tv U.S. Senate CSPAN April 6, 2022 2:45pm-9:38pm EDT
something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of africa and his brown and yellow brothers of asia, south america and the caribbean, the united states negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. if one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. the negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. so let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -- and try to understand why he must do so.
use you and persecute you." was not amos an extremist for justice -- "let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." was not paul an extremist for the christian gospel -- "i bear in my body the marks of the lord jesus." was not martin luther an extremist -- "here i stand; i cannot do otherwise, so help me god." and john bunyan -- "i will stay in jail to the end of my days before i make a butchery of my conscience." and abraham lincoln -- "this nation cannot survive half slave and half free." and thomas jefferson -- "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created. equal ..." so the question is not whether
we will be extremists but what kind of extremists we will be. will we be extremists for hate or for love? will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? in that dramatic scene on calvary's hill three men were crucified. we must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime -- the crime of extremism. two were extremists for immorality and, thus, fell below their environment. the other, jesus christ, was an extremist for love, truth, and goodness and, thereby, rose above his environment. perhaps the south, the nation, and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.
i had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. perhaps i was too optimistic; perhaps i expected too much. i suppose i should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent, and determined action. i am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the south have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. they are still all too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. some -- such as ralph mcgill, lillian smith, harry golden, james mcbride dabbs, ann
braden, and sarah patton boyle -- have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. others have marched with us down nameless streets of the south. they have languished in filthy, roach-infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as "dirty nigger-lovers." unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful "action" antidotes to combat the disease of segregation. let me take note of my other major disappointment. i have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. of course, there are some
notable exceptions. i am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. i commend you, reverend stallings, for your christian stand on this past sunday, in welcoming negroes to your worship service on a nonsegregated basis. i commend the catholic leaders of this state for integrating spring hill college several years ago. but despite these notable exceptions, i must honestly reiterate that i have been disappointed with the church. i do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. i say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will
remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen. when i was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in montgomery, alabama, a few years ago, i felt we would be supported by the white church. i felt that the white ministers, priests, and rabbis of the south would be among our strongest allies. instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained glass windows. in spite of my shattered dreams, i came to birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. i had hoped that each of you would understand. but again i have been
disappointed. i have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshippers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but i have longed to hear white ministers declare, "follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the negro is your brother." in the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the negro, i have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. in the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, i have heard many ministers say, "those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." and i have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, unbiblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular. i have traveled the length and breadth of alabama, mississippi, and all the other southern states.
on sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings, i have looked at the south's beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. i have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious education buildings. over and over i have found myself asking, "what kind of people worship here? who is their god? where were their voices when the lips of governor barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? where were they when governor wallace gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? where were their voices of support when bruised and weary negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?" yes, these questions are still in my mind. in deep disappointment i have wept over the laxity of the church. but be assured that my tears have been tears of love. there can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. yes, i love the church. how could i do otherwise? i am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson, and the great-grandson
of preachers. yes, i see the church as the body of christ. but, oh! how we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists. there was a time when the church was very powerful -- in the time when the early christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. in those days, the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. whenever the early christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators." but the christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey god rather than man. small in number, they were big in commitment. they were too god-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." by their effort and example, they brought an end to such
ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. things are different now. so often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. so often it is an archdefender of the status quo. far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent -- and often even vocal -- sanction of things as they are. but the judgment of god is upon the church as never before. if today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the 20th century. every day i meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust. perhaps i have once again been too optimistic. is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world?
perhaps i must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world. but again i am thankful to god that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom. they have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of albany, georgia, with us. they have gone down the highways of the south on tortuous rides for freedom. yes, they have gone to jail with us. some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. but they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. they have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment.
i hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. but even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, i have no despair about the future. i have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. we will reach the goal of freedom in birmingham and all over the nation because the goal of america is freedom. abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with america's destiny. before the pilgrims landed at plymouth, we were here. before the pen of jefferson etched the majestic words of the declaration of independence across the pages of history, we were here.
mr. warnock: for more than two centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation -- and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. if the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. we will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of god are embodied in our echoing demands. before closing, i feel impelled to mention one other point in your statement that has troubled me profoundly. you warmly commended the birmingham police force for keeping "order" and "preventing violence." i doubt that you would have so warmly commended the police
force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent negroes. i doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old negro women and young negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick old negro men and young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. i cannot join you in your praise of the birmingham police department. it is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handling the demonstrators. in this sense, they have conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in public. but for what purpose?
to preserve the evil system of segregation. over the past few years i have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. i have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. but now i must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. perhaps mr. connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was chief pritchett in albany, georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. as t.s. eliot has said, "the last temptation is the greatest
treason -- to do the right thing for the wrong reason." i wish you had commended the negro sit-inners and demonstrators of birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the midst of great provocation. one day the south will recognize its real heroes. they will be the james merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face jeering and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. they will be old, oppressed, battered negro women, symbolized in a 72-year-old woman in montgomery, alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired about her weariness, "my feets
is tired, but my soul is at rest." they will be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience' sake. one day the south will know that when these disinherited children of god sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the american dream and for the most sacred values in our judeo-christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the constitution and the declaration of independence. never before have i written so long a letter. i'm afraid it is much too long
to take your precious time. i can assure you that it would have been much shorter if i had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long prayers? if i have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, i beg you to forgive me. if i have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, i beg god to forgive me. i hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. i also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil
rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a christian brother. let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear-drenched communities, and in some not-too-distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty. yours for the cause of peace and brotherhood, martin luther king jr. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. brown: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. thanks to my colleagues, senator warnock, senator baldwin, and the presiding officer's chair senator rounds, senator hirono, senator collins, senator romney for joining me to read these
powerful words today. this tradition began in 2019 when senator doug jones from alabama, a leader in the civil rights movement, as senator warnock who just spoke also is, he began that tradition in 2019 and then when he left the senate in 2020, he asked me to continue and together read these powerful words, a diverse group on the floor today. we come from different backgrounds. we disagree on a number of things. we love this country. we know we can do better for people who make -- for the people who make it it work. in my meeting yesterday with judge jackson, soon to be justice jackson, we talked about the deep connection between civil rights and worker rights. dr. king spoke to labor audiences throughout his life. he preached with a unique eloquence about the inherent dignity of work. he said that so often we overlook the work and significance of those who are not in professional jobs, of those who are not in the
so-called big jobs. whenever you're engaged in work that serves humanity and is for the building of humanity, dr. king said, it has dignity and it has worth. he said, no labor is really menial unless you are not getting adequate wages. i think about the campaign dr. king waged when he was assassinated. we will never forget. he was martyred in memphis while fighting for some of the most exploited workers in the country, segregated -- sanitation workers in segregated memphis. we know too many workers face a similar exploitation today. we've seen over the past two years how many workers corporations call essential but treat as expendable. it's their whole business model. it's not a coincidence that many of those workers look like the ones for whom dr. king was fighting, that they're not the ones in the so-called -- his words -- big jobs.
and when on occasion a company tries to do the right thing, often wall street's stock price, wall street punishes them. this week starbucks announced they are throwing a bone to workers. the company is going to do a tiny -- a little tiny bit less in executive compensation in the form of stock buybacks this year and invest in workers instead, and their stock price went down. the wall street business model doesn't just do nothing for workers -- pardon the grammar -- it actively discourages investment in workers. it has to change, until hard work pays off for all workers, dr. king's work remains unfinished. that means paying all workers a living wage. senator warnock is still on the floor, senator baldwin, the presiding officer, two of the people who fight the hardest for that. all workers must make a living wage, have more power over their schedule, provide good benefits and safety on the job, and not fight organizing a union.
that means all workers get a fair share of the wealth that they create. it means recognizing the dignity of the communities that black americans have built over generations. that's how we bring ourselves closer to otosociety that dr. king envisioned where all labor has dignity. madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
senator from michigan. if mr. peters: madam president, i rise in for of judge ketanji brown jackson -- the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. mr. peters: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. peters: thank you, madam president. i rise in support of judge ketanji brown jackson's confirmation to be it an associate just on the supreme court of the united states, and look forward to proudly voting for her confirmation. there are a few constitutional duties more important in my role as an united states senator than providing the advice and consent on judicial nominations, and this is especially true for the supreme court. as we consider judge jackson's nomination before this body, we are on the cusp of historic, barrier-breaking moment, and on the verge of confirming the first african american woman to serve on the supreme court.
this is not only a significant milestone but a moment to recognize judge jackson, who is one of our nation's brightest legal minds and an incredibly impressive nominee. before i talk about judge jackson's exception experience, her qualifications, and support from all across the legal spectrum, i think it's important to reflect on the critical importance of our nation's highest court. without question, supreme court rulings have a direct and a consequential impact on the lives of michiganders and all americans. issues before the court include healthcare, women's reproductive rights, workers' rights, environmental protections, voting rights, and many life or death decisions that shape the law of the land. simply put, the supreme court is often the last line of defense for everyday americans and an
important guardian of the constitution itself. there's no question that a lifetime appointment to the supreme court is a tremendous responsibility, and we must have qualified, committed justices who will exercise judicial independence, following the fact and apply law and precedent fairly and impartially, without regard for their own personal views, partisanship, or politics. it is clear that on every single measure judge jackson has the credentials, the quality, the work ethic and character needed to serve on the supreme court. she will not only be diversity, but a unique life perspective and passion for the law that she developed at a very young age. judge jackson's interest in law actually started as a preschooler, sitting next to her father while he studied cases for law school, while she worked
on her coloring book. despite being ambitious and astar student, growing up judge jackson faced resistance. when judge jackson told her high school guidance counselor that she was interested in attending harvard university, the counselor told her that maybe she should set her sights lower than that. judge jackson was not going to be deterred, and she credits her high school debate coach for introducing her to several colleges. then she went on to graduate mag da cume lauda from harvard as undergraduate and cum laude from harvard law school. this was the beginning of judge jackson's distinguished legal career. she clerked for three federal judges, including supreme court justice breyer, worked in private practice at prestigious law firms, and has served on the federal bench on both the district court and the court of
appeals, a position she was confirmed to just last year by bipartisan support by this very senate. judge jackson's experience has also been shaped by representing everyday americans and hearing their cases. she will be the first justice who previously served as a federal public defender. and the only justice who has served as a member of the bipartisan u.s. sentencing commission. she will also bring considerable criminal law experience to the court. her breadth of experience, her record and temperament were on full display during her senate judiciary confirmation hearing. over the course of 24 hours and more than 600 questions, judge jackson not only demonstrated why she is qualified to serve on the supreme court but also why she was unflappable, even when
she faced outrageous, absolutely outrageous false attacks on her record during the committee hearings. and during this process, judge jackson has not only earned bipartisan support for her confirmation, but has the backing of diverse voices, including from the american bar association, which unanimously gave her its highest rating of well qualified. lawyers across the political spectrum, civil rights organizations, law enforcement groups, the chambers of commerce have all offered not just support, but glowing support for her nomination. former george h.w. bush's appointed 4th circuit judge michael luttig called judge jackson, quote, eminently qualified, and, quote, a highly credentialed and experience in the law as any nominee in
history, end of quote. two dozen conservative and former republican-appointed officials said, quote, we are united in our view that she is exceptionally well qualified, given her breadth of experience, her demonstrated ability and personal attributes of intellect and character, we think that her confirmation on a consensus basis would strengthen the court and the nation in important ways, end of quote. and the international association of chiefs of police said, quote, during her time as judge she has displayed her dedication to ensuring that our communities are safe, and that the interests of justice are served. judge jackson's years of experience have shown that she has the temperament and qualifications to serve as the next associate justice of the united states supreme court, end of quote. after my one-on-one meeting with
judge jackson last week, i was convinced that she is extraordinarily qualified and prepared to serve on the supreme court, particularly at this challenging moment. this is, without question, a challenging time, not only for the supreme court, but also for our democracy, and it is clear that judge jackson has the extensive experience and qualifications and temperament and impartiality and fidelity to the law that will undoubtedly serve our nation exceptionally well. i am proud to support judge jackson as our next supreme court justice, and i urge all of my colleagues to join me in making history. thank you, madam president.
mr. tuberville: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: thank you, madam president. russia's invasion into ukraine is changing the global order, the likes of which the world has not witnessed since the end of the cold war. vladimir putin launched an unprovoked and brutal war, one that left the u.s. and our allies shocked and enraged. the global response of putin's provocation was a mix of sharp words, hastily delivered weapons, and targeted sanctions. but even as we speak, the actions from the biden administration are still too weak. as airwaves were flooded with messages of support in solidarity with ukraine, one major power was very vocal in their support against ukraine,
and that was china. china vocally took russia's side very quickly. the two countries shared a land border, but they also issued a statement of solidarity on february 4, just 20 days before the invasion. and there is no doubt that china is looking at the western response to the world unfolding in ukraine, and it plans to consume its neighbor, taiwan, in the same fashion. yesterday, an article in "the new york times" detailed the lengths china is going in order to convince its people that their support for russia is righteous and their hatred of the west is justified. the article goes on to outline china's pro-putin propaganda, stating, quote, chinese universities have organized classes to give students a
correct understanding of the war, often highlighting russia's grievances with the west. party newspapers have run a series of comment tearies plameing the -- commentaries blaming the united states of america for the conflict. china's political posturing should be taken very, very seriously. the c.c.p. is building the foundation for its future actions. since 1949 the chinese communist party has been eyeing taiwan and patiently waiting. they've not attacked because the united states and other free naingses have strength -- free nations have strengthened the tiny island. that is the essence of deterrence. we won't -- we want xi jinping to look out his window each morning and think, not today. our president's response to russia invading ukraine has not
inspired confidence in the pacific. joseph wu, taiwan's foreign minister, recently stated, quote, when we watch the events in ukraine evolving, we are watching very carefully what china may do to us in taiwan. alarmingly, the white house is indifferent to the warming relations between china and russia. when asked about a recent call between president biden and president xi regarding the war in ukraine, white house press secretary jen psaki said, in part, quote, china has to make a decision for themselves about where they want to stand. in july, president biden's climate czar, john kerry, said that he is, quote, genuine friends with china, and continued to praise president xi. let's get this straight --
russia and china both stand against the united states. neither country is our friend, period. both seek to expand authoritarian world order and diminish american leadership. the difference is russia is a small bully, but china is a huge, huge threat. china's growing economy affords its growing ambitions. china became the world's largest exporting nation in 2009. and today, china controls the world's supply of titanium, rare earth metals, shipbuilding, and clothing manufacturers, among others. china seeks to control the south china sea and all the trade that flows through it. china wants to replace the dollar as a global reserve
currency. and aims to exceed the military might of the united states. and it's no secret, there's no secret at all that china wants taiwan's semiconductor industry. semiconductors power our everyday life. if it has an on and off switch, it has a chip. chips are even found nearly everywhere from our credit cards to our phones to the processers in our weapons, and even in our satellites. for the sake of our national security, we need to increase domestic investment and produce these chips on american soil. currently the taiwan-based semiconductor manufacturing company is responsible for over 90%, 90% of these chips.
one small, little island. over the last decade, china has made investments in their domestic semiconductor industry, but chinese-produced chips don't match the quality of those in taiwan. while taiwan's semiconductor industry is second to none, american markets have experienced a surge in private-sector investments and domestic production. in the past year alone, private-sector investments, domestic semiconductor manufacturing increased to $127 billion, with all signs indicating continued growth and investment in the years to come here in the united states. and that's the way growth and innovation should happen, through private-sector, not federal funding, continued reliance on offshore suppliers
for these ships pose too great a threat and risk to the supply chains from the c.c.p. as we saw with putin in the years prior to his invasion of ukraine, chinese leaders are clear about their plans for taiwan. just last year the c.c.p. warned of, quote, drastic measures. if taiwan declares independence, taiwan is independent, beijing refuses to recognize and reckon that with reality. to deter chinese aggression, the united states must have our forces in the pacific modernized and ready at any time. that's why it was a major win that last year's ndaa secured funding for a robust missile
defense system for guam to counter. c.c.p. launched cruise or ballistic missiles. guam is our first line of defense from these, home to 160,000 americans who are north dakota -- who are forward deployed to defend, guam is the first island fo defend. as the c.c.p. has continued to grow its military capabilities over the last decade, our own military has been hampered by cuts to defense spending, leaving our artillery antiquated and our defense capabilities weakened. president biden has been no different, offering up disappointing cuts to defense priorities in both of his first two budgets. these cuts most recently caught the attention of our adversaries. this is yet another example of
how sorely out of touch with reality the biden administration is when it comes to defense. we cannot -- we cannot continue to ask our men and women in uniform to do more with less, especially with china watching everything that we do. while the world focuses on eastern europe, we must remain focused on beijing. china is watching every move we make with regard to putin, and they are taking notes. we cannot allow vladimir putin's war to set a dangerous precedent. we must make and must not make the same mistakes with taiwan that the administration made with ukraine, and that begins by sending a strong, clear message to our allies and adversaries that america will always be the world's most
>> could be further extended? >> we will continue to assess and what we look at well, of coursethe economy is in a better state than it was a year ago and we had a strong recovery . we also understand our range of impacts that are still longer-lasting because of the pandemic including the impact on cost and inflation and that's part of the presidents effort tohelp alleviate that . as was the announcement of yesterday. we will make an evaluation at the department of education to look at that with a range of factors as we get closer. >> have be at this point ruled out the executive level cancellation on the widescale ? >> he has not ruled out that i would note he would encourage congress as he talks about spending on the campaign trail. >> director yellen said the us might not have that
meeting if the russians are there. is he implying individual meetings or would it be a broader scale boycott ? >> i think they have later clarified she was referencing the ministerial level . the president has also said as he said on the trip he did not think russia should be a part of the g 20 meeting . and i would note several months away is a lifetime in our lives but it wasn't an indication of plans for us to boycott or not to attend, it just shouldn't bebusiness as usual which is something the president has also said . >> is it the presidents intention to carry out these attacks, is it something the us may be ableto do and is it something the press wants to happen ? >> we will assist in any way possible with these efforts to track down data, additional information and contribute to the international effort. >> a judge just issued the first outright committal in
the january sex riots, committed for misdemeanor charges. this man but policeallowed him into an insurance near the capitol rotunda . the white house and the review that case? >> i haven't reviewed the case and also members in trying to get funds but we will have it in the future. >> back to the last question as it relates to what's happening in russia. the us doesn't have an ambassador to india and its increasingly care clear mayor garcetti doesn't have the votes . how does the lack impact our ability, america's ability to pressure india not to's support russia and provide enemy air support. >> while it's our policy to
have an ambassador on the ground, we also engage with countries through a range of channels and obviously our national security advisor was just written in the last few weeks conveying clearly what the consequences of violating sanctions would be and what the mechanisms are and making sure that we do not think india should accelerate or include imports of russian energy even as those decisions are made by individual countries and also making clear we stand ready to support india and any efforts to diversify its imports and serve as a reliable supplier even as their importing 1 to 2 percent of their oil from india so we have a range of ways to engage and addressing the national security advisor is an example of that and it's our preference to have a confirmed abbasid or. he does. >> victor or of russia said he would be happy to buy more russian tanks, is there anything the us will do about that and is he worried on this point?
