drugs 
in grams and ounces. Now it is all in pounds because of the quantities 
coming across this border because of Joe Biden's policies.
  During the last 2 weeks of March, officials in El Paso seized more 
than 100 pounds of drugs and arrested 37 fugitives. Those fugitives 
weren't petty criminals. Among them were a murderer, a pedophile, a 
fraudster, a counterfeiter, and multiple drug dealers. Yes, that was 2 
weeks, and that is what they had right there in El Paso. These are the 
ones they could identify. And, in addition to the drugs, 37 fugitives 
from justice were trying to enter our country and escape justice in 
their country. It is an open door. This is dangerous--very dangerous.
  On March 29, in a separate drug bust, Border Patrol seized more than 
$400,000 worth of meth, fentanyl, and heroin. That is right. That was 1 
day, one drug bust. And over the course of a 24-hour period ending on 
March 30, Border Patrol stopped five migrant smuggling events and 
arrested 140 people.
  Now, I thought it was interesting that CBP chose to use the term 
``migrant smuggling'' for that one, but I think we should call it what 
it is: It is human trafficking--5 human trafficking events, 1 day, 140 
people.
  You know, I just have to say, what in the world does this 
administration think is going on at that border? Why will the President 
not go down there? Why will he not empower people to do their job? Why 
will he not build a wall, put surveillance, apprehend people, turn them 
back? But to knowingly let them come into this country, to know that 
cartels are working around the globe, that they are going to get rich 
on this--it is kind of like the Biden bonus for the cartels. The doors 
are open; bring them.
  This is unbelievable--absolutely unbelievable. These drug dealers and 
human traffickers spend their days running back and forth across that 
border under the watchful eye of the cartels. The cartels are in 
control on the

[[Page S1927]]

Mexico side of this border. You do not come across unless you have paid 
the cartel.
  And those cartels are going to use those 18,000 people, the 
equivalent of a Tennessee town--90-percent of our towns are 18,000 
people or less--coming across, being used by the cartels as human 
shields. What kind of compassion is this? What kind of protection for 
the American people is this? It is disgusting.
  We know that these cartels are going to be able to push these people 
into the interior, and then those people are going to lose themselves 
in this wave of humanity, because that is what they have been doing for 
the past 15 months.
  Meanwhile, here in Washington, Democrats have spent 15 months 
attacking border security as a racist barrier to their open borders 
agenda. Their spin isn't rooted in reality, but neither is their 
current ambition to throw open the border in the name of optics. I want 
to be clear here. If the Democrats indeed abandon title 42, they might 
bump up their approval numbers with the liberal base, but they are also 
inviting a humanitarian catastrophe on a massive scale.