>> i would say in terms of the ruble, it's important to note the russian central bank is making extreme policy decisions to prop up the ruble so it's not actually on the rise. it is being artificially propped up by limitations that they are putting in place including touring banks on selling dollars to customers, russian brokerages are not allowing her in clients, exporters are being forced to sell 80 percent of their dollar revenues by ruble so they are essentially manipulating it on there and read as it relates to hungary , it's a different question but our obviously there was a written election as you noted of victor orban. i would note that hungary is a nasal ally continues to be and we continue to cooperate on a range of bilateral trips including our nato defense humanitarian assistance. there are currently hosting forces from an army strike
infantry. as part of a nasal battle group to conduct joint training exercises. with them and we will continue to work to strengthen our partnerships with hungary. obviously reliance on the ruble is a decision individual countrieswill make and we've obviously made our views clear on that . >> have you engaged hungary on this question? >> i just conveyed there a nasal ally. >> the bank and the outline, is it the full block including energy, particularly the sop will also not affect the energy section, are you worried about domestic impacts in the us as the price of gasoline or is that something you the europeans asked you to carve out. is that still appropriate or too far for the sanctions. >> i would say there's quite extensive given its serving the largest bank in russia and the largest private bank
in russia. so in total we are now about two thirds of russia's banking sector. these conversations obviously are done in coordination with our european allies and partners and we continue to assess we can maximize the impact while minimizing the impact on other economies including a course the global oil marketplace and we've taken steps of course, banning oil imports, a number of countries including poland in europe have announced their intention to take steps but that's up to individual countries to make but it's part ofcoordination, assessment , with other countries and allies about the impacts but i would still say it's quite a significant step and there's a large challenge in russia. >> in terms of the european
space. >> we do update themand briefed them on the steps they take and why and we look at the impacts on how these things will impact the united states, how they impact a range of our allies as we make decisions about sanctions . >> do you haveany idea how long are able to keep that up ? >> i don't have an assessment from here.>> on immigration with the listing of section 42 there are a lot of democrats particularly up for reelection. do you worry if you don't have a plan to stop this surge of undocumented immigrants, what do you say to those? >> i would first say title 42 is not an immigration measure, is a public health measure and one that congress is giving the cdc authority to make a decision about and we respect that and i think that's absolutely right. that's why the president proposed an immigration bill on his first day and on we would certainly welcome the efforts of anybody to work with us but as we're influencing this course in the next five weeks , we've also searched resources from
as the evil corporations price gouging at the expense of hardworking american families. then it was vladimir putin's fault, his invasion of ukraine. now it's oil and gas companies sitting on 9,000 leases. of course, we've come back around today to those greedy oil companies again. but 9,000 leases. that's where i want to spend a little time today, explaining the problem with the claim of the 9,000 leases. let's drill deeper, if you excuse the expression, into that number to truly understand what's going on here and why this type of rebuttal argument is a total disservice to the american people and our allies abroad. the first and most fundamental mistake that white house spokesperson ms. psaki has made
is using the word lease and permanent interchangeably. lease and permit, not the same thing. they're not synonymous other than both rl regulatory hurdles required by the federal government for a producer to work on federal land. second, it's important to understand the vast majority, in fact two-thirds of oil and gas leases on federal lands are producing. there are 35,871 total oil and gas leases in effect with about 66% of them, 66% of them producing oil or gas. the rest are going through this abused regulatory process or being held up in litigation by environmental n.g.o.'s. other 2200 leases are current will i in litigation. if there's one thing liberals love more than regulation, it's litigation. third, a lease does not mean the rented land contains oil and gas. not all 9,000 of these leases, quote, not being used even
contain oil and gas. producers first have to perform exploratory work to discover whether their lease even contains the minerals that they're after. oil and gas producers procure multiple leelses because they need to mitigate the financial damage which could result from acquiring only dry leases. it's called a robust portfolio, a comprehensive portfolio. fourth, before any development on leases can curp, -- occur, producers and agencies must navigate this bureaucratic maze, this labyrinth of permitting and environmental laws covered by the endangered species act, the national environmental policy act, just to name a few which can take years to complete. and rarely do these things all get done at the same time. they're never done simultaneously but rather consecutively. they each take the number of days they need apart from one another rather than altogether. fifth, just because a producer obtains the lease and navigates
the regulatory hurdles required to permit a well does not mean they can begin extraction. they must first secure adjoining leases for horizontal drilling. they don't drill a hole straight down and suck the oil from one silo. you have to take -- get leases from the neighborhood. then they must secure these leases and then accrue the capital to finance mineral development. it's not done for free or cheaply. they have to schedule the rigs, construct access rights -- roads, establish infrastructure to capture the natural gas and hire capable workers. all of these steps have been delayed bid administration's roadblocks and biden's supply chain and labor crisis. and finally, after obtaining an adequate number of leelses clearing all the regulatory hurdles and planning logistics of the project, companies must then obtain and approve -- an approved application for a permit to drill. otherwise known as an a.p.d.
there are currently 4,600 federal a.p.d.'s awaiting approval from the bureau of land management. b.l.m. and another 168a.p.d.'s on federal land. okay. the biden administration's b.l.m. could approve these permits now. enabling companies to move forward with development to supply much-needed domestic energy at home and abroad. however, b.l.m. is approving them at the slowest rate since the obama administration. a fact that ms. psaki conveniently leaves out when she claims president biden is doing everything possible to lower gas prices. in fact, to this specific point, the bureau of land management has state offices in places like dickenson, north dakota, regional offices in places like billings, montana. that's where the decisions are made, whether the application for a permit to drill becomes a permit to drill.
until this administration. and they changed that and gave the final authority not to dickenson, north dakota, not to billings, montana, but rather to washington, d.c. at the very height of power. in fact, it goes all the way to the deputy secretary of the interior. now, let's look at some of the data on a.p.d.'s, applications for permits to drill and the timelines. in march of 2020, the b.l.m. testified in front of the house natural resources committee about the trump's efforts to approve the permitting oil and gas processes. in 2019 the b.l.m. approved a 3,741a.p.d.'s on federal and indian lands. the average processing time for a single application dropped from 139 days in fiscal year 2016 to just 44 days in fiscal year 2019. in fiscal year 2021 which included four months of the trump administration, a.p.d.
approved full times shot up to 89 days doubling the amount of time. this is yet another example of the trump administration's energy success being eliminated by the biden administration's incompetence. the biden administration approved just 97 permits for oil and natural gas wells across federal lands in january of this year. a significant plunge from the 643 issued april of last year. all the leases in the world don't matter if you can't get a permit to drill on them, even in fact there is oil and you don't even know that for sure. on top of the regulatory hurdles, industry consideration, supply chain issues and labor shortages, producers must have certainty that their product can reach a global market. a key aspect of reaching the global market, of course, and reducing the european union's reliance on dirty russian gas are united states liquid natural gas export term familiars or l.n.g. terminals.
as of march 16, 2022, 16 applications were pending. as secretary granholm signed off or streamlined the review on these applications, we could increase our export capacity to hem our allies abroad and grow our economy right here at home. the biden administration has extended its onshore and offshore oil and gas leasing ban quarter after quarter. despite being required by the mineral leasing act to conduct quarterly lease sales. at this point in the obama administration they held 35 on shore lease sales under barack obama. that's not all. the biden administration's actively working to starve the industry of financial capital in order to push them out of existence. they keep talking about the supply and the demand and yet they crush the supply by starving it of the capital that it needs. this is capital intensive stuff,
madam president. in march the securities and exchange commission released a proposed rule on climate disclosure, climate disclosure, this authority forcing publicly trailedded companies to develop and disclose their risks from climate change is not in the purview of the s.e.c. they don't have the authority to do that. congress has never passed a law granting them new authority in this space. it only serves to further discourage investment and domestic energy development and prevent american energy independence, a critical tool for peace and the reduction of global -- isn't that ironic. the biden administration is succeeding in its mission to destroy any chance to once again be energy ipt. their radical nominees, absences in the courtroom, regulatory schemes, budget proposals, foot drags, exude hostility toward fossil fuels inflicting a distinct chilling effect on the oil and gas industry. madam president, i've talked to a number of producers in north
dakota and they're capital starved. if the right messages were being sent to the markets we could pick up another 400,000 barrels per day. north dakota productioned 1.1 million barrels per day. to put this in context, europe imports 2.3 million barrels per day from russia. at north dakota's peak, we produced one and a half million barrels per day. north dakota alone, madam president, north dakota alone could provide two-thirds of the product europe imports from russia. it would be cleaner than russian oil and would lessen putin's malign leverage over europe and really the rest of the world. investors in domestic oifl and gas have to -- oil and gas have to receive the right market signals in order to invest their capital. the administration seems to believe energy production is simply a switch you turn on or a valve you turn.
and if you don't need it you just turn it off. no harm, no fault. it's not. it's very capital intensive and reliant on regulatory certainty and i'm not talking about six days of certainty or six month also of certainty but more like six years of certainty. no sane energy c.e.o. would invest millions or billions of dollars in a project with the backdrop of an administration seeking to, quote, transition them out of existence within months. let's take a walk down memory lane on some of the signals this administration has sent to the industry. first, the president himself said during the campaign stop in 2019, quote, i guarantee you, i guarantee you we are going to end the fossil fuel and i am not going to cooperate with them. well, congratulations, mr. president. you kempt the promise. secretary granholm appeared in a video calling for leading fossil fuels, quote, in the ground, she said. she then spoke to reporters at
the energy and environmental research center in grand forks, north dakota. an exceptional organization at the forefront of promoting carbon capture and other innovative solutions to reduce co2 emissions. during her comments she proclaimed the united states doesn't, quote -- get which now. the secretary of energy proclaimed, qoament, we don't have much more moral -- we don't have much moral authority over china. we don't have authority over china? really, madam president. that's what you believe about the country you serve? how about climate czar john cerpy. he flies around the world making outlandish comments like the united states won't have coal in 2030 and discourages the world from buying our products, u.s. energy while fanning the flames of radicalism, proclaiming ukrainian war refugees are nothing compared to climate refugees. it's like he's the bishop of the church of climatology or
something. he's even expressed concern that this pesky war crimes going on over there of vladimir putin are taking focus away from the real tragedy climate change. then he gets in his jet and flies home. meanwhile recent reports indicate the administration has turned to dispots like iran and venezuela instead of producers right here in america to hem bring the biden administration under control by producing more of their dirty oil instead of our cleaner production. it makes no sense and it's offensive to every american worker, madam president. we have a geo political opportunity right now to cut putin's malign influence and we should be taking full advantage of it. what we ought to be doing is encouraging production not just with our rhetoric but with our actions. producing more u.s. oil and gas will, believe it or not, proclaim it or deny it, it's the truth, it will reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. if you don't want to take my word for it or trust the
extensive studies, the science and the documentation of this fact, biden e.p.a. administrator michael regan just last week in a call with the financial times, in a financial times recent calls for increased oil output are compatible -- get this now. this is the biden e.p.a. administrator regan. calls for increased oil output are compatible with goals to cut co2 emissions. he said specifically, quote, these are not mutually exclusive goals. an administrator regan is exactly right. producing more u.s. oil and gas will reduce the west's reliance on dirtier fuels from our adversaries and doing so also avoids unilaterally disarming our economy and losing ourselves to a 2050 fantasy that's come straight up to a 2022 reality. some in the biden administration
may finally be starting to understand energy security is national security and economic security. and so, mr. president, i say let's make the world safer. let's make the world cleaner. and let's unleash american energy production. with that i yield the floor. a senat the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: in my years as governor, i had the opportunity to appoint more than 400 floridians to the benches. my standard in each of their interviews were the same. i assumed if they understood that they intended to be part of the judiciary and not part of the legislature. i asked if they intended to interpret the law and enforce the law but not make new laws. if they couldn't commit that they knew their duty -- that was their duty as a member of the judicial branch, i wouldn't appoint them. we need qualified jurists
committed to accurately interprettening the constitution, not activist judges. i have had the chance to meet with judge jackson. we had a nice conversation. she seems like a nice person. but i have very serious concerns about her record as a federal judge by includes instances of a type of judicial activism that we cannot tolerate. the fact is that judge jackson has written only two appellate opinions in her current position so we have no evidence how she will approach serious constitutional issues. despite being repeatedly and directly asked by senators on the judiciary committee. while serving as district court judge, she had a high rate of being reversed on appeal for applying the law, the wrong legal standard exceeding her authority or ignoring law.
a peak into her history shows seesier sentences in child pornography cases. hard to believe. judge jackson imposed sentences that were 40% shorter in cases of child pornography distribution and 57% shorter than the national average in cases of child pornography possession. she has even apologized from the bench when issuing such sentences, not to the victims of those heinous crimes, of course. they never got an apology. she apologized to the offenders for the anguish the sentences for their horrific crimes caused them. what about the anguish of the victims, innocent children? mr. president, these are individuals is who harm children. they don't deserve easy sentences is or our sympathies. and the sympathy for child predators has consequences. we recently learned that a child rapist, someone who judge jackson gave a very lenient
sentence, sexually abused another victim after his light sentence. had judge jackson give inhim the sentence he deserved and the one that the prosecution recommended, he would have been in prison, not out in the streets. these are crimes that judge jackson has the power to prevent but she's chose enevery time to give these gross criminals easier sentences. that's why i've joined senator hawley to introduce the protect ability which protects children from sexual exploitation by enhancing the penalties for child pornography and preventing judges from sentencing below federal guidelines. our committees must be protected from sick individual whose exploit and victimize children and also from liberal activist judges a buse their sentencing guidelines to let offenders off the hook. federal sentencing guidelines for these heinous crimes are critical and we must ensure guidelines are strictly enforced. i hope the senate quickly passes this good bill. we can't have a soft-on-crime
justice on the supreme court. and we can't have activist judges on the highest court in the land. i also don't think it is too much to ask for a nominee to the highest court in the land to be able to say what a woman is. or to take a stand against partisan court-packing which even liberal justices like ruth bader ginsburg and stephen breyer have done. we have the right to demand answers on behalf of the american people. i think our country deserves better. that's why i can't support the nomination of judge jackson to the supreme court. i'm committed to giving the american people qualified judges who understand the role in government and who apply the law as written, not as they want it to be. it is a simple standard and it is with unthat floridians respect. based on my assessment of her record on otobench, that is not the case in judge jackson. the democrat party needs to understand that the supreme court is not just another institution to infiltrate with their leftist ideology. i have no hope that they will,
but until they do i will continue fighting to uphold the constitution, ensure that their remains a separation of powers between the branches of government and that judges appointed to the bench understand that they are there to interpret the law, not to make the law. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. president, throughout two days of questioning in front of the judiciary committee on which i sit, judge jackson proved without a shadow of a doubt what we all knew to be true -- she is eminently qualified to serve on the supreme court of our country. judge jackson has the intellect, the integrity and the temperament befitting an
associate justice of the u.s. supreme court. and she doesn't have an ideological axe to grind. judge jackson is exceptionally qualified and well-regarded across the political spectrum and yet not a single republican voted to advance judge jackson's nomination out of the senate judiciary committee. and only three republicans have publicly expressed support for her, so i ask my republican colleagues -- what is it going to take? what is it going take to put politics aside to support a nominee like judge jackson, because clearly intelligence, extraordinary breadth of experience, and support from prominent conservatives -- conservatives -- did not suffice. clearly a candidate who has support from organizations from across the political spectrum, from the black and hispanic u.s. chamber of commerce, business
organization, to the fraternal order of police, the largest police union, they would not be supporting somebody who's soft on crime, to child advocacy groups who would not be supporting her either if she was not being appropriate in her sentencing of child pornography defendants. so even this breadth of support she didn't make the cut with the republicans on the judiciary committee. so clearly a nominee who was uniformly called brilliant, beyond reproach, first-rate and impeccable from her colleagues across the nation was not enough. so, truly, what will it take? sadly, some of my republican
colleagues resorted to unfounded and misleading attacks in an unsuccessful attempt to smear her character. to highlight how ridiculous the attacks around the sentencing of child pornography offenses were, i asked judge jackson about the history of the sentencing guidelines for these crimes and the concerns that these guidelines do not reflect what is happening with child pornography offenses. and these facts bear repeating. a decade ago the u.s. sentencing commission first addressed the issue of sentencing in this area. even way back then only 40% of convicted offenders were receiving sentences within the guidelines. now, ten years later, even fewer offenders are receiving sentences within the guidelines. in 23019, just -- in 2019, just 30% of non-offenders were
sentenced within the guidelines. in the d.c. circuit the average goes down to just 20% of offenders. this puts judge jackson well within the mainstream in her sentencing in this area. she is not an outsider. i name numerous other judges nominated by president trump and supported by the republicans on the judiciary committee who have also sentenced offenders to sentences wellbelow the sentencing guidelines. so these judges also expressed concern about how the sentencing guidelines do not reflect the circumstances in the child pornography cases of today. i will repeat this. judge jackson is a mainstream judge. she has issued decisions and sentences similar to other judges across the nation, including those nominated by both republicans and democratic
presidents. and despite some of my republican colleagues' attempts to distort the truth, to get more likes on twitter, what americans across the country saw was an impressively -- incredibly impressive, highly qualified individual demonstrate that she has the intellect and the temperament to serve on our highest court. throughout the course of this week, americans also learned about her character. i was particularly moved to hear the testimony of an individual who has known judge jackson for nearly 38 years when they were in elementary school. he said, in part, ketanji's incandescent brilliance was obvious to all of us from day one. but even more importantly, she has always been one of the kindest, warmest, most humble and down-to-earth people i've ever met. all this while still possessing boundless charisma, drive,
matures and grace. -- maturity and grace. these qualities apparently from a young age have clearly guide her throughout her life and her career, particularly when it comes to treating every single person she encounters with dignity and respect. during the hearing, i asked judge jackson the same two questions on sexual assault and harassment that i ask of all nominees, male and female. in follow-up questioning, i named judges who had committed such misconduct and asked judge jackson what she does to ensure her court is a safe and inclusive place to work. after judge jackson's hearing concluded, a woman who had clerked for one of the judges i named who had engaged in this kind of harassing behavior reached out to me, and this is a person who had clerked ford one
of the judges that i had named. during her clerkship with this judge, she endured extreme and pervasive sexual harassment. she came forward publicly about this judges' conduct and experience she described as a harrowing ordeal. she went on to a second clerkship, this time for judge jackson, and in judge jackson's court, she said, she was treated like a valued and talented employee who could make meaningful whys to the law. she says clerking for judge jackson was the most meaning professional experience she has% of had. -- she has ever had. she stated, i quote, judge jackson is the reason i am still a lawyer. i have no doubt i would have left the profession were it not for the way she treated me the year after my ordeal. end quote.
judge jackson is exactly the kind of judge and individual we need on the u.s. supreme court -- experienced, evenhand, with dignity, integrity, and humanity. moreover, judge jackson is not just extremely qualified to serve on the supreme court, her nomination is an historic one. the supreme court has existed for over 2033 years -- 233 years and of the 115 justices in the history of the court, only five of them have been women, only two have been blacked, and not a single one has been a black woman. this is a court that has decided cases that have had sweeping impact on our lives, including decisions that have solidified rights for lgbtq-plus people, empowered women, strengthened unions, and more. but this is also the same court that that has throughout the coe
of history uphold slavery, jim crow and the unlawful internment, incarceration of japanese americans in world war ii. so it is about time. it is abouts time we have a highly qualified, highly accomplished black woman on the supreme court. it's about time our highest court better reflects the country it serves. it is about time that black women and girls across the country can finally see someone who looks like them sit something on the high of the court, making decisions that will impact their lives, our lives, and they will know that the possibility is there for them. i close by noting that during the hearing, judge jackson told the committee that has a freshman at harvard -- and she wondered if she could fit in, you know, whether she could make it and a black woman she didn't
know leaned to her as they were walking by, probably in harvard yard, and said to judge jackson, she wasn't a judge then -- persevere. that is something that a the love us can relate to -- that a lot of us can relate to. perseverance, including myself, who came to this country as a poor immigrant kid, persevering to learn the language, learn the culture of a country i knew nothing about. judge jackson being on the supreme court would send such a powerful perseverance to everyone in this country. i would be honored to vote to confirm judge jackson. i look forward to calling her justice jackson. i yield the floor.
this is ku's fourth ncaa national championship title the, the second under bill self. the men's basketball program boasts a storied history and track record of excellence and success, and the inventor of the game of basketball, dr. dr. james nay smith served as the program's first coach. k.u. can boast of having the most ncaa victories of any division one basketball program in the country in addition to four, four ncaa championships. it's moments like this that kansans remember forever, whether you're watching the game from your living room, on the jumbotron at allen field house or your favorite hangout on mass street, 10, 20, 30 years from now kansans will remember, kansans from across the country will remember where they were on april 4, 2022, when k.u.
clenched the national title in a nail-biting game against north carolina's tar heels. it was a k.u. men's basketball team that inspired me to go to the university of kansas when i was in high school. i'm a first-generation college graduate, and university of kansas was probably not the place that most of my peers and friends from my small town in northwest kansas went to. but, no, it wasn't because i was recruited to play basketball for the basketball team. it was that i had the opportunity to attend on my first visit to the university of kansas, a basketball game in allen field house. on that one game i knew this is where i wanted to go to college. the energy and excitement of k.u. basketball inspired me, encouraged me, caused me to wonder, and i think it's true of countless others, to decide they wanted to be a jay hawk. on monday night k.u. rallied to
overcome a deficit of 15 points at half time to beat north carolina, 72-69, the largest come-back in name name basketball national championship game. i'm not sure what coach bill self, but i'm going to ask him, i'm not sure what coach self said to his players during the half time but in true kansas fashion the jay hawks came back and beat the odds to clench the championship. the team showed tremendous heart, determination, and resolve in that comeback victory. k.u.'s ochi was named most outstanding player of the final four. david mccormick scored 15 points, had 10 rebounds and made two critical baskets late in the game. jalen williams scored four. rhemie martin helped the jay
hawks secure the title. and a small town middle of the state native scored 12 points and had 12 rebounds, demonstrating to other small-town athletes like him that they too could be a star in the nation's biggest tournament in college basketball. jordan judaman, a former walk on from the jay hawks men's basketball team from my hometown of haze noted that this 2022 championship team might not be the best according to the stats but they played like a team. they care about the game and they care about each other. only a team that sees the glass half full could come back after being down 16 points and clench the victory. this speaks to the team's perseverance and belief in themselves. domenici riley, a basketball -- coach riley, a coach from the western part of the state pointed out to me the lesson that kids around the state will take away from monday night.
you may not always have all of the best players on the court at the same time and you may not have all the talent that's out there on that court, but you can still find ways to be successful because of how hard you work. my guess is that kids ever since monday back home in kansas and maybe across the country are in their driveway, they're at the school basketball court, and they're shooting free throws or three-point shots one after another. it inspires us to know we can do more, and the university of kansas basketball team is inspiring kids today to go out and work harder. i commend these players and the entire kansas jay hawk men's basketball team as well as the coaches and staff for their hard work which culminated in this victory. while these young men on the team may be known for their talent on the court, many should be recognized for the adversity they faced off court.
k.u.'s point guard has overcome tremendous loss in his 21 years. he lost his father and his brother just in a few years apart and sunday night he came out and he played for them. these young men came to college to play some great basketball, but along the way they're learning how to give back to their community. at christmastime this team goes to the local walmart and purchases christmas presents for families that might be facing financial hardship. they learn important lessons of giving back to their community. finally, to coach bill self, i know you are probably still feeling that very deep loss and maybe even more so on monday night of your father who died just recently. bill self sr., but you can be sure he's smiling down with pride on you and your whole team. you took his advice. he advised you don't worry about the mules. just load the wagon. as a graduate of the university
of kansas, as a kansan, i share the excitement of jay hawk fans across the world in sunday night's stunning achievement, and i'm pleased to introduce this resolution with senator marshall to honor this achievement. to my fellow jay hawks, rock. mr. president, img pleased that on -- i'm pleased that on such a bipartisan basis between republicans and democrats, something i know kansans and americans don't see enough of, this resolution would normally take a few more days than it's taken to get to the united states senate this week. and i'm pleased that both republican and he democratic leadership and their staff worked with us in cooperation to be able to commend the jay hawks this early this week. so, mr. president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 578, which is at the desk.
the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 578, commending and congratulating the university of kansas jay hawks men's basketball team for winning the 2022 national collegiate athletic association basketball national championship. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. moran: with a neighboring coloradan in the chair and a former part of the big 12 conference, mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you.
mrs. gillibrand: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mrs. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i stand here to proudly support ketanji brown jackson's nomination to the united states supreme court. the nation has had an opportunity to watch judge jackson during her confirmation hearing two weeks ago and see first hand the temperament, knowledge of the law and qualifications she brings to the highest court in the land. she will be a fair and impartial jurist, just as she has proven herself to be on the district court and the d.c. circuit court of appeals. president biden made a the commitment before he was elected to appoint the first black woman to the supreme court. judge jackson's historic nomination is long overdue. it was in my home state of new york where constance baker motley became the first black woman to be a federal judge in
the southern district. having diverse -- did diversity on the court doesn't mean they will rule a certain way, it's important because it strengthens our institutions. it's critical because it shows who we are as a nation and it makes a difference to the girls and women across the country who will now have a role model and know that they can aspire to do the same. that's why president biden made that promise because he knew that it was beyond time to ensure the supreme court has that representation and it's clear that judge jackson will be a highly qualified justice to fulfill that promise. who we confirm to the supreme court matters. while the work of the court may feel distant from our daily decisions and day-to-day lives, the supreme court actually makes key decisions on whether individuals are protected when they go to school, work, or out
in public or who can and how we can cast our votes to determine our elected officials on whether our future generations will have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink or who we choose to marry and what women can decide on their own bodies and their reproductive future. the nine justices on the supreme court make decisions that impact all americans and in the senate in our advice and consent role, we have a critical role to play to make sure we confirm justices that provide equal justice to all. the perspectives judge jackson will bring to the highest court in the land personally and professionally will have an impact on all americans. judge jackson will bring to the bench significant criminal defense experience and a decade of judicial experience to her
rulings. when i met judge jackson, i asked her, which of her experiences had prepared her most for this moment to serve on the supreme court if she was confirmed. she answered by talking about her clerkships which she completed at each level of the judiciary, district court, first circuit court of appeals and for supreme court justice stephen breyer whose seat she is being nominated to fulfill. she talked about how she learned from others how to serve as a judge. she experienced first hand what it means to fulfill the constitutional requirement of being a member of our nation's federal judiciary. i know judge jackson will bring all of those perspectives and meaningful experiences with her to the supreme court and those are critically needed on the highest court of our land. in those experiences and her record that have led judge jackson's nomination receiving
broad support from the civil and human rights community to the law enforcement community and from colleagues in the judiciary nominated from both parties, just to name a few. given the fact that she was confirmed three times by this party with bipartisan support, this chamber should be able to confirm her with votes from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. i look forward to enthusiastically casting my vote in support of judge jackson's confirmation to the supreme court of the united states. i urge my colleagues to join me and support her nomination as well. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
this 100 million is designed to help us in urgent ukrainians need for javelin antiarmor systems with the united states providing to ukraine as we all know. they've been used very effectively to combat the russian attack on ukrainian homemade. this will be the sixth drawdown of equipment from dod inventories for ukraine since august of 2021. combined with $300 million in military assistance announced on the first of april, the total security assistant to ukraine for 1.7 billion since the beginning, just the beginning of russian invasion on the 24th of february. another billion on top of that at the beginning of the biden administration. more than 4.5 billion since
2014. the united states along with allies and partners will continue to work closely with our ukrainian partners to evaluate their specific requirements to ensure our assistant meet their highest priority needs as they continue to courageously defend their country. a programming note as many of you know from a press release that went out yesterday but i wanted to mention it from the podium, the dod warrior games has been scheduled for the 19th to the 28th of august at disney's espn wild world sports in orlando. the games as i think you are all talking the past two years had to be canceled because of covid, it's about celebrating resiliency and dedication of wounded, ill and active veteran u.s. and allied service members, we are excited to be able to get the games back in place. and of summer, we are looking forward to seeing these warriors compete. will go to questions. >> on the subject of u.s. security assistance for ukraine, i think the secretary mentioned during a testimony, ukrainians
will get 300 and 600 versions and you say either or both of us are in production or is this something -- what i meant was are they in stockpile, are they available want to the have to be border? what about training? >> we are sending in the hundred you a fee we are in stocks, we sent them in from postdocs, i don't know where they are on the process but they arrived over earlier this week so they were get into ukraine quickly if they aren't already there, that's the 100 president biden announced a couple of weeks ago. we are in discussions with ukrainians about future usages
of switchblade drones and we will keep that option open going forward. i'd rather not get into specifics about each shipment in terms of what variant of switchblade but we will keep talking to them and helping them get additional if needed. this is not a system ukrainians typically use so there will need to be a bit of training, it's not a complex system and doesn't require a lot of training. an individual could be suitably trained on how to use the switchblade drone and about two days or so. when you heard them talk about some training being done for ukrainian military members, that's what they are referring to, a small number of ukrainian soldiers already in the united states and had been since the fall, well before the invasion
or military educational purposes, professional training. we took the opportunity having them in the country to give them a couple days worth of training on the switchblade to go back and they will be going back soon to train others in the ukrainian military and that doesn't have to be the and all, we'll look at other suitable opportunities as needed to provide more training necessary but that's what they were referring to yesterday. >> it's in full production to supply additional -- >> i won't speak for the manufacturers, i understand they are capable of manufacturing both of these and to be clear, one version has a bigger warhead than the other and potentially penetrating hip abilities for armor. i won't speak for manufacturer
in their production, my understanding is they are capable of producing these. we are not going to get into specifics on a day-to-day basis on what variant is given on any given day but it of useful battlefield system. we are going to do everything we can to make sure they know how to use them and get into the country. right now 100 have flown in and we will see where it goes from there. >> we are confirming the 600 version has been authorized en route or soon will be. >> no, what i said as i will not talk about the specific variant but if you're asking me, can i rule out 600 version is a heavier version will not be used or grumpy sense, i won't rule out. >> in terms of javelins, $100 million, tony blinken over the weekend said ukrainians received ten times the number of javelins
to the russian tanks in the country. he said that on one of sunday's shows, why do they need so many more right now? i am a little confused about that. >> you don't just spend -- based on one potential target, it's an anti- armor design from a missile designed for anti- armor for those kinds of targets but doesn't mean you have to explosively use it, it can be used on other vehicles as well and fixed targets if need be. there have been thousands we've provided ukraine and we know we are using them. you can see the evidence yourself when you look at the videos and images on tv of burnt out tanks trucks and armored personnel carriers. you can see the work of the javelin right there so you don't
count 121 because they are not being used in that capacity. >> thank you. i have two things, i hope you can answer these. >> you know the new career and icbm is imminent they've threatened that to be used. if there are two in the military confrontation, how do you analyze this? >> are not going to get into the public back and forth q -- burn:e dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. blackburn: thank you,
mr. president. i've come to the floor today to go into a little bit more detail about why i will not be voting for and in favor of judge ketanji brown jackson's confirmation to the supreme court. now, as we have all heard and as we appreciate, there is no doubt that judge jackson is highly educated. she has an impressive resume. she is cordial. she was very gracious with her time. but as i listened to her responses over the two-day period of time, i was really dissatisfied with the specifics. and as i got home to tennessee and talked to tennesseans, they had wanted to hear specifics from her and were disappointed that she did not come forward with those specifics.
and my colleague, senator durbin, helpfully pointed out this morning that judge jackson did indeed make the rounds up here prior to her hearing. yes, indeed, she did do that. she came to my office, and we spent about an hour together talking about her record. and i, of course, didn't give her a list of questions to study, but i did clue her in on some of the things that i thought were going to be important for us toss discuss. now, some -- for us to discuss. now, some were items that we had discussed when she came before us for her appellate court hearing. some of those things we never got a complete answer to. but we needed to get that complete answer. this is a lifetime appointment, and it was disappointing that we did not, even now, get that
complete answer. what i have learned is normally, as we of the judiciary committee conduct these hearings for judges, for the federal bench, for supreme court nominees, they walk into the hearing room and they are prepared. they kind of come loaded with their remarks and their answers. and they know -- have a general idea of what is going to come their way from different ones of us because we've expense the time meeting with them individually, making certain that they know what is going to be important. so there is no doubt, she knew that i was going to press her on her lack of a clear articulation on a judicial philosophy. and she knew that there were
concerns and criticisms of her record and some of of the decisions that she had made. she knew that we had asked tough constitutional law questions about abortion, substantive due process, and interstate commerce. and i know that i -- and i think most of my colleagues on the judiciary committee -- would say that i expect nominees to be familiar with all of these things, to have an opinion and be willing to share that opinion this is an appointment. as i said a moment ago, a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. so, this is not supposed to be an easy process. this is to be tough questions that are appropriately placed.
and, you know, mr. president, tough questions are not attacks. tough questions are placed in search of answers, answers for the people that we represent. but instead of showcasing what we were told was her extraordinary prowess for the law, judge jackson's hearing turned into a showcase of things that she just did not want to talk about. my democratic colleagues have spent a lot of time trying to provide cover for her, but the fact of the matter is that at the end of this week, the majority leader will ask us to green-light a supreme court nominee who has not articulated a judicial philosophy, who filibustered her way through basic constitutional questions, and who repeatedly pled
ignorance of the most controversial items in their record -- in her record. we have received judge jackson's responses to our written questions and, unfortunately, she is still refusing to open a window into her thinking. i asked her again about her ruling in make the road new york v. mcaleenan, which focused in part on how to judge should interpret a statute that grants an agency sole andunreviewable discussion over the rules it develops. when congress wrote those words, i'm sure we believed that sole and unreviewable discretion meant exactly, precisely that. this law was sole and unreviewable. but rather than focusing on the plain meaning of the text, judge jackson took it upon herself to
evaluate and reject the d.h.s. rule in question and establish a nationwide injunction. well, as we all know, fortunately, the d.c. circuit overruled her. but the question remains -- how in the world could any judge read those words and decide congress wanted the opposite result of what congress specifically said -- sole and unreviewable. but in a show of lack of respect for congress and what congress explicitly said -- because we disagreed with the policy -- what did she do? she picked it up, she basically tore up that policy, and she did
what she thought, what she thought was best. in her written response, judge jackson offered no new information. but because she tends to editorialize in her opinions, we can still glean some insight from what she had to say about the d.h.s. case. she suggested that the department of homeland security's position was -- and i'm quoting her -- a terrible proposal that wreaks of bad faith and demonstrates contempt for the authority that the constitution's framers have vested in the judicial branch. now, those are her words. i think that language might give us a hint as to why she ignored the statutory text. now, mr. president, in
tennessee, tennesseans look at that and say, well, that is the work of an activist judge. they're trying to legislate from the bench. they didn't like what congress did, so they said, we're going to pick it up, we're going to toss it out, we're going to do what we think that policy ought to be. now, that was the effect of that ruling, because she ignored the statutory text. i have lingering questions about other times judge jackson has used this type of rhetoric to signal her policy disagreements. again, tennesseans say that is judicial being a victim. during the hike -- activism. during the height of the covid-19 pandemic, she used a written judicial opinion to advocate for the mass release of
all 1,500 criminals in the custody of the d.c. department of corrections. that's right. the release of all 1,561 detainees. all of them. during her hearing, she claimed she was merely repeating one of the attorneys' arguments. but we went back and we read the opinion, and when we read the opinion, it is very clear that is not accurate. if you take her words at face value, you'll get the impression that she believes a mass release -- a mass release -- of detainees, of criminals, a mass release is appropriate during the pandemic. so, if you look at our past
pandemics and if you say, well, a pandemic is going to come around, we're going to have something every five or ten years, i think it's reasonable to question her judgment on this. what happens when you have the next spanish flu or the next sars? what happens the next time there is a pandemic? i think american citizens -- i think tennesseans -- want an answer on that. why would someone think, open the doors and release them and then lament that they are not able to release all of them? i've got questions about her record of being lenient with criminals. over the course of her career, judge jackson has developed a disturbing habit of granting leniency to dangerous criminals. she released a man who murdered
a u.s. marshal and gave a reduced sentence to a criminal who was known for attacking police officers. she undersentenced child porn offenders at every available opportunity. not once or twice but every time. if the guidelines gave her discretion, she used it to go easy on pedophiles. she looked for ways to go easy on dangerous drug offenders. and at one point, she actually apologized to a self-described fentanyl king kingpin for his -- kingpin for his harsh sentence. that is of concern. it is of concern to many moms who their top issues now -- inflation, open border, crime in the streets. they're worried about that. they're worried about what is
happening. she had the opportunity to clear this up, but at no point did she offer a reassuring explanation of why she so consistently used her discretion to tip the scales, not in favor of victims but tipping those scales in favor of criminals. on this point, we're not questioning her methodology. we're questioning her judgment. when i was back home in tennessee this weekend, everyone wanted to talk about judge jackson's inability to define the word woman. the media has spent a great deal of time mocking that question, and i will tell you that is quite all right because out there in the real world, people care about how she chose to respond to that question.
their position is that if the media felt justified in mocking the very fact that i did ask that question, why did judge jackson have so much trouble answering that question? as my colleague, senator cruz, mentioned this morning, we have journalists today running around the capitol demanding that republican senators answer the question. why aren't they asking the same of judge jackson? every day tennesseans are subjected to this assault on common sense, and they are not interested in playing along with this. why they want to know is the left so terrified to confront how the american people define the word woman and womanhood? and why would my democratic colleagues continue to prop up a
nominee who squandered her hearing by dodging questions and claiming ignorance of her very own record? tennesseans aren't interested in playing politics. they just want the democrats to reveal what rule book they're using, because tennesseans want to see constitutionalist judges on the bench. they want people to call balls and strikes. they want people who believe in equal treatment under the law, equal justice for all. and they see what's happening in our country. it's frightening to them. for a long time now radical activists have wanted to handpick a supreme court justice. some of these dark money groups that are all there helping the left, they've said give us your money. we'll make certain there are federal judges and a supreme
court justice that are progressive. and in the meantime, we've seen them make inroads in the media on school boards and in some of the country's most respected universities. so tennesseans are very familiar with what happens when activism begins to replace common sense. they're very familiar with the tactics of the left that continue to try to diminish freedoms of individuals and give that power to the government. and that the why they want constitutional it's on the court, not activist judges who are there to take up arms in the culture war. they don't want an agenda. they don't want to hear about a methodology. they want proof that judge jackson has a vision for america that is rooted in the constitution. they want to have proof that
this is somebody that believes in preserving our faith, our families, our freedoms, preserving hope and opportunity for all. they want somebody who is going to say i believe in the american dream, and i'm going to preserve the right for every girl and boy to live their version of the american dream. unfortunately, just like the president who nominated her, judge jackson has provided no evidence of that vision. i am a no vote on her confirmation. i yield the floor.
the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, i have already announced that i intend to support judge jackson's nomination. her character and her qualifications are unassailable. but unfortunately, that hasn't stopped a number of senate republicans from treating her disgracefully. too often behavior in the hearings was simply shameful. and, madam president, it doesn't have to be this way, and it wasn't always this way. for example, even though i disagreed with him on plenty of issues, i voted for chief justice john roberts, and he
was treated very fairly by democrats. serious questions were asked and answered, and there wasn't anything resembling the over-the-line, juvenile theatrics like that shown for judge jackson. things changed when president obama's final nomination was stolen by republicans. they refused to even hold a hearing or consider the sitting president's nominee on just fabricated grounds. democrats are trying to maintain a sharp focus on legal questions and personal qualifications. faced with sideshows and personal attacks, we stuck to
issues. and what was particularly striking about those attacks, they were attacks against somebody that senate republicans had voted for unanimously when she was nominated to a lower level court. my view is the radicalization in the court and the nominations process is just poisonous to our democracy. but that was what was on display when republicans attacked judge jackson. so i want to start setting the record straight on several of the key issues. first, judge jackson was squarely within the sentencing norm for cases involving child sexual abuse material. she was smeared anyway as going soft on predators. it was a gross and baseless
accusation, more of a dog whistle to conspiracists. even the national review, nobody's idea of a liberal publication, published a column that called the comments of our colleague from missouri, senator hawley, they called his attack meritless to the point of demagoguery. those are the words of the national review. the fact is on this hugely important issue, the whole question of kid safety, as the president of the senate knows, there's a big difference between talking about protecting child victims and actually doing the work. far too many of our republican colleagues just come down on the wrong side of the divide.