  Yes, indeed, as I was out in East Tennessee, up on the Upper 
Cumberland Plateau, this Friday, what I heard from every single law 
enforcement officer, every county mayor was that, now, because of the 
human trafficking, the gangs, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, every 
single town is a border town. Every State is a border State, because 
all these people coming across the border are coming to your community 
with their drugs, with their gangs. And if we empower the cartels and 
open the floodgates to drug dealers and human traffickers, we are not 
just putting our own communities at risk, we are endangering the 
thousands of women and children that these criminals are hiding behind 
because they are trafficking them. So much for their optics.
  I think it is clear by now that the Biden administration is almost 
entirely controlled by the activists who helped him gain power. When 
people back home ask me to describe what it is like working in the 
Senate these days, I tell them it feels like a food fight between 
liberal special interest groups. The Democrats are just throwing 
spaghetti against the wall, waiting to see what sticks.
  Now, they have made a real mess, but they can't seem to gain traction 
on anything. So why is that? Well, because the reality of the situation 
in New York and California and Illinois tells the people all they need 
to know about what is in store for the country if the Democrats get 
what they want.
  They are working with a truly miserable track record. Take a look at 
it: 7.9 percent inflation. The prices are going up, whether it is at 
the gas pump or the grocery store. Zero commitment to border security--
we are seeing that played out in realtime. Embassies in Afghanistan and 
Ukraine are left to rot. That is right. He pulled people out. He pulled 
people out and left a lot of our people behind--and a nominee for the 
Supreme Court who is proudly untethered to the Constitution.
  Joe Biden really has earned that 55 percent disapproval rating; 
hasn't he?
  Unlike our friends in the mainstream media who think this is all a 
joke, the American people are taking this very seriously. For them, 
common sense isn't political. It is practical, and it is necessary. 
They don't need an activist or a journalist or a comedian to tell them 
what they believe. They know everything that Joe Biden and his 
administration and the Democrat control of the House and Senate--
everything they have touched has turned to dust, is on a downward 
slide--everything. Just look at this. Look at what they have done in a 
very short period of time.
  They also know, when it comes to our Supreme Court Justice nominee--
people in Tennessee know what a woman is. They don't need a biologist 
to tell them. They know that reckless government spending is making 
their life more expensive every day and, in some cases, unaffordable. 
And they know full well because many of them have worked, been a part 
of our military, volunteered to serve. They are people who have come 
home, and they are working in law enforcement. They know and will tell 
you that peace comes through strength, not through surrender, and they 
are not going to tolerate a government that claims ignorance of all 
this, that wants to do happy talk and say: Everything is going to be 
just fine. Don't believe your eyes. Don't believe your eyes. Don't 
believe that price at the gas pump. Oh, the grocery store shelves, they 
are full--even though the produce aisles may be mostly empty.
  They know that the woke mob is knocking at their door, and they know 
the consequences and what it means to them.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it was just a short time ago in the 
Senate Judiciary Committee that we voted to advance the nomination of 
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve as the next Associate Justice on 
the United States Supreme Court.
  In the coming days, Judge Jackson's nomination will come before the 
full Senate. We are on track to confirm her this week.
  Judge Jackson is an outstanding nominee. She has earned support 
across the political and ideological spectrums, and her qualifications 
are second to none. Most importantly, Judge Jackson's record on the 
bench is one of evenhandedness, impartiality, and independence.
  Despite this, not a single Republican on the Judiciary Committee 
would vote in favor of her nomination. I am disappointed--not 
surprised, but disappointed. As a result, Judge Jackson will be the 
first Supreme Court nominee in the modern era to require a discharge 
from the Judiciary Committee. It is unfortunate, in one respect, given 
that she is more prepared to serve on the High Court than, perhaps, any 
nominee in living memory, even by the standards of our Republican 
colleagues.
  During the Trump administration, Senate Republicans laid out what 
they viewed as being the standards for supporting a Supreme Court 
nominee. In their own words, a nominee to the High Court should be 
confirmed if they meet three criteria. Let's take a look at those 
criteria.
  First, Republicans have argued that you must have mainstream, 
bipartisan support for a nominee. For instance, in speaking out about 
then-Judge Gorsuch, the senior Senator from Texas said that Gorsuch was 
``a mainstream nominee unanimously supported by Democrats in the 
past.''
  Well, lucky for them, Judge Jackson is well within that judicial 
mainstream, and she has the receipts to show it.
  Judge Jackson is supported by multiple Federal judges appointed by 
Republican Presidents, including Judge Thomas Griffith, Judge Michael 
Luttig, and Judge Bruce Selya. She is supported by dozens of 
conservative lawyers, including former Secretary of Homeland Security 
Michael Chertoff, former Deputy Attorney General Donald Ayer, and 
former Solicitor General Charles Fried. She has broad support from law 
enforcement organizations and former prosecutors.
  They keep saying: Oh, she is soft on crime. She has the endorsement 
of the largest police organization in America--the Fraternal Order of 
Police--and the International Association of Chiefs of Police and 87 
former assistant U.S. attorneys who have prosecuted a range of criminal 
offenses here in the District of Columbia. Soft on crime? The 
prosecutors don't think so.
  And, like Judge Gorsuch, Judge Jackson has been unanimously supported 
by Senate Republicans, especially since she was confirmed unanimously 
by the Senate not once but twice to be a member of the U.S. Sentencing 
Commission and a district court judge.
  In short, Judge Jackson has had mainstream, bipartisan support right 
here in the Senate over and over again.
  The second standard laid out by Republicans during the Trump 
administration was that a Supreme Court nominee must have exceptional 
legal credentials.
  We went for 4 straight days. She faced 24 hours of questioning--24 
hours

[[Page S1928]]

of question after question after question, written questions, oral 
questions--over and over. How many questioned her qualifications to be 
on the Supreme Court? None. Not one.
  In 2018, for instance, the Republican leader called then-Judge 
Kavanaugh an ``absolute all-star,'' specifically mentioning he was a 
Yale undergrad, Yale Law, and had impeccable credentials.
  Judge Jackson passes that same test. She clerked at every level of 
the Federal judiciary. I can tell you, as a lawyer, that to be a clerk 
for any judge has great honor and distinction. To be a clerk on all 
three levels of the Federal court, including the Supreme Court, is 
extraordinary. It just hardly ever occurs. It did for Judge Jackson.
  She served as a Federal public defender, a staff attorney, a 
commissioner on the Sentencing Commission, and as a lawyer in private 
practice. Her resume is absolutely star-studded in terms of legal 
experience. For almost a decade, she served on the Federal bench, 
handling some 1,100 matters, issuing 600 written opinions. Do you want 
to know what she thinks about an issue? how she thinks about an issue? 
Just read the written opinions on every type of legal issue imaginable 
that came before her.
  Altogether, Judge Jackson meets, if not exceeds, the qualifications 
of previous nominees, and the Senate Republicans have enthusiastically 
supported them. They should support her.
  The third and final standard Republicans have articulated for 
supporting a Supreme Court nominee is they must have a judicial record 
and a reputation of evenhandedness.
  In 2020, for instance, the Republican leader highlighted then-Judge 
Amy Coney Barrett's ``openminded judicial temperament,'' Amy Coney 
Barrett.
  Well, by the very same metric, Judge Jackson easily passes muster. 
Her record on the bench is clearly one of impartiality and 
independence. She has ruled for and against the Presidents of both 
political parties. She has ruled for prosecutors and ruled for criminal 
defendants. She has ruled for employers and employees. In her nearly 10 
years on the bench, Judge Jackson has displayed no political or 
ideological favoritism.
  Some people on the far left are upset that she isn't more of an 
advocate for their point of view. She takes a balanced approach to it. 
She has never allowed her personal views to influence any outcome, and 
she has been a model of judicial restraint. She has been guided by 
precedent, by fidelity to the rule of law, and by an unyielding belief 
that the Constitution must work for all Americans.
  I was listening when Senator McConnell came to the floor and 
announced that he would not vote for her. The No. 1 reason: She 
wouldn't take a position on packing the Court--packing the Court. That 
is a question of changing the composition of the Supreme Court, the 
number of Supreme Court Justices. There has only been one elected 
official in recent memory who has changed the composition of the 
Court--Senator McConnell. You will remember, with the Scalia vacancy, 
he kept it vacant for more than 8 months and denied President Obama the 
opportunity to fill it.

  What about the issue of the future composition of the Court? Is that 
a requirement for someone to be supported by the Senator from Kentucky? 
Obviously not. Amy Coney Barrett wouldn't answer the question. She 
wouldn't give an opinion. She, like Judge Jackson, said: That is a 
matter of policy. That is for Congress to decide--and it is.
  Judge Jackson easily passed the three tests the Senate Republicans 
established for supporting a Supreme Court nominee, and she passed the 
tests with flying colors. She is, simply put, one of the Nation's 
brightest legal minds. She has outstanding credentials, an 
unimpeachable character, and an unwavering dedication to the rule of 
law. She is smart, and it shows.
  Judge Jackson also has the temperament. I can't tell you how many 
times during the course of the 24 hours of questioning she faced last 
week in the Senate Judiciary Committee that I thought: That is it. I am 
going to look up at that table, and she is going to stand up and say, 
``Enough. My family, we are going home. We have had it.'' She never 
did--cool under attack, calm under pressure, solid as a pillar.
  She has the acumen, the skill--the kind of attributes we demand from 
a Supreme Court nominee--and she has devoted her life to serving her 
country, always working to uphold and honor the Constitution. She is 
dedicated to protecting judicial independence, advancing freedom and 
liberty, and to making the Court, its work, and its decisions 
accessible to all Americans.
  She told that story of when she was up for the circuit court--that 
her opinions were long, she said, because she wanted everyone to 
understand her thinking from start to finish--no mystery here--and that 
she wanted the people appearing before her to understand what just 
happened in that courtroom. Why did they win? Why did they lose? What 
were the issues that were at stake? What did she think about? She takes 
the time to explain it because she believes in the law, and she wants 
all of us to understand and believe it as well.
  I am going to proudly cast my vote to discharge Judge Jackson from 
the Judiciary Committee. Later this week, I am going to proudly cast my 
vote to confirm Judge Jackson as the first Black woman to sit on the 
U.S. Supreme Court.
  Let's not hurry to leave for an Easter recess--and I am as anxious as 
everyone to be with our families--and overlook the obvious. This is a 
seminal moment in American history. We are breaking down a wall that 
has been standing for too long. There have been 115 Supreme Court 
Justices in our history, and 108 look like me: a White guy. The others 
are representing women, representing Latinas, and others. They are, of 
course, very important in history. This is too.
  Judge Jackson is going to be an important part of America, and she is 
going to inspire a lot of people, particularly young women, to aspire 
to greatness.
  She was discouraged, if you will remember her testimony. She went up 
to Harvard and toured it during a national debate team appearance. She 
liked it so much that she went back to her high school counselor in 
Florida and said: I think I want to apply to Harvard.
  The counselor said: Listen, honey. Don't do that. You are going to be 
so disappointed. Let's think about some other choices for you.
  She did it anyway. She was accepted and went up there, knees shaking, 
wondering if she could cut it. She not only cut it; she set records in 
terms of achievement, particularly for a person with her background. 
Her dad worked as a schoolteacher, went to law school, and convinced 
her that law was the future for her as well.
  She has told so many wonderful stories about her family. This is an 
exceptional woman. She has lived an extraordinary life. She has a 
beautiful family. She has written a record we can all be proud of. 
Let's discharge this nomination from the Judiciary Committee and bring 
it to the floor this week. Let's make history--the right kind of 
history for America.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Republican leader is recognized.