it is absolutely right that government at every level has failed to protect kids from exploitation on line. fueler has got a lot of -- l failure has a lot of causes. one is the justice department has consistently declined to put enough manpower and funding behind protecting these vulnerable kids. another reason is that members of congress talk a really big game, but when there's serious legislation to protect vulnerable kids, they disappear. i proposed an alternative. it's the invest in child safety act. it puts serious funds into tracking down the child predators and prosecuting these god-awful monsters and protecting the kids they target
and abuse. it creates a new executive position to be confirmed by the senate to raise this level of protecting kids and strengthening oversight. now instead of supporting that legislation, where we put, madam president, real prosecutors and real investigators to the task of protecting our kids, putting more law enforcement on the beat, a number of senate republicans spend their days going after section 230 of the communications decency act. so yet again, vulnerable kids are being used as pawns by politicians to advance their agenda. i simply believe child abuse and exploitation is too serious an issue for u.s. senators to cheapen it with baseless accusations and ill-conceived legislation. this is the last subject --
protecting our kids -- that elected officials ought to be playing politics with. i'm going to use the remainder of my time, madam president, to discuss another issue that came up often in the debate, and that's the right of american women to control their bodies. i'm talking here about roe v. wade. the supreme court has effectively overturned roe already when you look, for example, at the various states. the courts overturned roe for millions and millions of people. they did it on the shadow docket by allowing an obviously unconstitutional bounty law in texas to go into effect. now states all over the country are passing similar laws. in some states they're going
even further to restrict the fundamental right of women to control their own bodies. the fact of the matter is this debate is not about roe. it's becoming commonplace for republicans to say out in the open that the supreme court ruled incorrectly in gris world v. connecticut, the 1965 case that affirmed the right of married people to use contraception. that's what this debate has become all about. not the right to a safe and legal abortion. it's about rolling back, madam president, the right to birth control. republicans are saying that the case that affirmedded the right to use birth control was wrongly decided. that's what our colleague from tennessee, who just spoke said about the hearings on judge
jackson's nomination. it's enough to leave you wondering, madam president, what year is this. what century is this? this was based on a federal law from the 1807's -- 1870's. a time when women couldn't even vote. for connecticut to have that on the books is ridiculous. the women's right activist whose name is atop the case once joked that the state would have to put a gynecology table at the greenwich toll station to get the contraception they needed. but the history in connecticut
shows this oldest restriction on liberty fell hardest on women without means even when the law was badly out of date. the supreme court ruled correctly when it struck down connecticut's law in 1965. the court recognized that the government ought to stay out of people's private decisions about family planning. a few years later the court applied the griswald precedent. the year after that came roe. these cases are linked. they are about letting the government control when somebody decides to start a family. we're talking about rolling back 80 years of basic human rights. prior to her appointment on the supreme court, ruth bader ginsburg wrote in these debates over roe, and i'll quote, also in the balance is a woman's autonomous charge of her life ale full course. her ability to stand in relation
to man's society and state as an independent self-sustaining equal citizen. when the court upheld roe in 1992, the majority ruled and i quote, the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. if women can't legally obtain birth control and can't legally obtain abortion, they no longer have legal control over their bodies. let's be clear who does. the government has that control. if women do not control their own bodies, they don't control their own lives, americans don't control their own lives, they are not free and equal under the law. tossing out roe, the way this court has is an act of judicial radicalism. every republican supreme court nominee swears up and down they
respect precedent, they won't legislate from the bench and then they go out and toss out roe on the shadow docket. for republicans to go after griswold is dangerous. for this to be ruled on 58 years after the case -- this is not just birth control is part of basic health regimens, it's because women in america have equal rights to chart the course of their lives and when to become pregnant. now, republicans often talk about their position in the context of states' rights. too often what they're saying is they believe in states' rights only if they believe the state is right. and we see that on issue after
issue. and, finally, it's important to consider these debates in the context of what's happening in state houses around the country. republican legislators are effectively banning abortions, they are doing more to protect rapists versus rape victims. they are criminalizing the act to help women obtain the health care they need. some states want to make it impossible to use those kinds of medicines and therapies to safely end pregnancy early. a republican lawmaker in missouri recently proposed forcing women to carry atopic pregnancy to term which is effectively a death sentence. the bottom line is what's happening today in 2022 is collectively the most extreme
attack on reproductive health, freedom inequality in america that i can remember. i will close by saying this is not the same debate as we had over roe. state-level republicans are going way beyond that point. for republicans here in this congress to be going after griswald, after birth control is a shocking escalation in the fight they're making to roll back the rights of women. american lives and liberty are at stake. americans need to be prepared to fight for freedom and equality in the months and years ahead. i'm sure going to be out there with them. in the meantime, i believe justice jackson's going to make an outstanding supreme court justice, a bulwark for the rights of women and all americans. this is an historic
confirmation, one that is long overdue. i'm proud to give judge jackson my vote and i urge my colleagues to support her nomination as well. and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. a senator: thank you, madam president. i'm here today to discuss what i saw this past weekend when i took a trip to our southern border in texas. mr. hagerty: we heard about the effects of the border crisis in our own communities in tennessee, how mayors and sheriffs are seeing drug overdoses and other gang
activity there in tennessee. we learned what's happening in our border is simple. well-advanced drug cartels with the help of the chinese communist party are exploiting our society to make billions of dollars in drug trafficking. this increasingly powerful criminal enterprise is expanding further into american communities. our trip revealed two key insights. first, under biden policies, this national security crisis is unmanageable. second, and paradoxically, this crisis is well within the federal government's to fix. my simple take away is this, when every american saw what we saw and heard, this would end. america wouldn't tolerate this. it's a crisis. here's the cartels' -- cartel's
business model. fentanyl ingredients are shipped to mexico and it is turned into astonishingly potent drugs bound for the united states. last year fentanyl seized at the border was enough to kill every american. and that's just what we caught. think about what's not been caught. think about what's getting through. the cartels control the entire mexican side of the u.s. border and each migrant must pay thousands of dollars for safe passage to these cartels, often through indentured servitude, many young women become victims of human trafficking. the more money for cartels, the more drugs they produce. for cartels, the illegal immigrants are more than a revenue source, they are a tool to transfer drugs and criminals.
they fush scores -- they push scores of migrants and then exploit the gaps to move across drugs, gang members, those they refer to as high-value individuals, terrorist watch list members and others. border patrol agents told me given the record-breaking border crossings they are facing, there are times when they are busy processing paperwork, leaving the border wide open for drug and human trafficking. the drugs and gang members and accompanying violence flood into our american communities. as one agent put it, the people crossing the border don't stay in this area and neither do the drugs. more than 100,000 americans died last year from drug overdoses, mostly from fentanyl, which is more akin to c.c.p.
the tennessee mayors told me deaths from illegal drug overdoses are at record highs. our tennessee sheriffs know the families in their communities. they told me the toughest part of their job is to see a mother or grandmother and go to their home and tell them their son or grandson will never return. it's heartbreaking, each one of these obituaries have the c.c.p.'s fingerprint on it. this is essential to the cartels' operation. these illegal immigrants are incentivized to come because of the current catch and release policy. last friday, around midnight, near a stretch of course unfinished boartd wall out -- border wall, our vehicle came across 15 recently arrived migrants. they approached us and asked us where to find the border patrol
agents. they wanted to turn themselves in having been coached by their cartel handlers that this was the first step to u.s. government funded release into america. our policies are so upside down that the suspects are looking for the officers. nevertheless, u.s. border patrol and other law enforcement agencies are working tirelessly day and night. with the biden administration refuses to give them the tools that they need to deal with this crisis. border patrol with process a maximum of roughly 5,000 migrants a day. right now they're facing nearly 8,000 migrants a day and when the biden administration lifts title 42 authority, they fear the number could exceed 15,000 per day. therefore, the couldn't constant plea i heard from border patrol agents is this, we need effective policy, not more agents, not more equipment.
bad policies are what have create this incentive to cross the beernd eliminating these -- and eliminating this these policies is the only fix. our agents signed up to protect the border. they told me that the migrant protection protocols were perfect example of the need for a policy change. this was for migrants seeking asylum to remain in mexico until it was determined if they were entitled to asylum. most are not. when it was implemented in 2019, the agent said it was like flipping a switch because people -- this stopped people coming when they knew they wouldn't get in. this remain in mexico policy cut illegal crossings dramatically yet the biden administration nixed it. border crossings quadrupled.
washington democrats ignored the crisis and hope that the american people will too. they don't travel to the border because they don't want to answer for the crisis that they created. they've chosen appeasement of loud radical immigration groups over american security. over american sovereignty. president biden and vice president harris hasn't seen the border stations where the border patrol battle a crisis that their departments haven't given them the tools is address. for many americans, this crisis seems far away at least until it's too late, until their child, their grandchild, their brother and sister who become a statistic. that's the other thing i heard constantly from border patrol and law enforcement agents. we need someone to tell america what's happening here. with the mez and media -- the president and media averting their eyes, it is even more important for america to spread
the word before more migrant lives are destroyed in the journey or through indentured servitude once they arrive and more communities are damaged beyond repair. what can we do to address this crisis? even though the border crisis is worse than ever, the biden administration is voluntarily ending title 42 pandemic authority. the border patrol agents i met say it will make this record breaking crisis worse. such a surrender of american security would be intolerable. there is another health crisis, the cartel send migrants to bog down the agents that takes five times longer without title 42 and they use the gaps to move fentanyl across the border. we have to enclose this with better policy.
i have legislation to add drug smuggling for additional basis. overdoses have become an epidemic in america. this legislation would allow the secretary of health and human services to use title 42 to combat drug trafficking across the border. this bill would give our border patrol agents the tools they need to quickly remove migrants who illegally cross the border leaving agents to stop drug traffickers. more than 100,000 americans died from drug overdoses, many from fentanyl coming from across the southern border. we need title 42. it is a tool that would save american lives and every state in the union immediately. as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on health, education, labor and pensions be discharged from further consideration of s. 3959 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to
reconsider be considered married and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from high high. mr. schatz: this is not the right way to get to the fentanyl problem. this gives the secretary the right to shut down all asylum seekers from a country on the basis of any type of drug, no matter how much is in possession, how fctly that -- frequently that drug is possessed, what country they're coming from. we're calling for essentially a complete shutdown of the asylum program because there mighten fentanyl somewhere. but it also gives the secretary authority to stop asylum seekers coming from any country for any drug at any scale. now, title 42 authority is a serious thing. it is a blanket authority to block anyone presenting themselves for asylum. we've seen the horrific images
in ukraine. we know between 4 million and 5 million people are already refugees. and we know that the united states as the indispensable nation wants to take a leadership role in accommodating these refugees in europe and if necessary, in the united states. people presenting themselves for asylum, escaping their dangerous home country, that is actually part of the american dream. that is in a lot of ways how many of us arrived, right? there may not have been this statutory framework but the principle involved is not that you came from some other place far away to make a better life for yourself. sometimes it was that. but sometimes it was to escape the programs as was the case with my grandparents from kiev to odessa, actually to canada
and then to hawaii. and so this authority is no small thing. and to give the secretary of h.h.s. this blanket authority to essentially shut down all asylum seekers because we're afraid, appropriately afraid of a specific drug is just a little hand fisted and i appreciate the senator's remarks. i think there are better ways to work on this and therefore i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. hagerty: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. hagerty: i want to thank my colleague from hawaii for his remarks. i want to explain what just happened here. my colleague objects despite the fact that record breaking numbers of americans are currently dying from overdoses fueled by fentanyl coming across our border. this legislation is a tool to help save american lives. indeed a hundred thousand
american lives were lost last year to drug overdoses. these lives are being deprived of the american dream forever. so democrats are categorically opposed to commonsense border security tools to prevent drug trafficking into america no matter how bad the drug overdose numbers get. how much longer will it take to change course on the biden policies that created this national security crisis. how much longer will we allow our immigration system to be manipulated by a massive transnational criminal alliance between the chinese communist and billion dollar criminal cartels who are shipping deadly quantities of illicit drugs into the united states? madam president, i yield the floor.
education department extended it twice today being the third extension. millions of americans were struggling of course at that time to stay afloat because of the paws in repayments 41 million americans were able to breathe a little easier during some of the toughest days of the covid-19 pandemic. america stronger than we were a year ago and we will be stronger year from now than we are today however as i administration recognizing recently extending the covid-19 national emergency, we are still recovering from the pandemic and the end precedent and economic destruction it caused and of course the root reason for this extension partnered to enable americans to continue to get back on their feet up into the hardest years this nation has faced we have announced earlier today of course the plan of the extension of the paws on didn't loan repayments through august 31 of this year. that additional time will give assistance to greater financial security and the department of
education's effort to continue improving loan programs. also i would note on the covid funding bill we have made clear for months about our funding use and at every step of the way we are protected to the details republicans have asked for it even when they have asked for has changed in real time. this is kevin munoz. this is 385 pages of information we have given to capitol hill and brief them on how covid funding has been >> , what we need and what the needs are. these are the kinds of details we have provided and constantly briefed members on the hill to make clear to them what the impact will be if we do not get this funding. you can have access for this if you would like as well. we will make copies for you. thank you, okay. unfortunately as we have gone through before going back to
january while we have worked with members of commerce democrats and republicans on the funding needs and the dozens of briefings. we have had three dozen conference calls ensured more than an dozen 385 pages and we have given congress a full accounting of every dollar that's been covid correspondents and a full accounting of the entire american rescue plan which as you all know will be on direct medical needs. we provided specifics of planned additional funding and how will be deployed against the additional purchase of monoclonal and pills and vaccines. unfortunately even after senate leadership agreed on it pared down bipartisan bill senate republicans decided to move the goalpost goal post it again and force an amendment on something completely independent of our covid response. at this point the question we have is our republicans acting in good faith to provide the resources we need to save american lives or just plain
politics? the virus is not waiting for republicans in congress to get their act together. we know the a2 is here and we know it's more transmissible. we know that it's a leading to increased cases and we have seen the impact on our resources. the program helps doctors from is another for writers to ensure -- due to of funds. america's supply of monoclonal antibodies to keep people out of the hospital will run out as soon as late may and her test manufacturing capacity will begin ramping down at the end of june. we are going to continue to work closely with congress to drive towards a solution because the president knows knows the can't afford and asked in this moment. he requires politicians to stop skirting their responsibilities for the american people. covid is not over and we have an application to our country, the american people. finally the last thing last night's you may have all seen we announced the authorization of
the additional $100 million to the department of defense. the package will meet ukraine's urgent need for an additional get one anti-armor systems which we provided to ukraine and they have been using them effectively to defend their country but the javelins have been one of the most effective weapons to ukranians have been combating russian tanks and armored vehicles. they were critical in the sense of kyiv and other areas and we want to ensure we continue to get them in ukranians hansbrough got also continued to work with allies and partners to provide ukraine with additional capabilities and expect to have more to announce in the coming days. kevin has been out here and i have embarrassed him in the past that i will keep a sharper will keep a sharper and kevin many the no's are covid spokesperson. kevin recently turned 26 which would you can barely rent a car. he can now. he has become an expert. he is stalwart in works 20 hours
a day and he is indispensable. i'm grateful to kevin who provide the props but to provide all of you with many answers on a daily basis. >> you mentioned covid -- [inaudible] [inaudible] >> i think what the president is doing is following protocols and models and that's exactly what we would recommend the rest of the country do. that includes getting vaccinated getting boosted getting an extra boost or fewer eligible as the president did just last week and obviously taking any extra
precautions that is recommended to keep yourself safe and obviously in washington d.c. we remain in the yellow zone. in the president will follow those protocols as needed. i will get you an answer to that as soon as possible. i know he is a regular testing cadence which has been a couple of times a week and we will get to that in the briefing. [inaudible]
>> we have seen a pattern over time of president putin and russian oligarchs -- assets and resources in the bank accounts and their family members of this was an effort to get to those assets and that's way these individuals were sanctioned. again we look at where assets may be stored and stashed and make a decision and an assessment on that. >> "new york times" has verified a group of ukrainian capturing russian troops outside of the village. has the white house seen these videos and you have a response? >> i have seen the video. i don't have any confirmation of the report. >> so far the administration or says the u.s. is >> $2 billion since the
beginning. he said the u.s. is committed to doing everything he can to help ukraine in help ukraine in this fight. general milley is correct in what he said yesterday that this could go on for several years. are these numbers ion of judge ketanji brown jackson to serve as an associate justice of the u.s. supreme court. let me begin may remarks by noting that i've enjoyed getting to know judge jackson. my visits with her, conversations with her in the committee and otherwise and also my interaction with judge jackson's family have all reinforced what i know of her generally, which is that she's a good person, a noble citizen, someone who has earned a very impressive academic and professional credentials. after graduating from harvard law school, she ended up clerking at all three levels of the federal judiciary and worked in a number of positions over the years as a lawyer. she's now as a judge served as a
federal district judge and served on the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit, an appellate court position. if confirmed to the u.s. supreme court, she will she will have served at all three levels of the federal judiciary, which is an impressive accomplishment and one that i think would benefit the supreme court. they have -- anytime you have the insight of someone who has served in that many roles, it can be helpful. she is a good person, comes with impressive qualifications, academically and professionally. but i do have concerns, and those concerns are what i want to turn to now. many of them date back to efforts by groups like demand justice to shame and intimidate judge jackson's former boss and the justice who she'd be replacing if confirmed to this position, justice breyer, into retiring by paying for a
billboard, a billboard mounted on a truck to drive around the supreme court of the united states bearing the slogan "retire breyer." she is same groups are now the same groups that are spending money, millions of dollars, to advocate for judge jackson's speedy confirmation. and then there was the shameless leaking of justice breyer's decision to retire well before he was ready to announce it. now we find ourselves in the midst of a needlessly rushed nomination process where liberal dark money groups are pressuring senate democrats to confirm their preferred supreme court nominee months, many months in advance of when she could actually be seated on the court. because of this false sense of urgency being presented by the radical left, we've also seen the chairman of the senate judiciary committee refuse to
accommodate reasonable and commonsense document requests from republican members of that committee. the same members of the committee who demanded more time to review and interrogate a nominee about his high school yearbook are now feigning outrage that we should be -- i -- insisting that it's somehow unacceptable that we should demand more time to review a nominee's own judicial record. the contrast is significant. let me provide some additional context to illustrate how outrageous that aspect of that situation is. my republican colleagues and i have been very keen to hear from judge jackson about her judicial philosophy. this is something that's an essential part of assessing any nominee's fitness for office.
at the higher level the nomination, the more important it is to understand that. nowhere is this more important than when the nominee is someone who's been nominated to serve on the highest court in the land, the supreme court of the united states. judge jackson significantly has refused to describe her judicial philosophy or even to agree that she has one. instead, she's told us that she has a methodology, that this methodology, neutrally applying the law to all relevant facts a, is nothing more than a simple statement, a simple rote recitation of what judges do, not an explanation of how they do it. when republicans on the judiciary committee pressed judge jackson for more information about her judicial philosophy or any statement about it, chairman durbin and the nominee both directed us to her judicial record. so we asked judge jackson about
her record. we inquired about questionable sentences in child pornography cases, sentences that appear to constitute a pattern and practice of giving inexplicably light sentences to criminals, people who were caught trafficking in what can only be described as the product of a commercialization of child sex torture. these are vile offenses. and her response was that we simply couldn't understand her sentencing decisions. we couldn't understand them just by looking only at the public record because we didn't see what she saw. we didn't have the information that she had. now, chairman durbin told us that we can discern judge jackson's judicial philosophy from her record. judge jackson told us that we can't understand her judicial record without all the supporting documents that informed her decisions. so we asked for those supporting
documents, which included presentence reports from those cases involving child pornography possession. chairman durbin's response? not on my watch. his words, not mine. democrats dismissed our requests as baseless attacks on judge jackson herself. what have we said that isn't true? but do they contest that judge jackson presided over those cases, that she in fact imposed those sentences? do they contest that she imposed those sentences or that the sentences departed from guideline ranges and from the requests of the prosecutors? these are simply the facts in the record. and we have questions about them, legitimate questions. so if this is a baseless attack to a nominee's factual record, what exactly is the purpose and scope of the senate's duty to
offer our advice and consent werer to such nominations? now, after we pushed back, chairman durbin based his continued refusal on the sensitive nature of the documents at issue. now, i agree completely that presentence reports are highly sensitive. they contain sensitive information in them, and this body of written work product deals with necessarily sensitive materials on a regular basis. the united states senate deals with sensitive records, and so the fact that these are sensitive documents doesn't mean that we can't handle them. in fact, we already have security measures in place to protect that kind of information. we even have specified rooms where we can and routinely do
see sensitive information. the chairman says that parents are living in fear that presentence reports discussing harm to their children would be confidentially shared with this body for the limited purpose of allowing us to do our job, to review judge jackson's record. they get more likely, far more likely, in fact, that parents of sexually exploited children live in fear that their children may be victimized again when one of judge jackson's defendants gets released from prison after an unconscionably or, indefensibly short sentence. to make matters even works not only have democrats refused republican requests for more information on judge jackson's
judicial record, they withheld information from me and my republican colleagues on the judiciary committee. i'm referring in this context to a chart referenced accidentally about a democratic member of the judiciary committee summarizing probation office sentencing recommendations gleaned from the presentence reports, the same presentence reports that we have requested and that we have not been allowed to see. now, i have to admit, i'm still unclear as to how the majority obtained this information. chairman durbin wrote to republicans that the chart was given to him by the white house, which in turn obtained the chart from judge jackson's chambers. however, when i and every other republican member of the senate judiciary committee wrote to judge jackson to request further
information, she replied that she had no way of obtaining the requested information because it, quote, is the property of the u.s. district court for the district of columbia and i am no longer a member of that court, close quote. how then did her chambers obtain the information that was provided to the white house and then provided to senate democrats, which came from the presentence reports? do the democrats have something to hide, something that they can avoid, avoid having to reveal and have discussed by rushing judge jackson's nomination? what might it be? it may be the one thing judge jackson steadfastly refused to share -- her judicial philosophy. now, despite my democratic colleagues pretending that judicial philosophy is some sort of arcane and esoteric concept that doesn't matter, americans
everywhere instinctively understand its importance. now, while they may not all use the same terminology, americans know why justice, as we imagine lady justice always depicted as being blind or blindfolded, and that is to ensure equal justice under the lawsuit for everyone, regardless of their race, their religion, their background, their creed. that kind of justice matters to every petitioner, every respondent, every plaintiff that comes before our courts. that kind of justice can be ensured only by judges adhering to a guiding principle by which they bring clarity out of often unclear language. the supreme court is not a representative body. congress is, and justices are not accountable to the people
once confirmed, but we are. that's why we've heard from virtually every nominee that their personal perspectives on x, y, and z don't matter because they're full committed to applying the law without their own personal perspectives getting in the way. that's exactly right and could not more fully demonstrate the importance of judicial philosophy. when a justice is swayed by her natural inclinations or fails to get to a neutral place when deciding a particular case, adherence to her judicial philosophy keeps her from violating that commitment. that guiding principle constitutes a judge's judicial philosophy. now look, judicial philosophy is not a methodology. as i said earlier, when judge jackson described her judicial methodology as simply applying the law to the facts, that's not describing her unique approach to judicial decision
making. she was simply reciting the definition of what a judge does. every judge applies the law to the facts. that's literally what it means to be a judge. the question is how. because statutory and constitutional language is often unclear, whether on its face or as applied in a particular context. what matters is how a judge resolves that ambiguity. laws are not self-interpreting. an interpretation is rarely obvious especially in the difficult cases that tend to uniquely come before the supreme court of the united states on the merits. you have to have a guiding principle by which to bring clarity out of unclear language. that is your judicial philosophy. a judge without a judicial philosophy is no more useful than a pastor without a theology. it's someone making it up as they go along, dressing up their opinions as holy writ.
a nominee who claims to have no judicial philosophy is either being misleading or is perhaps unsuited to a lifetime appointment on the federal bench, let alone on the highest court in the land. yet, the vast majority of president biden's judicial nominees have repeatedly asserted that they simply don't have one, that they lack a judicial philosophy. this sudden and uniform shift suddenly and strongly suggests that they're being coached to give precisely that inex-politickible, in -- inexplicable, indefensible answer. every judge has a judicial philosophy whether they acknowledge it or not, whether it is definable by a few words or a few sentences, they do have one. when a nominee refuses to describe her judicial philosophy, the likely explanation is simply that she does have one. she just knows that neither the public nor this body would approve of it. in that case, we're left to
infer what her judicial philosophy is from her record, which is precisely what chairman durbin and judge jackson suggested that we do. except, as i've already pointed out, they don't want us to have the whole record, and they're unreasonably denying our access to the whole record. so again, judge jackson refuses to tell us what her judicial philosophy is. senator durbin says we can find it in her record. judge jackson says we can't fully understand her record without all the supporting documents, but neither of them will let us see these documents. if this makes you nervous, that's because it should. so why does this matter? well, we get to see -- we got to see this firsthand two weeks ago. while judge jackson insisted that she didn't have a judicial philosophy, she actually did give us a small peek into it.
in response to a question from senator durbin about the sentencing guidelines and child pornography offenders, she acknowledged congress implemented a statutory scheme with specific directors to courts -- directives to court to help them determine how to sentence defendants found guilty of possessing or distributing child sexual assault material. but then she admitted that she and other judges have made a habit of using the discretion they're given in applying the sentencing guidelines to disregard or discount the parts that in their view no longer make sense. saying, and i quote here, quote, courts are adjusting their sentences in order to account for the changed circumstances, close quote. with all due respect, that's not her or any other judge's decision to make. courts don't change the law. congress changes the law. if congress one day decides that
receiving child sexual assault material electronically is somehow less offensive than receiving it through the mail, then we'll change the law. judge jackson insists that she was statutorily required to consider the factors, the very factors she relied upon to depart from the guidelines, consistently sentencing defendants to prison terms considerably below where the sentencing guidelines would have sent her. all that's true, but all the factors listed in the statute in question codified in 18 u.s.c. section 3553, judge jackson seems to weigh quite heavily those factors that will decrease an offender's sentence and gives apparently short shift to those that would lengthen the sentence in these child pornography cases. this kind of cherry-picking resulted in astonishing outcomes
like giving one defendant three months in prison instead of ten years. her willingness to change the outcome based not on the law but based on her own sense of, quote-unquote, changed circumstances, demonstrates a lack of judicial humility and restraint, and that's troubling. unfortunately, this lack of judicial humility and restraint was not limited to any narrow line of cases. it wasn't limited to those cases that involved the production and distribution and possession of child pornography. in the case of make the road new york v. mcaleenan, judge jackson ignored clear statutory language stating that she didn't even have jurisdiction to review the case. she set aside that language and instead reached back in time to apply the previously enacted and
much broader administrative procedures act to obtain her preferred outcome. the outcome advocated for by the dark money group arabella advisors, which happens to be funding the campaign for her confirmation. when asked about this case, judge jackson doubled down on her faulty reasoning, even though it had been overturned by the left-leaning d.c. circuit. unfortunately, this was not the only case where judge jackson ignored clear statutory language to assert jurisdiction and reach her preferred policy outcome. to make matters worse, judge jackson took multiple opportunities in her responses to my colleagues' written questions to separate herself from principles that formed the bedrock of our constitutional republic. when asked by senator cruz if she believed that individuals possessed natural rights, she said, quote, i do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights, close
quote. now this is after she acknowledged that these lines from our declaration of independence reflect natural rights. we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they're endowed by their creator with certain unalienable life that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. when asked by senator cornyn if she believed that natural law is reflected in the bill of rights, she stated that she, quote, would interpret the bill of rights based on the methods of constitutional interpretation, the supreme court employs. not based on principles derived from natural law, close quote. these responses eliminate any hope that i had that even if judge jackson interprets and applies statutes incorrectly, she would still be guided by our founding documents. every part of judge jackson's record -- that is every part that we've been given -- seems to indicate something of a desire to separate herself from
grounding principles in order to reach her desired outcomes. this is why judicial philosophy matters. this is why it isn't just some esoteric exercise for law nerds. this is why it matters and should matter to every american. when a judge can impose their own policy views in contradiction of the expressed will of the people through their elected representatives in congress, it doesn't just undermine our representative system of government. as we've seen here, it can put child predators back on the streets. in one case, the convict upon release from his short jail sentence resumed seeking out children to the point that judge jackson had to agree to sentence him to six months in a halfway house. in a another case the convict who had been convicted of raping his 13-year-old niece and then
falsifying his address to evade the sex offender registry, sexually assaulted another family member after being released from the light sentence previously imposed by judge jackson. neither of these defendants would have had these opportunities to reoffend had judge jackson just followed the sentencing guidelines and what the law required. judicial philosophy matters. it's foundationational to the fabric to our constitutional republic. there is not a single judicial philosophy. it is either going to deem it acceptable or not acceptable. they need to have one, be willing to talk about it and explain what animates, what motivates their decision making, how they will go about construing these statutes. if judges won't commit to giving effect to the words of the laws that congress passes, as
understood at the time they were written and enacted, then american voters have no control over the laws that govern them. we'll be ruled in that kind of scenario by a self-anointed class of five philosopher kings in black robes. i fear judge jackson may see the court in that very way. i fear that based on her answer to a question in the hearing raised by one of my colleagues, response to that question, she said, quote, well, any time the supreme court have five votes, they have a majority for whatever opinion they determine, close quote. the constitution demands more, and the american people deserve better. for all these reasons, i oppose
judge jackson's nomination. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: mr. president, we are in the middle of a horrible global pandemic. later this month we will pass a tragic milestone of a million americans killed by covid-19. already more than six million globally have died. and i know we are all sick and tired of it, completely tired of it, done with it. i hear all the time at home and here that we are done with this pandemic. but unfortunately, it is not done with us. this week this body has failed to take minimally responsible action. and i'm going to speak for a few minutes to what it means that we
have failed to come together to pass another urgently needed appropriations bill both to meet our domestic needs for therapeutics, for vaccines, and for treatment and for the development of the next vaccine for the next variant, and what it means that we have delivered zero additional resources for global public health, to address this worst global pandemic in a century. the bill that we should be taking up now and is being blocked by disagreements would have provided $10 billion to help provide additional protection for 330 million americans, to buy the therapeutics that we need, to invest in the research to make sure that we are ready for the next variant, to finish providing the public health support for vaccination. while we may think we're done with the virus, 30,000
americans yesterday tested positive. it has touched all of our communities, our families. my own family, our own neighborhoods. we are not done with this. senator schumer and others of my colleagues have been saying on this floor and in public and in private relentlessly, we must deliver more resources. well, i'm here to say that we cannot get this pandemic under control here in the united states and secure the safety and health of our people until we have delivered meaningful vaccine protection around the world. it is shortsighted for us to say that because we're done with it, it's done with us. i will remind you, we have twice before gone through periods where things were looking better, things were looking up, and then the delta variant emerged, the omicron variant emerged in other places in the world where vaccination rates were not what we might hope for, not what we have achieved here and in other
countries. so let me briefly explain why this is the case of pay me now or pay me later. i understand the fiscal concerns that have driven some to say we should spend no more, but i think we will discover the foolishness of a view that says we need not spend more. first, it's just a waste of money, folks. we've already bought hundreds of millions of vaccine doses that are now not going to be delivered in countries in the world, and particularly in africa, where the public health systems are not developed enough to actually translate vaccine doses into vaccinations. as i learned during the e-bola epidemic in liberia, ha last mile from the capital to the reasonable johns to villages is really hard to navigate. hard in the united states, heck, but in countries without cold
storage chains, without rural public health resources, without the resources to pay for people to go vaccinate, not having that last dollar to go that last mile means we are letting people die when we've got the vaccines to save their lives, and it means we continue to have 2.8 billion unvaccinated people around the world. second, this is a moment where we can teach the world again that the united states, long the most reliable global public health partner, can be counted on in this critical moment of dozens of countries could not get our vaccines six months or a year ago, so they've relied on chinese and russian vaccines that are ineffective against omicron. a variant emerged able to get around the vaccines delivered by the chinese and russians. so we have a moment when dozens
of countries around the world are asking for our help. we've got the vaccines. we've got the opportunity. and we're failing to take advantage of this moment. the most compelling reason, of course, is our own people's health. we've seen this cycle before, and we will see this cycle again. how bad is the vaccination status in other places around the world? well, briefly, yemen, a country undergoing a horrific war with widespread famine, their vaccination rate is less than 1.5%. in haiti, in our hemisphere, a nation of 11 million people, their vaccination rate is below 1%. the number of folks fully vaccinated in two great countries on the couldn't in any event of africa, tanzania, 60 million people, nigeria, 200 million people, below 5%. we cannot afford to allow this
vaccine -- excuse me, to allow this virus, covid-19, which is like a safe cracker, out there in the world to just keep twisting the dials and testing, testing, testing, because every time it infects someone it has the chance to mutate. every time it mutates, it has the chance to get past our defenses. we will regret this failure. we need to treat this like the global health emergency it is, and we need to realize that we already had hundreds of millions of people facing food insecurity before the russian invasion of ukraine, accelerated. the vulnerability of millions of people around the world, because ukraine is the breadbasket from which is fed countries all over the region, the middle east to north africa, syria to somalia we are going to see food riots, increased food instabilities and millions more in hungry. i will keep working at this, mobilizing and engaging
colleagues, democrat and republican, making the case until it is done. but we have a moral imperative, an economic imperative, a political imperative, a humanitarian imperative to save our own country and our own people by providing the resources the world needs and deserves. we have so many good partners in this, organizations like begun and ulglc, care, catholic relief services, save the children, bread for the world, too many to name. we need the same energy, engagement in this chamber as we've heard from around the country and the world. the world is looking to the united states to use the vaccines we have, use the resources we have, provide the support to get us on the other side of this pandemic globally. mr. president. , this is the moment that we should do it. mr. president, i want to speak briefly to a great
accomplishment that will occur in this senate later this week, the confirmation to the united states supreme court of judge ketanji brown jackson. as a member of the judiciary committee, i have lived through, i have enduring several confirmation processes. i will say this is one that brings me some joy, a sense of lift, that we are making history for this chamber and for the supreme court. justice breyer, who has announced his intention to retire, is someone who has spent decades on the federal bench, on the supreme court, and has lived up to the highest ideals of american jurisprudence, and i'm confident judge jackson, as justice jackson, will continue in that tradition. she has, as we learned in our week of confirmation hearings, a deep understanding of the constitution, a great sense of the balance and the role of a judge, limited to understanding the constitution, law, and facts
passed, in front of her and with a limited role to decide the questions presented based on the law and the facts. we also got to hear about her family, her history, her experiences, her service, her impeccable legal credentials, her service on the sentencing commission, her work as a trial and appellate court judge, her experience as a clerk at all levels of the federal judiciary, and her time as a federal public defender. she is a devoted daughter, sister, wife, mother, friend, and someone who is humble enough to say that she knows and loves the constitution from which our freedoms flow. she stands on the shoulders of those who went before her, her parents, both proud hbcu graduates and the first in her family to go to college. her uncles and her brothers served in law enforcement and
the military. she is so well grounded in those institutions and traditions that have made our nation great, and it fills me with confidence to know that a person of this skill, of this background, of this sense of judicial temperament, who endured a grilling that was at times tenant tantamount to harm by other members of the judiciary committee, demonstrated her grace, courage, and integrity under sustained fire. i very much look forward to the votes we will take in this chamber later this week, and i will be honored to vote to confirm judge ketanji brown jackson to be the next associate justice of the united states supreme court. thank you, mr. president. mr. whitehouse: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. whitehouse: i rise again with my
increasingly battered poster, to call on this body and in particular on corporate america to wake up to the threat of climate change. just this week, the ipcc report came out saying we are now at the do or die last-chance moment other interesting thing about that ipcc report was that it, for the first time, focused on the role of malicious fossil fuel political influence in preventing the solution. political influence is actually contributing to the climate change problem, and it's the scientists who are now pointing this out. well, one of the worst ex pos tores of that -- expositors of that, the monster in the middle of that political influence campaign in the united states, is the united states chamber of commerce. i want to talk about them in a minute, but first a quick recap, because we've known about climate change for a long time. scientists knew about the
greenhouse effect back when abraham lincoln was riding around washington in his top hat. in the 1950's, in the 1950's the oil industry began research on the effects of greenhouse gas pollution. in 1977, nearly a half century ago, exxon's top scientist warned management of what he called general scientific agreement. mav a century ago -- half a century ago, mind you, general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels, end quote. a republican-led committee, led by my predecessor, john chaffee, led a climate hearing on -- a senate hearing on climate change in 1986. and in 1989, the chamber of
commerce, one of the most influential forces in washington and now one of the biggest lobbyists for fossil fuel interests, the u.s. chamber of commerce issued a report for business leaders about the threat of climate change. we've dug out that report because they entered it into the record in a house proceeding later that day. and here's what that report said. i'll quote. there is qualitative agreement among prognosticators that sea levels will rise, wettelands will -- wetlands will flood, saltwater will infuse freshwater supplies, and there will be changes in the distribution of tree and crop species and agricultural productivity. a significant rise in sea levels will flood now-inhabitable land in some countries. these same actions will affect wetlands and it may not be
possible to protect both coastal and wetland areas. georgia, very susceptible to this, as the presiding officer knows. flooding will intrude into water supplies, such as coastal cities , e.g., miami and new orleans. changes in temperature patterns will affect natural ecosystems by altering the distributions of species and affecting forestry and silver culture. croplands will change. the stress will depend on changes in precipitation patterns. global warming will affect snowfall patterns, hence melt, and affect water supplies most of california's water supplies are from snow melt. and if snow is reduced to rain or melts quickly during the
winter, water supplies in the summer will be less than now. does any of that sound familiar? of course. it is what we are looking at around us now, and it's what the u.s. chamber of commerce predicted in 1989. knowing that, what did the chamber do? i'll tell you what the chamber did. over the past two decades, every time congress took up good climate bills, the chamber conspired to kill them. the reason is pretty simple -- the chamber serves as the arm of the fossil fuel industry. it takes its money and it does its dirty work. a couple years ago, i witnessed at our special committee on the climate crisis explained how big trade groups like the chamber, around i quote, adopt the lowest common denominator positions on climate of their most oppositional members. fossil fuel pays the chamber to
kill anything, that threatens what the i.f.m. estimates is an over $600 billion annual subsidy for fossil fuel in the united states. on climate, it's not the chamber of commerce, it's the united states chamber of carbon. here are some of the corpses in the chamber's legislative graveyard -- in 2005, the chamber opposed bipartisan cap and trade legislation. it issued a key vote alert, a signal that whoever voted in favor of the bill coulded face an -- could face an onslaught of political attack ads. down the legislation went. the chamber used the same playbook to kill cap and trade bills in 2007, including the aptly named wake up to climate change bill that had started to gain steam, until the chamber of carbon dug in against it. in 2009, the chamber led the charge against the most
promising climate bill in decades, the waxman-markey bill. the chamber spared no effort killing it. it harangued members, issued more vote alerts, and published how they voted scorecards, with a clear message -- cross us, and we'll come after you. since then, the chamber's axis of influence in congress has refused to hold hearings on, mark up, debate, or vote on any serious climate legislation. at the same time, the chamber fought climate action in the courts and in executive agencies. here's a few of their cadavers there -- in 2010, the chamber sued e.p.a. to overturn the finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. disabling that endangerment finding would cripple the agency's ability to regulate carbon pollution under the clean air act.
when courts rejected the chamber lawsuit, the chamber then set up as central command for fossil fuel lawyers, coal lobbyists, and republican political strategists who devised the legal schemes to fight climate regulations.this produced anothr chamber lawsuit to block the clean power plan to from -- from power plants and five republican appointees on the supreme court used the shadow docket. thet didn't have proper hearings on it. once president trump took office, the chamber began attacking and undoing obama administration rules limiting carbon pollution. the chamber delivered the debunk report that the administration relied on. the chamber's climate obstruction has continued to cross all fronts under president
biden. it released a position paper championing clean coal, which is right up there next to dry water and chilly heat. and, of course, it led the charge against our reconciliation bill attacking more than $500 billion in climate-related investments. to make all this dirty work possible, the chamber weaponized the dark money powers afforded by the supreme court's ruling in citizens united. the chamber knew the power that this decision would grant them. indeed, it filed an amicus brief in that case telling the court to knock out limits on so-called outside spending. and citizens united then allowed outside groups to spend unlimited sums on election activities which teed up the chamber to funnel $150 million into congressional races, and
they bought a lot of climate denial with that money. it made them the largest spender of dark money in congressional races. dark money talks as we see every election on our television screens. but every bit as important, dark money threatens. republican colleagues have told me how this works. when a republican dares to engage with democrats to do something about climate change, a warning shot flies above their head. chamber dark money and threats killed republican support for substantial climate legislation. when i got here in the senate in 2007, there was a steady heartbeat of bipartisan climate activity, climate bill after climate bill, hearing after hearing, john mccain ran for president as a republican with a strong climate platform. that all dropped dead in 2010
with that citizens united dark money power in the hands of the chamber of commerce. which brings us to the present day. american corporations today need to tell consumers and shareholders that they care about climate change. they need to for a couple of reasons. first, some of them are actually getting hurt by climate change, big insurers, the tourist industry, agribusiness. heat waves, floods and droughts, more intense wildfires, higher sea levels. these things cost american businesses enormous amounts of money. according to noaa america sustained 103 disasters in 1980 where the total topped $1 billion and the total damage
of all those disasters is over $2 trillion -- $2 trillion lost to uncontrolled climate change thanks to dark money efforts by the fossil fuel industry and specifically its operative, the u.s. chamber of carbon. and, of course, consumers expect corporations to face up to the climate threat. the public wants us to do something and big brands like coke and pepsi need to say the right things twh when it -- things when it comes to climate and many of these companies have graint ternl climate policies within the corporation -- great internal climate policies within the corporation but then those companies turn around and pay dues to the u.s. chamber of carbon, and the chamber, the corporate serial killer of all things climate in this building goes out and kills the things the companies say they want.
according to a new report from the watchdog group influence map, the chamber remains one of the biggest impediments to climate action in america. they said, and i quote, there has been no material improvement in the chamber's climate change policy engagement over the past five years despite its positive high-level messaging on climate. influence map concluded in this report last month, the organization remains a significant blockage to u.s. climate policy and it is supported by a whole swath of corporate america. many of us want a phone call with tech net, ten of its members are on -- are a member of the chamber of carbon. they fund climate denial.
they think they're doing the right thing but they're not, they're paying the biggest denial of climate operation in this country. when coke and pepsi pay dues to the chamber of carbon, coke and pepsi's net effect on climate legislation goes negative. now the chamber keeps secret how much the fossil fuel industry paid it to turn the chamber into a worst climate obstructer. it has coralled its pro-climate members into what it calls a climate conversation that's been going on since 2019. i know that because i kicked it off. and i thought something good might happen but what has happened in that climate conversation since 2019? anything good on climate gets routed by the chamber into that climate conversation from which
nothing serious has emerged in more than two years. it's where the good climate policy goes to die. it is the black hole of good climate action. in the meanwhile, all the climate evil, that doesn't get sent to the climate conversation. it goes straight by and out into chamber operations. at the end, the effect is clear. the chamber of carbon works the will of the fossil fuel industry and blocks climate progress in congress and it does so with corporate america's acceptance and financial support. if the i.p.c. is right, that this is last call, that this is dangerous, that this is our make or break, do or die moment, then it's time for corporate america to tell the chamber of carbon to knock it off or to quit and
disassociate themselves from the worst climate obstructer in america. we should no longer tolerate this, mr. president, and i yield the floor. mr. lankford: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president, there's been a lot of conversation in the past several weeks about judge jackson and judicial philosophy. rightfully so. this is a lifetime appointment on the united states supreme court.