                                Ukraine

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, it hardly seemed possible that the 
reports and images from Ukraine could grow even more horrifying, but 
they actually have.
  In recent days, Ukrainian troops have reclaimed the town of Bucha 
from the illegal and illegitimate Russian invasion. And in the wake of 
the retreating Russians, the Ukrainians and the press have reported 
evidence of evil, wanton torture, rape, and murder of civilians. There 
are reports of mass graves, of people executed with their hands bound 
behind their backs. The photographs and reports are sickening and 
appalling.
  Since before Putin even began his escalation, I have spent months 
pushing the Biden administration and our allies and partners to get as 
much lethal assistance possible to the Ukrainians as quickly as 
possible. I have supported

[[Page S1929]]

many of the steps our President has gotten around to taking, but in 
almost every case, I wish he had acted sooner and more boldly.
  We know of the horrors committed by Russian forces in Bucha because 
the Ukrainian military reclaimed the town after pushing back the 
Russians. These latest revelations must only strengthen and intensify 
our resolve to get the Ukrainians what they need, on the timeframe they 
need, to liberate more towns currently under Russian control, to 
prevent Russia from committing new atrocities, to fight and to actually 
win this war.
  This also further reinforces what I wish more of our European friends 
realize: This is a time for choosing. This is not a time for business 
as usual, and there can be no return to business as usual whenever and 
however the dust settles.
  Europe must move more urgently to decouple from Russia. Yes, this 
will entail some short-term economic pain. Yes, their own shortsighted 
energy policies have left their countries entirely too dependent. But 
there are times when geopolitical realities and moral imperatives must 
outweigh short-term financial costs. Our partners should recognize that 
such a time is staring them right in the face, so should our own 
American private sector.
  Internationally, I am sure there will be much virtue-signaling 
rhetoric over the atrocities committed on Ukrainian soil by Russia. Let 
us be honest that referrals to the International Criminal Court or 
invocations of the U.N. Human Rights Council may make people's 
consciences feel better but will not curtail the atrocities or stop the 
violence. Only victory in Ukraine can do that.
  Finally, the outpouring of outrage at these atrocities should prompt 
a second look at other terrible actions that the world has come to 
simply shrug and accept.
  The Biden administration is right to ask the U.N. to expel Russia 
from the Human Rights Council, but they shouldn't stop there. The world 
that rightly recoils in horror at the photographs from Ukraine should 
not look the other way past Xi's concentration camps for the Uighur 
people. The modern totalitarianism of the People's Republic of China is 
no less abhorrent because it is sanitized and it is organized. The 
world's worst abusers of human rights do not deserve to sit on such a 
Council.