it's a serious position. i don't know a single senator in this room that doesn't take their responsibility seriously. this is a big issue when you put anyone on the supreme court for a life appointment. everyone's had the opportunity to be table to go through case law, cases that she's handled, that she's responded to, things that she's written, ways that she responded. actually i had time to sit down with her 45 minutes in the office to talk to -- to be able to talk and get back and forth with her a little bit. i want to give you a little context of this. many americans watched all the hearings last week, a full week of conversations with her asking all kinds of different questions. i don't serve on the judiciary committee. some on the outside -- so i'm on the outside looking in, that's why i had time individually with her to talk to her for 45 minutes. i had folks in oklahoma ask if i sat down with her and they asked
what she's like. i said, she's the kind of person you'd want to invite over to dinner and sit and visit with. extremely personable, smart, wonderful smile and interaction. you would want to invite her over for dinner. my decision is not to invite her to dinner to spend time with, my decision is how to handle the lifetime position of the supreme court and how they'll handle the law. the conversation has been circled around judicial philosophy. how will you handle cases? we can't ask how you will act on a case. we have to ask what lens will you look through. that's a reasonable conversation many her response has been interesting. her response was that she had a methodology as a judge and it has three aspects to it,
neutrality, that's a good thing, receiving all the appropriate inputs, that's making sure everyone is heard, and looking at the factual record and the text of the statute. that is a good starting point. the question goes to the next set of questions on it about how do you handle the united states constitution and where does that document fit in? is it living, changing, is it the meaningful text? that's a reasonable conversation because there are different justices on the supreme court that handle that differently. the late justice william brennan, he wrote, the constitution doesn't rest in a world that is dead and gone, but in its ability to adapt to current problems and current needs. that's not an original context locked into that. justice scalia wrote, the
constitution i apply is not living, but is dead, or as i prefer to call it, enduring. it means today not what current society or the courts think it ought to mean but what it meant when it was adopted. in other words, those words had meaning at that time. they couldn't predict what the words might mean 100 years from now. they couldn't only deal with how the words meant right now. if it's going to have a different meaning at a different time, well there has to be different law to be able to deal with that at a different time. we never got a clear answer on that. we got things towards her methodology, but that is a critical issue. there were issues about sentencing that came up and how she chose to do sentencing at a district court level and handled cases. they were all over the news about some of the cases she handled that were very lenient in the sentencing, there were questions about second amendment or about due process. there was kind of the moment of
the judicial hearings when senator blackburn asked, not a trick question, but a real conversational question about how do you handle the law and culture, and that is can you define a woman? i don't think that senator blackburn meant for that to be a trick question, but it is a question at this point, it determines how will you be able to handle the law. her response was she can't answer the question of how to define a woman because she's not a biologist. i'm not either, but i can answer that question. it is something that as a nation we need to deal with things that are self-evident. there are additional things during the hearing, but i didn't want to revisit those issues. i wanted to discuss the things not discussed. there were several issues that weren't discussed about how she handles the law. one of those is tribal law. in some areas of the country
this is a big deal and in some areas it is not at all. so i understand why it didn't come up in the hearings. in her past history in her cases, she had one case to deal with tribal law. there's a lot 0 of questions to be able to talk about. oklahoma is very proud of who we are as a state. we have great diversity as a state. we have a unique relationship in indian country in our state and i thought it was important for us to be able to talk about the relationship that our state has with 39 tribes, and, quite frankly, the history our state has. as we were the state where tribes were relocate to from the -- relocated to from the southeast of we talked about that and issues of religious liberty, first amendment issues, how you handle those cases, there's differences even in the court, even on what is the more liberal side of the court. so to often disagree on issues of religious liberty. they handle it with a different
perspective. kagan can be on either side. i was trying to discern is this person more like sotomayor or kagan. i wanted to deal with checks and balances. it didn't come up a lot in the hearings but i think that is a foundationallish. this is the fourth supreme court i sat down with personally and each of the issues is what i talked with them about. they don't often come up in the other issues but to me it's foundational. we have three branches of government. they're coequal and check each other. it's important they do check each other. the legislative branch doesn't just give it away to the executive branch or the courts or the legislative branch doesn't run over the courts or the executive branch. neither can the executive branch
or judicial branch do for either. if the judicial branch sits passive at a moment they should engage, the other two branches are not checked. or if the judicial branch engages in a moment when they should be silent, they've exceeded their authority as well. it's exceptionally important that the three branches both check each other and also know their lane and do their lane well. there are two cases that popped out. they became very significant to me and were part of our conversation as well. there was a case that came up during the trump administration when judge jackson was at the district court level. it dealt with this issue of expedited removal. now, it's my guess that she doesn't like the expedited removal process in immigration, but i didn't ask and i didn't drill down on that. so it was only my guess. but what was interesting was she ruled on a case on expedited removal and for bid the trump -- forbid the trump administration
from actually putting in place what they did and did it nationwide. the problem was when that was appealed up to the d.c. circuit court, the d.c. circuit court actually reversed judge jackson's preliminary injunction and reminded judge jackson at that point that the way the law was written made this statement that the secretary had sole and unreviewable discretion. she literally reviewed a decision made by a secretary where specifically in the law it stated a judge cannot review this decision though she overturned it only to go to the circuit court and have them overturn her. that tells me a balance of power issue, of knowing what your lane is and determining how that lane is taken on. there's another case that came up. actually during the trump administration as well when judge jackson was also in the district court and she dealt with the issue about what unions
could do and what the executive branch could do in relationship to unions. it's been a contentious issue quite frankly for decades. it's entirely reasonable to have that kind of dialogue about it. she ruled in the favor of the unions and the d.c. circuit again reversed her decision when it came there but it's not just that they reversed her decision. it's that they reversed her decision and this is the statement from the d.c. circuit. we reverse because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. in other words, that's not your responsibility in that lane. specifically that kind of issue has to be taken up by the federal labor relations board. in statute it says it can't go to a district court. it has to go to a different place. typically other judges look at it and say you can't be in this spot to be able to argue this and send it into the correct place. instead she ruled on it in favor of the unions and declared it
done until the circuit came back and said that's not your lane. that's actually the executive branch's lane. and then one of the most interesting dialogues when we had to be able to talk through things was the issue about deference. now what does this matter? well, for about 80 years congress has been writing the law that gets broader and broader and broader. quite frankly it's been a problem with both parties. though we want to see something done, we write a broad law, send it to the executive branch and say figure it out. and each executive branch is getting more creative on haw they figure it out and we deal with all kinds of regulations and both parties argue with the executive branch and why do you do that and the executive branch responds back sometimes, well, you gave me the ability to make that decision on my own so i did. this issue of deference and of delegation is a very significant constitutional principle. it's an issue that we've got to resolve here as a body. quite frankly on both sides of the aisle to be jealous of the
responsibility we're given in the constitution. but it's also an issue i think is very important for the courts to be able to engage in because the courts are able to step in uniquely to the executive branch in the way the legislative branch cannot. the legislative branch can complain about it. the courts actually can look at it and say you're out of your lane to the executive branch. if the court is passive in this, then whoever the executive is gets to run. one of the clearest examples of those is something that's called chevron deference or our deference. we won't go into the all the details on it but it basically says if a piece of legislation, the way that is written, is ambiguous, then the executive branch can interpret it in the way that they choose. i have a problem with that interpretation. because i believe if a law was written poorly, we shouldn't just give it to the executive branch and say figure it out. what do you want it to mean?
if it doesn't mean something clearly, it doesn't mean anything at all. now, it's both two -- about two issues. one is a constitutional issue. if you go to 1803, marvry v. madison, it's a foundational piece for the supreme court. it's come up over and over again through the last two centuries. the foundational statement that came out of it was the simple statement. it is emphatically the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. if the judicial hands to the executive and says we can't tell what the law says so we'll give it to you, it is literally the judicial handing to the executive something that's uniquely the judicial's power. this is no simple issue. this goes back to our balance of power. what we have is a situation now over the past several decades where congress is given its power to the executive branch. if the judicial branch does the same, giving its power to the executive branch, we have a rising executive branch and the other two bodies will look at it
and say how did that happen because we gave it away is how it happened. and we have a more and more powerful president of either party and a less and less powerful congress and judicial branch. my conversation with judge jackson, she repeated over and over to me that the court is limited, the court is limited, the court is limited. i said yes, they are limited but they have responsibility. and the court's responsibility is to say what the law is. and at the moment as i said to her, if i threw letters on the table, the executive branch doesn't have the ability to say i will make them say whatever i want to. i can't -- if a law was written and the law said orange penny, ford desk, reagan. all those are english words but quite frankly they don't really make a sentence. the authority shouldn't be given to the executive branch to be able to figure out what they can make of that.
the responsibility should be in the judicial branch to be able to look at that and says that means nothing. congress, go do your homework. clean it up. the executive branch can't just make it mean what they want it to say and say what the law is. congress has to say, make it clear, and the judicial branch has to say what the law is, and the executive branch has to apply it. now again this is very philosophical. but it's also foundational in our constitutional construct. it's why i find myself in the position of voting no for someone i personally liked when i met. but do not align with on how you handle the constitution, separation of powers, and the responsibility of the court to align with original intent of the constitution. this is not a new dialogue for us in the senate body. it's conversation we've had for two centuries that is still unresolved for us.
but we cannot select individuals that are not committed to the original meaning of the constitution and can hand to the executive branch what the law says. this is one that we need to guard and so for that reason when the vote comes tomorrow on judge jackson, i will vote no. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: i rise today in strong support of judge ketanji brown jackson's confirmation as our nation's next justice on the u.s. supreme court. oftentimes the debate in the senate on judicial nominations loses sight of the personal
stories of those who are put before us. so let me start there. let me start by talking about where ketanji brown jackson came from to reach this extraordinary point where we are poised to write an important chapter of progress in our nation's history. ketanji brown jackson was born in our nation's capital and grew up in miami. she is the daughter of two former public school teachers who themselves were raised in the jim crow south. two of judge jackson's uncles were police officers in miami, one who ultimately became the police chief. her brother served in the u.s. army and as a police officer in baltimore. judge jackson attended public school in the miami-dade county
school system. she credits her father for starting her on a path to the law as he went back to school to earn a law degree and became a lawyer working for the school board. family, education, hard work, public service all guiding judge jackson on the path that brought her to this moment, to today. she was elected mayor of her junior high school class and president of her high school class. she grew to be a standout on the speech and debate team. and when her high school counselor told her not to set her sights too high, she never accepted the limits of others. she persevered.
judge jackson went to harvard where she graduated magna cum laude. she went to harvard law school where she was a top student and editor of the prestigious law review. following graduation from law school, this nominee worked for three consecutive federal judges culminating with a clerkship from 1999 to 2 thousand for supreme court justice breyer. as judge jackson has said, this is the lesson she took from her experience. and i quote judge jackson. she said, judge breyer exemplified every day in every way that a supreme court justice can perform at the highest level of skill and integrity while also being guided by civility, grace, pragmatism, and
generosity of spirit. guided by her belief in the power and promise of the constitution and this nation's founding principles, freedom, liberty, and equality, judge jackson went on to serve as an assistant federal public defender in the d.c. circuit representing defendants who did not have the means to pay for a lawyer. when confirmed, judge jackson will be the first former federal public defender to serve on the united states supreme court. and to me this is an extremely important qualification that judge jackson holds and will bring with her to the supreme court. as a former public defender, she had firsthand experience delivering the constitution's promise of due process. this promise given to all
americans without regard to financial means or political connections is an essential element of our system of justice. we all should want this experience and the perspective it brings on our highest court because it is a fundamental protection in our justice system. judge jackson has been confirmed by the united states senate three times previously. she was first confirmed by the senate to serve as the vice chair of the u.s. sentencing commission. following in the footsteps of justice breyer, she would become the only member of the current court who previously served as a member of that bipartisan independent commission dedicated to reducing sentencing disparities and promoting
transparency parenty and proportionality in sentencing and next after president obama nominated judge jackson to be a district court judge from the district of columbia, she was once again confirmed by the united states senate in 2015. during -- in 2013. during judge jackson's eight years on the bench as a district judge, she issued more than 500 written opinions. and last year, she was again confirmed by the u.s. senate, with bipartisan support, to serve on the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit. in confirming her to each of these positions, the senate voiced its confidence in judge jackson's character, integrity, and intelligence. experience matters, and fact is judge jackson is as qualified
and experienced in the law as any nominee in our nation's history, bringing more experience as a judge than four of the current justices did combined at the time they joined the court. this strong experience has provided her a clear understanding of the role of a judge and the role of the judiciary in our system of government. as she has said herself, a judge has a duty to decide cases based solely on the law, without fear or favor, prejudice or passion. this is precisely why she has a proven record of being faithful to the constitution and being an independent, fair, and impartial judge. that is why judge jackson has earned the support of the law enforcement community, including
the fraternal order of police and the international association of chiefs of police, as well as victims of crime, including domestic violence and sexual assault survivors. i had the pleasure, and in fact joy, of meeting with judge jackson last week. no fair minded person can deny her impressive credentials and specious, and no one should deny the moment she has rightfully earned, to be considered for a seat on the united states supreme court. our meeting wasn't long, but it was long enough for me to know that she has a quality that everyone we work for wants in a judge, and certainly in a justice on the supreme court. she knows how to listen, and i have every confidence that judge jackson understands how important that quality is for a
judge to carry out their responsibility and commitment to the rule of law. judge jackson's lifetime of hard work and perseverance has prepared her well for this inspiring moment. i believe the people i work for in wisconsin agree. a young high school student in milwaukee recently said, knowing she is the first person to do that, it, like, gives me the idea that i can do big stuff too. jada davis, the first black woman to be crowned miss milwaukee and a law student at marquette university, said this, the more you see yourself in other people, the more confidence you'll have to do those same things or go after what you want. i know judge jackson has the character, temperament, and
experience we want in a justice on our highest court. i also know what this moment means to thousands of girls across wisconsin who, after judge brown jackson's confirmation, will have even more proof that they can achieve big stuff too. i believe she has a deep appreciations for the fact that the supreme court makes decisions that have a profound effect on the lives of all americans, and that she will work to serve and protect the constitutional rights and freedoms of all americans. i will proudly vote for this historic confirmation, the confirmation of judge ketanji brown jackson to the united states supreme court. and with that, i yield.
a senator: mr. president, i'm pleased -- the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: mr. president, i'm honored to follow my colleague from wisconsin, and rise as well regarding the nomination of judge ketanji brown jackson to serve as an associate justice on the supreme court of the united states. as some of you will recall, one of our colleagues from new jersey, senator booker, delivered unusually poignant and
unscripted remarks recently in the senate judiciary committee about judge jackson's nomination and credentials and character. he moved many of those who were present to tears and spelled out, as only he can, what this nomination means for our nation, in particular for the millions of black americans who look at judge jackson and see their own mothers, their own daughters, their own sisters, and their own friends. unfazed by the unfair attacks that day on judge jackson, our colleague said these words -- nobody, nobody's going to steal my joy. mr. president, i second that emotion. this historic moment and this historic nominee bring me great joy as well. over the next several minutes, i am going to talk about judge jackson's impeccable qualifications, i'm going to discuss her sterling record as a public servant, including nearly a decade as a federal judge,
that make her supremely qualified to serve on our supreme court. i also want to talk for a bit about the historic nature of this nomination, attempt to put in context just what it means for our nation and for me personally, to cast a vote to confirm the first black woman to serve on the supreme court. because today, indeed, it brings a lot of us real joy, in this body, to know that we have the opportunity, the privilege to play a small part in judge jackson's confirmation. similar to president reagan delivering on his promise years ago to nominate the first woman, justice sandra day o'connor, to the supreme court, president biden has delivered on his own promise, his nominee to be the first black woman to the highest court in our land, and the nation can be proud of the nominee that we're here to debate and to confirm. let me begin, however, by taking a moment to thank justice stephen breyer for his exemplary
service to our country. as many of our colleagues know, justice breyer was nominated to the supreme court by president clinton in 1994, when i was serving as governor of delaware then. the presiding officer was an astronaut up in the ether above our planet. justice breyer was confirmed, some will recall, by an overwhelming bipartisan vote, 87-9. 87-9. justice breyer served our country with distinction for over six decades, including as a corporal in the army reserve, the federal sirveght court judgt judge, and for nearly three decades on the bench in the highest court in our land. justice breyer is known as a consensus buehler on the bench, a trait -- consensus builder on the bench. a trait i admired during my time as governor of delaware, when i nominated literally dozens of highly qualified individuals to
serve on delaware's highly respected courts. over the past three decades, justice breyer has helped forge principled compromises to protect the constitutional rights of all americans and to uphold the rule of law. during a small ceremony at the white house in january, web justice breyer first announced that he would be retiring, he brought with him a pocket copy of the u.s. constitution. and in his brief remarks, justice breyer reminded us of how lincoln and washington and so many other giants of american history have described that document, our constitution. they described it as an experiment as justice breyer reminds us, during the time of washington and lincoln, there were plenty of folks who doubted our system of government could ever work, who said that's a great idea in principle, but it will never
work, at least not for long. as justice breyer said that day, it's our job to show them that it does work, and it will continue to work. mr. president, our constitution is made -- is maybe possibly the greatest experiment in democracy in the history of the world. over the past several years, i've spoken any number of times on the senate floor about the wisdom of the framers of our constitution. in the hot summer of 1787 they met in philadelphia and designed an intricate system of checks and balances. article 1 dealt with the congress. article 2 dealt with the executive branch of our government. article 3, the judiciary. america is the longest-running spairmd in democracy -- experiment in democracy and is more replicated than any other constitution in the world. our constitution has never been perfect. the framers never pretended that it was perfect. this past weekend i was privileged to give the keynote
address during a commencement ceremony during the port of wilmington with the nuclear submarine bearing the name delaware, the first vessel named after the state of delaware in over a hundred years. at the end of my remarks, i led a crowd of about several thousand people gathered on the delaware river right beside the submarine and its crew. among the folks in that crowd included the president of our country, the first lady of the united states, dr. jill biden, who was the sponsor of the boat. i asked everyone there to stand and hold hands and join me in reciting the preamble to the constitution, which began something like this -- we the people of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union. it doesn't say a perfect union. rather, it says a more perfect union. why is that? because our framers understood that this would be an experiment and that it will be up to each
generation that follows to decide now this experiment will proceed and if it will succeed. up to each generation to face those who say that this great experiment in democracy will never work. and it's through our actions on days like this that we show them that it does still work. judge jackson's nomination is proof that indeed we have made this nation more perfect over time, and despite our divisions, and we have them. generations of americans have worked together, often across party lines, across state lines, across philosophical lines, to make a nomination like this possible. like many americans, i've seen remarkable progress in my own lifetime. while my sister and i were born in a coal mining town in beckly, west virginia, we were raised in danville, virginia, right on the border, north of greensboro. danville was known as the last
capital of the conspiracy. forced to flee richmond after union victories piled up in early 1865, confederate president jefferson davis held his cabinet's last meeting in danville where i grew up. he did that a few days before lease surrendered to grant at app mat objection -- appomatox. though it was nearly a century after the civil war ended when my family moved to delaware, nearly a century, racial prejudice and discrimination still prevail there. growing up, my sister and i witnessed racism up close and personal. every morning, for example, our school bus would take us to an all-white high school ten miles from home, and about a half an hour later another school bus would come by and pick up black students who'd been waiting, along with us, and take them to their school, past my school and another ten miles to their school, which was not a better
school. it was a school that none of us would be especially proud of. if my sister and i went to lunch with our family, we would sit at the lunch counter, but black families were denied service. if we went to the movie theater in danville, virginia, we sat on the ground floor. the black patrons had to sit in the balcony. that is the america many of us lived in not all that long ago. same america that judge jackson's parents, johnny and ellery brown, were born into. as america, where discrimination on the basis of race was sanctioned by state governments, an america where the judicial doctrine of separate but equal was still enshrined into our laws by the supreme court, where arbitrary literacy tests kept black americans away from poll booths. an america that treated black americans like second-class citizens. despite its civil war, an emancipation proclamation, and
ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the constitution, it was an america far from perfect. through decades of struggle and thanks to the heroes of the civil rights movement, our nation began to confront injustice in our communities and inequalities in our laws and thanks to justice marshall, it went all the way to the supreme court. perhaps the greatest decision in supreme court history, brown versus board of education declared to the nation that separate but equal could never truly be equal. brown versus board of education did not make our nation perfect, but it was proof that when the supreme court is at its best, america and our constitution are at their best.
the supreme court changed the america my sister and i lived in, that judge jackson's patients lived in for the better. combined with the landmark civil rights bill, including the civil rights act of 1964 and the voting rights act of 1965, it made the america that judge jackson was born into more perfect than it was in the generations that it was before her. and i hope and pray that each generation recognizes the uniquely america opportunities afford us. as judge jackson stated in her confirmation hearing, her parents taught her and i want to quote her. unlike the many barriers that he had -- that they had to face, my path was clearer, such that if i worked hard and believed in
myself in america, i could be anything that i wanted to be. and my goodness, did she work hard. the daughter of two graduates of hbcu schools, she was the star of her debate team and elected mayor of pal mateo student -- palmetto student body. she graduated cum laude from harvard law school. she clerked for not one, not two, but three federal judges, including supreme court justice stephen breyer. judge jackson could have done anything she wanted with her resume, including well-paying opportunities in the legal profession. instead, judge jackson chose public service, in part because service was instilled in her by
her parents, both of whom were public school teachers and public service no doubt runs in her family. her younger brother felt a similar call to serve. and after graduating from another fine hbcu university, howard university here in washington, d.c., he enlisted in the u.s. army after the 9/11 attacks. he was deployed to iraq and ended up going to egypt and followed in the footsteps of two of judge jackson's uncles and became a baltimore police officer. when i met with judge jackson in my office last month we talked about the diversity of her professional experience, including her time as a public defender right here in the nation's capital. as most of us know, public defenders work very long hours for very little pay. they represent clients who cannot afford an expensive
lawyer and in some cases cannot afford a lawyer at all. our system of government affords every person charged with a crime the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial and the right to a competent defense. it's a testament of the character of judge jackson that she is so committed to equal justice under the law, she was willing to commit the early stages of her career to this important work. if confirmed, judge jackson will be the first supreme court justice to serve as a federal public defender in this court's long storied history and the first with significant criminal defense experience since justice marshall. mr. president, in 2005, i voted to confirm chief justice john roberts to the supreme court. not every democrat did that. and as you may recall, he was appointed by former president george w. bush, a republican. some of my colleagues might remember before chief justice
roberts was ever nominated to a federal judgeship, he worked in a private practice where his firm represented an individual appealing a death penalty conviction for the murder of eight people. during his 2005 confirmation hearing to the supreme court, chief justice roberts was asked about and stated and i'm going to quote him right now. here's what he said. in representing clients and serving as a lawyer, it's not my job to decide whether that's a good idea or a bad idea. the job of a lawyer is to articulate the legal argument on behalf of the client. close quote. chief roberts likened this to john adams defending british soldiers after the boston massacre, that adams showed us that this is about defending the rule of law. that principle that you don't identify a lawyer with the
particular views of a client or the views that the lawyer advances on to the client is critical to the fair administration of justice. like chief justice roberts, judge jackson has lived up to the values set out over 230 years ago and in doing so she has protected and defended our constitution. after a time as a public defender, judge jackson served as vice chair with the u.s. sentencing commission. she was confirmed unanimously by the united states senate. judge jackson was then nominated to the u.s. district court for the district of columbia. she was confirmed unanimously by the united states senate for that post. and last year president biden nominated judge jackson so serve on the d.c. circuit court of appeals, oftentimes referred to as our nation's second-highest court. yet again she was confirmed by the u.s. senate with bipartisan support. during the decade that she served as a federal judge
jackson had a track record as a consensus builder just like justice pryor. during the -- breyer. during the decade she served, judge jackson has been evenhanded and she has been impartial. during the decade she served as a federal judge, judge jackson has ruled for and against the government, in favor of prosecutors and for criminal defendants, and for both civil plaintiffs and defendants. as judge jackson told our colleagues in a judiciary committee hearing, she said a duty to decide cases based solely on the law without fear or favor, prejudice or passion. judge jackson is always guided by our constitution and it's why she received the support of judges nominated by democrats and republicans alike, by law enforcement and the civil rights community and by democrats and
republicans in this body on multiple occasions. these past few weeks i heard some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle use this firmings process -- confirmation process to talk about unfair treatment of nominees in the past. each of the nominees they referred to received a hearing and a vote. the same cannot be said of garland merrick who was nominated by president obama to serve on the supreme court. judge garland did not receive a hearing. judge garland did not receive a vote because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided to invent a new rule and most of them even refused to meet with merrick garland, one of the finest servants i have ever known and it led to a blockade many of my colleagues sigh as a -- colleagues as a
stolen supreme court seat. four years later, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle broke their own precedent and invented yet another new rule to confirm a supreme court justice eight days before election day when tens of billions of ballots had already been cast. while i will never forget this truly shameful behavior, this week we have a chance to move away from politics and place an extremely well-qualified nominee with extreme support by senators from both sides of the aisle. in the end, the american people need to trust the supreme court to make decisions on questions that impact every single american. and whether we have access to clean air is one of those issues, whether we have access to clean water, whether we have access to good health care, and whether women have the right to make their own health care decisions. we need a supreme court that
stays above the political fray. we need a supreme court that calls balls and strikes as chief justice roberts once said. a supreme court that maintains the trust of the american people as the arbiter of a constitution that protects the civil rights of all americans. judge jackson will bring a breath and a diversity of experience to the supreme court not often seen. judge jackson's resume of harvard law, clerked for three federal judges, including justice breyer, a public defender, federal district court judge and federal circuit judge is evidenced that she is among the most qualified individuals in our country for this esteemed rule. her character and intellect are beyond reproach. she weathered a grueling supreme
court nomination with dignity. judge jackson's nomination is proof that today in america one's qualifications and unrelenting work ethic earn you your spot. that public service is valued and committed to the principle that protect our country do mean something. that the sacrifices of one generation slowly but surely makes for a better america for the next generation. count me among the millions of americans who are inspired by judge jackson's life story, a uniquely american story that's provides proof that our nation can be made more perfect over time. and it brings this senator from delaware who grew up in danville, the last capital of the confederacy a much different america, it brings me great joy to be able to cast a vote to confirm judge ketanji brown
jackson to serve as an associate justice on the supreme court of the united states. and, with that, i yield the floor. mr. sanders: mr. president, i look forward for two votes for the competitiveness bills based on the assurances given to me by the majority leader. i'm not quite sure when we're going to get to that, but i look forward to offering those two roll call votes. the first motion would instruct the conference committee not to provide $53 billion to the highly profitable microchip industry without protections for the american people. the second motion would instruct conferees not to provide a $10 billion bailout to blue
origin, a space company owned by jeff bezos, the second wealthiest person in america who is also the owner of amazon. amazon is a company which in a given year pays nothing, zero in federal income taxes after making billions in profits and, by the way, in a given year mr. bezos himself, one of the wealthiest people in the country, has paid nothing in federal income taxes despite being worth nearly $200 billion. let me be very clear. mr. bezos has enough money to buy a very beautiful $500 million yacht. it looks very nice to me. not that i know much about yachts, but it does look very nice. mr. bezos has enough money to purchase a $23 million mansion
with 25 bathrooms. not quite sure you need 25 bathrooms, but that's not my business. and here is that mansion. so, no, count me in as somebody who does not think that the taxpayers of this country need to provide mr. bezos a $10 billion bailout to fuel his space hobby. when all is said and done, both of these motions are the one on $53 billion for the microchip industry and the $10 billion for mr. bezos, touch on an extremely important issue that is very rarely discussed in the corporate media or on the floor of the senate. and that is how we proceed -- how we go forward with
industrial policy in this country. i should be very clear in saying i believe in industrial policy. i believe that it makes sense in certain occasions for the government and the private sector to work together in a mutually beneficial way to address a pressing need in america. industrial policy to me means cooperation between the government and the private sector, cooperation. it does not mean the government providing massive amounts of corporate welfare to extremely profitable corporations without getting anything in return. here's your check. do what you want. have a nice day. in other words, will the u.s.
government develop an industrial policy that benefits all of our society or will we continue to have an industrial policy that benefits just the wealthy and the powerful? in 1968 dr. martin luther king jr. said and i quote, the problem is that we all too often have socialism for the rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor. i am afraid that what dr. king said 54 years ago was not only accurate back then, it is even more accurate today. we hear a lot of talk around here about the need to create public-private partnerships and that all sounds very good, but when the government adopts an
industrial policy that socializes all of the risk and privatizes all of the profits, whether it is handing the microchip industry a $5 about billion blank check or giving mr. bezos a $10 billion bailout to fly to the moon, that is not a partnership. that is the exact opposite of a partnership. that is corporate welfare. that is crony capitalism. mr. president, each and every day i have heard my republican colleagues and some corporate democrats blame inflation on runaway government spending. in fact, one of my colleagues in the democratic caucus has even suggested that we need to take a strategic pause when it comes to
making urgent federal investments in child care, health care, education, affordable housing, paid family and medical leave and home health care. policies that would substantially improve the lives of the american people. well, you know what i believe, mr. president. i believe that maybe, just maybe the time has come to take a strategic pause when it comes to providing tens of billions of dollars in corporate welfare to some of the most profitable corporations and wealthiest people on this planet. mr. president, the american people are becoming increasingly sick and tired of corporations making record br breaking profis while ordinary people struggle to pay outrageously higher
prices for gas, for rent, for food. they are sick and tired of the high cost of prescription drugs, child care, housing, groceries. they are sick and tired of c.e.o.'s making 350 times more than the average worker while over half of our people live paycheck to paycheck. the american people are sick and tired of the wealthiest people in our country and the most profitable corporations in some cases not paying a nickel in federal income tax. and would does the so-called competitiveness bill do? instead of addressing any of these issues, this bill provides $53 billion in corporate welfare
to the microchip industry with no protections for the american people. and a $10 billion bailout to mr. bezos. now that may make sense to mr. bezos and it may make sense to other corporate leaders, but it does not make sense to me nor do i think it makes sense to the american people. mr. president, in terms of the microchip industry, the american people should know the truth. we are talking about an industry that has shut down over 780 manufacturing plants in the united states and eliminated 150,000 american jobs over the last 20 years as a result of moving their production
overseas. shut down plants in america. moved overseas for cheap labor. in other words, in order to make more profits, these companies closed plants in america and hired people sometimes at starvation wages in other countries. and now, believe it or not, these very same people, very same companies, are in line to receive $53 billion in corporate welfare to literally undo the damage that they caused. now, some of my colleagues make the point that the microchip industry is enormously important for our economy and that we must become less dependent on foreign nations for microchips. i agree. there is no argument about that. but we can and must accomplish
that goal, breaking our dependence on foreign countries for microchips. we must accomplish that goal without simply throwing money at these huge corporations while the taxpayer gets nothing in return. mr. president, i suspect five major semiconductor companies will likely receive the lion's share of this taxpayer handout. they are intel, texas instruments, micron technology, global foundries, and samsung. these five companies in line for a $53 billion bailout made over $75 billion in profits last y year. the company that will likely benefit the most from this
taxpayer assistance is intel. i have nothing against intel. i wish them the very best. but let us be clear. intel is not a poor company. intel is not going broke. far from it. in 2021, intel made nearly $20 billion in profits. we are talking about a company that he had enough money to spend over $14 billion during the pandemic not on research and development but on buying back its own stock to reward its executives and wealthy shareholders. we are talking about a company that could afford to give its c.e.o. mr. pat gellsinger $116
million compensation package last year. we are talking about a company that could afford to spend over $100 million on lobbying and campaign contributions over the past 20 years. does it really sound like this company as well as the others really needs corporate welfare. i don't think so. and another company that will receive taxpayer assistance under this legislation is texas instruments. last year texas instruments made $7.8 billion in profits. in 2020 this company spent $2.5 billion buying back its own stock while it has outsourced thousands of good-paying american jobs to low-wage countries and spent more than
$40 million on lobbying over the past 20 years. that's texas instruments. and on and on it goes. so the first amendment that i would like a vote on and expect a vote on would instruct the conference committee to prevent microchip companies from receiving taxpayer assistance unless they agree to issue warrants or equity stakes to the federal government. if private companies are going to benefit from over $53 billion in taxpayer grants, the financial gains made by these companies must be shared with the american people, not just wealthy shareholders. in other words, all this amendment says is that if these investments turn out to be profitable as a direct result of these federal grants, the
taxpayers of this country have a right to get a return on that investment. mr. president, this is by no means a radical idea. these exact conditions were imposed on corporations that received taxpayer assistance in the bipartisan cares act which, as you'll recall, passed the senate 96-0. in other words, every member of the u.s. senate has already voted for the conditions that are in this amendment. in addition, this amendment would also instruct the conference committee to require these highly profitable companies not to buy back their own stock, not to outsource american jobs, not to repeal collective bargaining agreements, and to remain
neutral in any union organizing effort. again, this is not a radical idea. all of these conditions were imposed on companies that received funding from the cares act and passed the senate by a vote of 96-0. the second motion that i have introduced touches on an issue that we have very, very rarely discussed on the floor of the senate. unbelievably the so-called competition bill will provide some $10 billion in taxpayer money to jeff bezos, the second wealthiest person in america, for his space race with elon musk, the wealthiest person in america. so we're looking at a space race between the two wealthiest guys in america. you know, when i was a young man
a few years ago and neil armstrong went to the moon, i recall like yesterday the kind of incredible joy and pride in this country because the united states of america did something that people never ever thought would be possible. who would have dreamed sending a man to the moon? extraordinary. and the entire world, not only people in america, watched that event with baited breath, all over the world tv sets were on, every continent on earth. it was just an extraordinary accomplishment for all of humanity. that's what neil armstrong said when he stepped on to the moon. not just the united states. but we, of course, our nation took a special pride because that was an american project.
mr. president, i worry very much that what we are seeing now is not after space race -- not a space race between the united states and other countries as to which nation will return to the moon or perhaps get to mars. but a space race between mr. musk and mr. bezos, the two wealthiest people in america, as to who will gain control over nasa and future space explorations. in other words, if we are able to accomplish the unbelievable, extrod -- unbelievable extraordinary goal of sending a person to mars, i want the flag that will be flying on that planet to be the flag of the united states of america, not the flag of spacex or blue origin. and, mr. president, let us be
clear. the $10 billion in this bill for jeff bezos and his space company blue origin is just the tip of the iceberg. the reality is that the space economy, which today mostly consist ps of private companies -- consists of private companies using nasa facilities free of charge to launch satellites into space, is already very profitable and could become, and will likely become, even more so in the future. bank of america predicts that by 2030 the space economy will triple in size to $1.4 trillion, that's trillion with a t. according to the most recent data, private corporations make over $94 billion in profits a year from goods or services that
are used in space, profits that could not have been achieved without the assistance of nasa, a government agency funded by the nax pairs of -- the taxpayers of america. while we are talking about the profitability of satellites today, and that's already a very profitable industry, sometime in the future -- not next year, not ten years from now, but sometime in the future -- the real money may come to those who not only provide satellites, but those who figure out how to mine lucrative minerals on as roads. does this -- on asteroids. does it sound like science fiction? it is not. this is being worked on right now, mining lucrative minerals
on asteroids. in 2015, the famous astrophysicist, kneel degra -- neil degrass-tyson predicted, quote, the first trillionaire there will ever be is the person who exploits the natural resources on asteroids. there's this vast universe of limitless energy and limitless resources. i look at wars fought over access to resources. that could be a thing of the past once space becomes our backyard, end of quote, mr. degrasse-tyson. mr. president, who gets to own the resources discovered by private corporations in space? well, as a result of a little-known 2015 space act that
passed the senate by unanimous consent, with virtually no floor debate, private corporations are able to own all of these resources. in other words, the taxpayers of this country will get a 0% return on the investment they made in these private enterprises, which could turn out to be unbelievably lucrative mr. president, is that what we want space exploration to become? do we really think that it is acceptable for nasa to hand out billions of dollars to some of the wealthiest billionaires in america today to make them even wealthier? or do we want to use space exploration to benefit all of
the american people and improve life here on the planet for everyone? mr. president, it is time that we had a serious debate on the future of nasa, instead of just handing out $10 billion to mr. bezos. so, let me conclude by saying that i happen to believe and support space exploration. i think the benefits could be extraordinary for the american people and for people all over the world. but if we continue down the path of privatizing space exploration, it also has the potential to make the obscenely rich even richer and more powerful than anyone can possibly imagine today. in my view, we cannot and must not allow that to happen.
a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. rise tonight to support judge ketanji brown jackson's nomination to serve as an associate justice on the united states supreme court. judge jackson comes to this floor with impeccable credentials. she graduated from harvard magna cum laude, she graduated with honors from harvard law school, where she edited the "harvard law review." after graduation, judge jackson worked at top firms in private practice and secured three
prestigious clerkships, including one for justice breyer on the supreme court of the united states. later, she served as a public defender, representing people who couldn't afford a lawyer. i can't think of better evidence of her commitment to equal justice under the law, where everyone, regardless of their means, has the right to fair representation. judge jackson is clearly qualified for this position. there's nobody who doubts that. my colleagues know it because the senate has confirmed her three times, with bipartisan support, first to serve as vice chair of the u.s. sentencing commission, second for the u.s. district court for the district of columbia, and last for the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. taken together, judge jackson comes to this floor with the best legal training america can offer. a decade of experience on the
federal bench, and a consistent record of bipartisan support here on this floor. i have the -- i had the opportunity to meet with judge jackson two weeks ago after she had been rolled around in the barrel, is one way of saying it, during this confirmation hearing that people all over the country watched, and in our conversation, after she had been through all of that turmoil, she told me about how her parents had attended segregated schools in miami before working as public schoolteachers here in washington, d.c. her dad went on to be a lawyer, a lawyer for the miami school district, something i appreciate, having been a superintendent of schools. unlike her parents, judge jackson grew up in america after the civil rights laws of the 1960s,ed a she remembered how hard her -- and she remembered how hard her parents worked every single day to give her
opportunities they never even dreamed of for themselves, and she seized those opportunities. she earned top grades. she was elected student body president. with enshe told her -- when she told her guidance counselor she wanted to apply to harvard, the counselor warned she shouldn't set her sights so high. if fortunately for america, she set her sights high. she set her sights where they should have been set. she followed the high example of her parents, working hard and impressing everyone along the way, friends, colleagues, mentors, who are virtually beating down the doors of this capitol to tell us what a thoughtful, fair-minded and principled justice she would be. that hasn't stopped some colleagues from distorting her record, trying to say to the american people that she's soft on crime. that, mr. president. , would come as news, i think, to the fraternal order of police, who have endorsed her
candidacy for the court. it would come as news to the international association of chiefs of police, both have endorsed her nomination. they see what's obvious to anyone who fairly reviews her record, which is that judge jackson has spent her entire career devoted to the rule of law. a brother and two uncles served as police officers. so law enforcement isn't some academic abstraction for her. it's literally her family. the presiding officer knows something about that, i think, in his family history as well. in our meeting, i asked judge jackson what makes a good judge. we had a long talk about that. but one of the things they said was communication, because judges have to explain their reasoning in every decision, which is a lot more than i can say for the united states senate. she also said that it's the unique role of a judge to identify and to extract their
bias before every case. and if you look at her more than 570 written decisions, it's clear how seriously she takes that responsibility. i was just on the phone with some people from colorado before i came over here, mr. president, and i said to them, i told them i was coming out here to give this speech, and i said to them -- these are old, old friends of mine -- that i can't remember a time when i sat down with somebody and had a 30-minute conversation where i came away more impressed than i was by judge jackson. i found her to be both brilliant and completely down to earth, which is i think a particularly important combination for a judge at any level, at any level, to have both the intellect to grapple with the nuances of law and the experience to appreciate how it
affects real people. there wasn't -- it wasn't that long ago, mr. president, that judge jackson would have received over 90 votes on this floor, just like her mentor, justice breyer, did, just like qualified judges did when i was in law school myself. the senate confirmed justice breyer 96-3, just like we confirmed justice scalia 98-0, justice sandra day o'connor got 91-0. somebody was out that day. i guarantee you, they would have voted for her if they had been here. each time that happened, mr. president, the senate reinforced the independence of the judiciary. it set aside our partisan politics and stood up, i think, for integrity and for the rule of law. and i'm sad, i am sad tonight
that judge jackson won't get 99 votes tomorrow, even though she deserved it -- deserves it. that's not a reflection on her. as i said, if this were an earlier day in the senate, she'd get 99 votes. she would get 99 votes in a different era. it's a reflection of how we as senators, and i among them, have shredded our constitutional responsibility to advise and consent. and it's my hope, mr. president, by the time -- i was going to say my children are adults. they almost are adults. they are adults. but by the time they're standine running the country with everybody else who's their generation, that we will have figured out a way to return the senate to a place where we take our responsibility, our constitutional responsibility, to advise and consent seriously,
and we find a way to make it once again a bipartisan effort in this place, we find a way to stitch ourselves back together again. and i'm prepared to work with anybody on the floor to try to do that. but in the meantime, this is really, in my view, a moment to celebrate. it is a mement to celebrate -- a moment to celebrate. in the last few weeks my phones have been flooded from coloradans telling me what an extraordinary justice judge jackson will make. she is an inspiration to millions and millions of americans. in the past few weeks, i couldn't help imagine what it would mean to the students i used to work for in the denver public schools to see judge jackson on the court, the same court that once ruled in dred scott versus sanford that her
ancestors were little more than property, the segregated schools that her parents were forced to attend, and the segregated hotels and buses they endured every single day, day after day and it reminds us of the changes that are possible in america. our country isn't perfect. far from it. our history has been a battle between the highest ideals expressed in our constitution and our worst impulses as human beings. and if you look at our history, if you really look at our history, the path from cases like dred dred scott and plessy to brown was cleared by americans who refused to give up on our highest ideals. who insisted, as dr. king once said to make real the promise of
our democracy. this week is a victory for our highest ideals and for the promise of american democracy. that as judge jackson said a nation that went from having her parents live under jim crow to having her nominated to the highest court in the land. she will join the ranks of thurgood marshall and ruth bader ginsburg, those who have decided between the written constitution and reality. i hope she will join judges like justice harlan who opposed decisions that outlawed the minimum wage or justices roberts or murphy, who refused to condone the internment of japan americans in colorado and across
the country. all of those judges stood not for an ideology but for the american values etched in our constitution, freedom, equality, democracy, and the rule of law. i am confident that judge jackson will stand for those values fairly, impartially and without prejudice and tomorrow i will enthusiastically vote for her confirmation. i suggest that everybody in this chamber would have a good reason to vote for her confirmation and i hope they'll consider it. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.