                            Border Security

  Madam President, now on another matter, our southern border is 
already in crisis on Democrats' watch. And on Friday, the Biden 
administration announced they are going to throw open the floodgates 
even wider.
  In December 2020, right before President Biden took office, he said 
it would be ``the last thing we need'' if we were to ``end up with two 
million people on our border.'' But in 2021, on his watch, under his 
policies, that is exactly what America got.
  Last year saw a record-shattering 2 million arrests on our southern 
border; 2 million people--more than the population of 13 whole States--
from at least 160 different countries. And those are just the people 
who actually got caught. And 2022 is already on track to be even worse. 
As we speak, border officials are encountering roughly 7,000 persons 
each day, and the Department of Homeland Security predicts this pace 
could more than double.
  The Biden administration's own officials say they are contingency 
planning for 18,000 encounters every single day. For perspective, that 
pace would be equivalent to 6.6 million--6.6 million--per year, a 
population larger than all but 17 of our States.
  Now, thus far, the Biden administration kept using a legal tool 
called title 42, which they inherited from the prior administration 
because of the COVID pandemic.
  Title 42 provides a shortcut for swift border enforcement. It has 
given the administration a fast track to turn people around as they 
arrive.
  In February, more than 91,000 people were immediately turned around 
under title 42. Another 73,000 were allowed to stay and navigate our 
system.
  So, without title 42, instead of adding 73,000 illegal immigrants to 
our system alone, we would have added more than double that--160,000--
in just 1 month. But, on Friday, the Biden administration announced an 
unbelievably bad decision. They are going to further cave to the far 
left that wants open borders. They are going to cancel title 42 this 
spring with no real border security plan to replace it.
  This is such an absurd decision, such an unforced gaffe, that even 
some of our Senate Democratic colleagues have come out swinging. Our 
colleague from West Virginia correctly described this as ``a 
frightening decision'' to abandon ``an essential tool'' when ``we are 
already facing an unprecedented increase in migrants.'' Another Senate 
Democrat said, ``This is the wrong decision.'' A third said it ``shows 
a lack of understanding about the crisis at our border.'' A fourth said 
the move ``will likely lead to a migrant surge that the administration 
does not appear to be ready for.''
  The problem is that these same Senate Democrats have backed this far-
left administration over and over again on immigration. Every single 
Democratic Senator supported both Secretaries Mayorkas and Becerra. 
Every single Democrat Senator voted against preserving ``Remain in 
Mexico,'' voted against defunding sanctuary cities, and voted against 
an amendment that would have funded the full enforcement of all 
immigration laws.
  Later this week, we expect every Democratic Senator to vote to 
confirm a Supreme Court nominee who is a proven judicial activist on 
this very issue. Judge Jackson has gone beyond the judicial role to 
rewrite immigration policy from the bench and make it even more 
liberal. In one case, she ignored the plain text of the law to reach a 
more liberal outcome. She even tried to force a nationwide injunction 
on the entire country. Judge Jackson went so far beyond the law to 
remake immigration policy that even the liberal DC Circuit had to 
overturn her mistaken ruling. An Obama appointee wrote the decision 
that overturned Judge Jackson.
  So I am glad to see our Democratic colleagues belatedly waking up to 
the border crisis and beginning to pressure the administration. 
Fourteen months late is better than never. But votes speak louder than 
press releases. The measure of a Senator's position isn't our rhetoric; 
it is actually our votes.
  If our colleagues who have stood in lockstep with President Biden's 
border crisis thus far are serious about turning over a new leaf, they 
can start with the Supreme Court vote later this week.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). The majority leader.


                  Nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, in a few moments, the Senate will begin 
to make history this week by voting to discharge the nomination of 
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson out of the Judiciary Committee so we can 
confirm her as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
  This procedural step should be entirely unnecessary. There is no 
question--no question--that Judge Jackson deserves a strong bipartisan 
vote in committee, but sadly, despite the judge's qualifications, not a 
single Republican on the committee voted to report her out of 
committee.
  So we shouldn't have to be taking this step, but we are moving 
forward all the same without delay. Despite Republicans opposing her in 
committee and despite this procedural vote tonight, the end result will 
remain unchanged: Judge Jackson ultimately has enough support to get 
confirmed on a bipartisan basis, and the Senate is going to keep 
working until this nomination is complete.
  In closing, I want to emphasize something I said earlier today. This 
is a joyous and history-making moment for the Senate--a historic one. 
One hundred fifteen individuals have come before this Chamber for 
consideration to the highest Court in the land, but none--none--were 
like Judge Jackson. Like many before her, Judge Jackson is brilliant. 
She is esteemed. She is highly accomplished. But never, never has the 
Supreme Court had a Black woman bear the title of ``Justice.''
  Imagine the impact this will have on our democracy. Imagine what it 
will mean for young people across the country to look at our courts and 
see them better reflect our Nation's makeup. Judge Jackson's brilliant 
record will surely light a fire of inspiration for others to follow in 
her footsteps, and our country will be all the better for it.

[[Page S1930]]

  So let us move forward with this brilliant, this resoundingly 
qualified, this historic nominee to the highest Court in the land, and 
let us work together to finish the job of confirming the judge by the 
end of this week.


                      Vote on Motion to Discharge

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time remaining be 
yielded back, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  All time having been yielded back, the question occurs on agreeing to 
the motion to discharge.
  The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 126 Ex.]

                                YEAS--53

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Romney
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Smith). On this vote, the yeas are 53, the 
nays are 47.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to S. Res. 27 and the motion to 
discharge having been agreed to, the nomination will be placed on the 
Executive Calendar.
  The majority leader.

                          ____________________