extension. millions of americans are struggling of course at that time to stay afloat because of the paws and repayments, 41 million americans were able to breathe a little easier during some of the top the stays will be stronger year from now that we are today. however, as our administration recognized region extending the cove 19 national emergency, we are still recovering from this pandemic and the unprecedented economic cause which is the root reason for this extension. in order to enable americans to continue to get back on their feet after two of the hardest years this nation has ever faced, we have announced earlier today the extension of the pause on federal student loan repayment through august 31 of this year without additional time will assist borrowers and achieving greater financial security and support the department of education efforts to continue improving loan programs. also would note, one note on the
covid funding bill, we have made clear for months about our funding needs. every step of the way we provide details republicans have asked for. even if they have asked for his change into real time. i have a prop here bring to call him a van here, thank you. the system unit 85 pages of information we have given to capitol hill and briefed them on how covid funding has been spent. what we need? what the needs are? these are the kind of details we are constantly briefed on the hill you can't access to this for or a process you like it as well we will make copies for you. unfortunately as we've gone before, going back to january with the members of congress democrats and republicans on the funding needs week posted dozens
of briefings more than three dozen conference calls more than a dozen funding tables all available 385 pages. we've also given congress a full accounting of every dollar and a full accounting of the american rescue plan which as you all know goes well beyond the direct medical needs. we have the specifics of plant additional findings to the additional purchase of monoclonal, pills and vaccines and even after senate leaders agreed upon a pared down bipartisan bill they move the goal posts and force amendments to something completely independent of a covid response. at this point the question we have is whether or just plain politics. they're waiting for republicans in congress to get their act together. we know bhu is here.
or singing impact on our resources due to a lack of funds america's supply of monoclonal antibodies that are effective at keeping people out test manufacturing will be ramping down at the end of june. will work closely in congress to drive a solution because the president as we cannot afford an action in this moment? politicians to stop skirting the responsibility we have an obligation to protect our country, the american people and steps to prepare. finally last night as you may have seen, we announce the authorization of an additional $100 million in securities the department of defense announced to ukraine's through
presidential drawdown authority this package of meat ukraine's urgent needs for additional javelin antiarmor systems which we have been providing to you great they have been using effectively to defend their country. the javelins have been where the most effective weapons the ukrainians have been in russian tanks and armored vehicles that are critical in kyiv and other areas do we want to make sure we get them in the ukrainians hands. we also continue to work with allies and partners to provide ukraine with additional capabilities and expect to have more to announce in the coming days. kevin has been out here before i've already embarrass him in the past i will keep it short. kevin, as many of you know it's her covid spokesperson. kevin only recently turned 26 which means he can barely rent a car. he can now. he has become an expert. he works 20 hours a day and he is indispensable i'm very grateful to kevin and happy he is out here to provide the props
but provide all of you with many, many answers on a daily basis. with that speak. reporter: [inaudible] is that a model for the rest? this for most people are lesser than they were a year or two ago. not that should be stabilized. [inaudible] i think that the president is doing is following cdc protocols and models. that is exactly what we would recommend to the rest of the country do. that includes getting vaccinated, getting boosted, getting extra boost or if you are eligible president did just last week. and i was so taking any steps or precautions that the cdc recommends to keep yourself
safe. office in washington d.c. we were main and a yellow zone on the foley protocols as needed. reporter: has that president been tested for covid? what i suspected you star i will get your question as quickly as possible but he has a regular testing cadence, it usually tested a couple times a week will venture to get to that as soon as possible. >> u.s. today sanctioned number of russians including bladder pollutants daughter and other individuals. his administration about where to our family of russian oligarchs and russian government officials fair game for sanctions? try to prevent them from covering up her not so involved in the decision-making in ukraine. >> we have seen a pattern over
time of president putin and russian oligarchs stash assets and resources in the bank accounts of their family members. this was an effort to get out those assets. and that is why these individuals were sanctioned. >> why the distinction between minors and adults? >> again we look at where assets may be stored and stashed make a decision on assessment on what is appropriate. go ahead. reporter: the near times has verified the peers or show a group of ukrainian soldiers captured russian troops outside of a village just west of kyiv for it has the white house seen these videos? do you have a response? >> i've seen the video i do not have any confirmation or validation of the video or the report. >> so far the administration or the u.s. is said about $2 billion since the beginning of this invasion. office is at the u.s. is doing everything it can to help ukraine in this fight.
but if general millie is correct what he said yesterday this really could go on for several years. are these numbers sustainable over the long term? can you keep up at the space? >> well just to reiterate what general millie said the president has also been clear there are tough days ahead for the ukrainian people for there is a likely scenario for this could go on for some time and even as they have moved their forces and retreated from kyiv the retreated from the north and west and consolidating and the east and the dawn bus. we've warned were entering a new phase of the conflict that could last for some time. does it be to look exactly the same are the resources will be exactly the same bird that is something we will continue to assess our conversations with ukrainians as well as with our allies and partners around the world. and right now focus ramping up $100 million for javelins is a good example for that is they
earn an active fight every single day tickets the russian military. also humanitarian and economic assistance for the different needs that will come about over the course of time. that is something we are of course committed to continuing to support the recovery from this the continued fight from this but i cannot make an assessment about sustaining because obviously this war and the needs will change over the course of time. >> protracted, prolonged conflict given with the treasury secretary said there warning of the enormous economic repercussions of this war for the whole world but what does this mean for the economy in the u.s. for the next year or two? can you give us a big picture of what american should be bracing for? >> as we have been making decisions about putting in place we continued to do that the prism of maximizing impact on russia and the russian economy will minimizing the impact on the west and the united states. obviously there are areas where
there has been an impact including on the price of gas use of the federal reserve convey today the impact of the russian invasion on inflation but we know that to be the case. but what we are trying to do is mitigate those impacts. obviously not just the announcement of the strategic release from petroleum reserve but the announcement by the iea today is the largest release they have ever done in history. all of these are part of our collective effort to mitigate the impacts on the american people over the course of time for even the length of time by the release from the strategic petroleum reserve meant to be a stopgap measure kind of a bridge measure get the oil companies to produce more is intended to have a mitigation impact over the course of time. so, what we are doing is anticipating and trying to take steps to reduce the impact on the american people over time. >> follow up on that question do you have a detail or know how much oil has been release of the
weathered 80 million barrels today? >> i'm happy to get that boy i'm sure our team may have that but i do not have been in front of me. >> president biden told members amazon here we, see endorsing workers to unionize? >> but he was not doing is sending a message that he or the u.s. government will be directly involved in any of these efforts or take any direct action. what he was conveying is his longtime support for collective bargaining for the rights of workers to organize and their decision to do exactly that in this case. something he has long supported broadly over the course of his career. go ahead. >> back to the issue of the sanctions that are being imposed on putin with him as well. the u.s. have a rough estimate at this moment in time about how much of his assets are tied up versus what he still might have access to? >> i do not have an assessment offer on here on that. we know we have seen attempts
and efforts to stash assets in the accounts and resources of his children. what senior mr. russian official earlier today was raising the question of putin and at some point he would presumably recognize this war spent a failure for him. given some of the scenes were seeing in places like mariupol does u.s. believe he has any closer to realizing that reality today versus a week ago, a month ago? >> this scenes we are seeing our events and atrocities that did not happen yesterday to happen some time ago, right? they're a bit more of those was her of state and national security advisor have also predicted unfortunately because there are a lot of areas of the country where all russia has invaded and created atrocities no doubt which we have not yet had visual access too. i would say that i cannot make
an assessment for you from here on what is in president putin's mind. but we do know is because of the impact of the economic sanctions including the ones we have taken today, and steps we have taken over the course of time we have seen an unquestionable significant impact on russia's economy. that has led to this question now as a result of the decision around whether or not they would be able to make a bond payment earlier this week they will have to decide whether they're going to spend it down dollars and resources they have two aboard avoid default or if they will continue to spend that money and funding the war. that is a part of our objective is to force them into a place where they are making that decision. what we have seen it russia's economy collapsed by 15% wiping out the gains that made in the last 15 years inflation is spiking up to 15% but russia set to lose its status as a major
economy. our objective is to implement those consequences to make it much more difficult for president putin to fund the war are seeing the direct impact of that already. and to make it clear this was a strategic blunder. we already seen this impacts on the economy but how that impacts him, that is not something i can predict in terms of getting into his mind. >> what is the administration's current assessment of what putin endgame is? and does administration believe that may have shifted since the beginning of the invasion? >> i would say that one, will they have moved their troops around and reposition, we have not -- they have not made many airstrikes in the last 24 hours according to the department of defense and their briefing which you may have seen or their backgrounder, we also know their goal remains weakening ukraine is much as possible. you should be under no illusion that objective has not changed even as their tactics have changed.
go ahead. reporter: the president today as he was talking about ukrainians added a line and by the way if i have got to go to war i'm going with you guys. can you clarify what that meant? >> he has no intention of sending troops to the ground are fighting a war with u.s. forces against russia. that was a reflection of his along love for labor unions and members of labor unions and the buildings and trades workers who were there and people he would always love to be the foxhole with not an invitation of change in u.s. policy. >> he also referred the heated exchange resolve that involved secretary austin. he said with regard to creating troops we haven't trained them and we have given them the weapons. can you clarify what he meant by we've trained them what training was he talking about? there was some some time ago of training. we provide them obviously a
range of weapons overtime pay at what point he was making is when secretary austin made yesterday, without the extensive military assistance that we have been providing ukrainians the security assistance over the course of the last several weeks and even months before that, $1.6 billion worth may be a little higher now they would not have been able to effectively fight back as they have. how it has basically worked as they have requested a range of assistance but we go through and see what we are able to provide bird well sort of partners and allies to provide assistance we do not have access here. enemy expedite the delivery of that over the course of time but that's a javelins, stingers or a range of materials the u.s. military to determine their not only trained on but have been effective in fighting this war. >> the physical resources what training was he talking about? was the latest training the u.s. troops have done? >> there is not new training reporting out to prove what he's really emphasizing the important part here is what secretary austin was also talking about
the military equipment that has been provided that has allowed them to fight this war. >> you said a couple times now that the u.s. sanctions the daughters is reason to believe it stashes a wealth with them. does that mean the u.s. has some information about where the billionaire daughters are stashing their wealth? >> i do not have any more to provide you from here. we make assessments of where to implement financial sanctions to get close to not only the assets of president putin but those around him. we have seen a long pattern of using relatives and family members to stash wealth. >> linkage entered first on immigration, our team in texas is sent you guys are starting to get smart phones to border crossers helping built use the phone to check in order to be tracked. which part of that is supposed to deter people from crossing illegally into the state? >> in the queue, for all people have asked me arrange out on
this topic over time would recognize that we need to take steps to ensure we know where individuals are we can them and check in with them. the alternatives to detention program is what we utilize, perform technology for modern participants enrolled in the program, telephonic switches one of them, uses the participants of oyster. biometric voiceprint during the enrollment process but when the participant has a check in call the voices compared to the voice prints. smart which is another option enables participants monitoring via smart phone or tablet using facial matching technology to establish identity and global positioning distinct monitoring as movement history using satellite technology through an ankle bracelet. it is all part of our effort as individuals come into the united states and those entering i will proceed to immigration proceedings to monitor and track where they are. >> are there any concerns by folks on here these migrants will take the phones and just
toss them? >> give a record of people throwing phones away? >> that is a concern for. >> our concern is ensuring individuals who regulate migrate to the united states proceed through our process of course being monitored but participating in hearings to determine whether or not they will be able to stay but i would note that nearly 80% of noncitizens release of the board from dhs custody under prosecutorial discretion have received the notice to appear are still within that window to report. so actually the vast majority of people are in part we have these monitors systems to do that effectively put. >> on another topic, was it common for president biden to do favors for hunter biden's international business partners like brady college recommendations for their kids? >> i have seen the report i have no confirmation or comment on a report about whether or not the
president when he is a private citizen wrote a college recommendation letter for an individual. >> called recommendation letter from at the time a former vice president would be a big deal. doing what he what if got intern for doing a favor like that? >> again i have no confirmation of any recommendation letter the president wrote when he was by a citizen by the way. >> he's the president style you are a spokesperson for. >> correct. he was not the president at the time of this report. quick search evidence the present one point was office mates of this hunter and jim in d.c. for. >> that is not accurate. >> when hunter biden was e-mailing a landlord please have keys made available for new office mates joe biden, joe biden, jim biden you're disputing that? >> they were not office mates no. >> they're not office mates that were. >> they are not office mates great big quick student loans started yesterday want to come back to you. people plan should
borrowers expect after august 31 to have to repay their loans? or is there a chance he could be further expanded after august 31? >> will continue to assess. what we look at, the economies in a better state than it was a year ago. we had a strong recovery. we also understand there are a range of impacts that are still longer-lasting because of the pandemic including the impact on cost and inflation this is part of the president's efforts help alleviate that. the family glitch announcement of yesterday. so it will make an evaluation the department of education will look at that on a range of factors as we closer to that time. >> has a present at this point ruled out cancellations on a wide scale? >> he has not ruled out. but i do not have any update on that. and i would note again encourage congress to send him a bill canceling 10,000 dollars in student debt but something he
talked about looking forward to signing on the campaign trail. >> really briefly on secretary yellen said the u.s. might not attend meetings of russians are there. is she implying these are individual meetings or would it be a broader boycott? >> i think they later clarified she was referencing at the ministerial level and more specific meetings i would point to to them for more specifics. the present has also said he set on a trip he did not think russia should be a part of the g20 meaning. and i would note it seven months away which is a lifetime in our lives. it was an indication of plans for us to boycott or not attend. it was just be business as usual which is something the present has always said. >> premise identify the rushing and secured out the atrocities is that something the u.s. may be able to do is@the president wants to have happen question will continue assist in every way possible with these ever to
track down data, additional information and contribute to the international efforts to do exactly that. >> a couple of their questions. judge is the first right defendant charge the generous six capitol riots. this was a new mexico man he was acquitted on misdemeanor charges by the judge for this man claimed he out loud an interest in the capitol rotunda that case it. [inaudible] >> i do have specific comment on that case the efforts of gerry six and all of the members and try and get to the bottom of what happened that day. >> of a collective one last question is that social it's what's happening in russia. u.s. still does not have an ambassador to india appears increasingly clear los angeles mayor garcetti design of the votes right now to be confirmed. how does the lack of an ambassador to india impact our ability, america's ability to pressure india not to work with russia and provide? >> our preferences always have a
confirmed ambassador on the ground it's incredibly important diplomatic position. we also engage with countries through a range of channels and obviously our national security advisor is just in india recently in the last few weeks. the violating sanctions would be what the mechanisms are. also making clear we do not think india should accelerate your import russia energy and commodities as those decisions are made by individual countries. also making clear stand ready to support and he had any adverse to diversify its imports and serve as a reliable. even though important one -- 2% of their oil from india. : : :
on this point? >> i would say the reason it's important to note that the russian central bank making the decisions to prop up the ruble so it's not actually on the rise. it is being artificially propped up by limitations that they are putting in place including borrowing the banks from selling dollars to customers, russian brokerages are not allowing the clients to sell securities. exporters are forced to sell the 80% of the revenues and body rubles, so essentially they are manipulating it on their end. as it relates to hungary, i mean, a slightly a different question, but obviously there was a recent election as you noted. i would note we continue to cooperate on a range of bilateral into shared global interests including nato defense
in humanitarian. they are currently hosting forces from the infantry as part of a nato battle group we regularly conduct joint training exercises with them and we will continue to strengthen our partnership with hungary. obviously, reliance on the ruble is a decision individual countries will make and we've obviously made our view is clear on that front. >> so have you engaged hungary on this question? >> that is not what i conveyed. i just conveyed they are a nato ally. >> can we go back to sanctions? they were announced this morning -- similarly, the sle sanctions coming out tomorrow will not affect the energy sector. are you worried about domestic impact here in the u.s. on the price of natural gas, price of gasoline, or is that because the europeans asked you to sort of carved that out? why is that still sort of a bridge too far for the u.s. on the sanctions? they are not really full blocking sanctions if they are
excluding energy. >> they are quite extensive, given it's the largest bank in russia, and alpha bank is the largest private bank and russia. so, in total we are now fully blocked more than two thirds of russia's banking sector. these conversations and discussions are done in coordination with our european allies and partners, and we continue to assess how we can maximize the impact while minimizing the impact on other economies including of course the global oil marketplace. and we've taken steps of course banning oil imports, a number of countries including poland and europe announced their intention to take steps, but that's up to individual countries to make. but it's part coordination, assessment with other countries and our allies about the impacts. but i would still say it's quite a significant step, given there's the largest bank in russia. >> so is it accurate then to say that this was done because of the europeans saying -- >> we need to update them and a brief them on the steps we take
and why. and we look at the impacts on how things will impact the united states, how they will impact a range of our allies as we make decisions about sanctions. >> do you have any sense how long they are able to keep that up? >> i don't have an assessment from here at this point in time on that. >> on the immigration with the lifting of section 42, there are a lot of democrats particularly democratic senators worrying you don't have a plan to either stop the surge of undocumented immigrants or handle it. what do you say to those democrats? >> well, i would first say that a title 42 is not an immigration measure. it's a public health measure, and one that congress has given the cdc authority to make a decision about. we respect that and think that's absolutely right. that's why the president proposed an immigration bill on his first day in office, and we would welcome the efforts of anybody to work on that. as we are implementing this over
the course of the next five weeks -- if i'm doing my math correctly -- we've also searched resources from the department of homeland security, and we will continue to take additional steps to implement and make clear that this is not the time to come, that there are -- there will still be significant measures put in place for anyone who tries to irregularly migrate to the united states. >> do you feel -- what's your goal and what did you expect to -- what impact do you expect to have on the spring surge with those creative measures? >> i would point you to the department of homeland security to make projections on that, because we have not made any projections of what it will mean in the ending of title 42 either. >> i know that you talked about the stringent measures you've taken to give the president safe from covid that go beyond the cdc guidelines, but that's such a visual contrast between that and the president showing up mask lists in front of people and to some of these events. so how did you make sure that you keep that protection bubble around him? i'm sure you feel like you're
asked to explain this ad nausea him, but -- the bubble is looking pretty poor as lately. so how do you keep that sort of enforced? >> i would say first that we continue to take measures that go beyond what the cdc particles all are. that includes ensuring that everybody is going to see the president in meetings is tested in advance. or if you are traveling with the president, you're tested in advance. when possible, we take steps to socially distanced and circumstances, which certainly the oval office and other meeting spaces in the white house allow for. if an individual in the white house is in close contact, they are asked to were required to, i guess you could say, wear a mask for ten days after that exposure. and then they are also tested regularly following. so i would say we take additional measures that go beyond what the cdc protocols and requirements are to ensure that we are doing everything we can to keep principals safe -- the president, the vice president, and others of course,
in the building. >> was everyone tested before the east room event tomorrow, everyone who was there? >> it's not at public events. i'm talking about at meetings. but again, i can check on the protocols for public events. sure. >> have you changed me particles surrounding him in recent days as more people in the administration contract this virus? >> we've continued to implement a stringent and strict protocols. i would note that even as we are looking at with a very transmissible variant as we all know and our public health officials have told us we've seen an increase in cases in the country, in the region among the press corps and certainly in the white house. but it is not, at this point, what we saw during omicron. and what -- the steps we have taken here, including a policy put in place to ensure that return to work was part of our policies and the federal government, are meant to ensure that can continue to be the case, and even while we have individuals who are out with
covid, everyone here is required to be tested, highly recommended to be boosted. people who are out because of that -- the vast majority have mild cases and are continuing to work from home. and obviously, we are continuing to implement the return to work policy and feel we have the measures necessary to do that. >> so what's the clearest version of the message that you're trying to send to americans about living with this virus, even as infection rates rise? i mean,, that it's not the end of the world if you get it if you are boosted? i mean, is that the message you send through the president, who is mask lists in front of hundreds of people -- that this is in the end, that we have to live this way? >> the message we are sending is to follow the cdc particles and guidance for where you live. the president does that. he did and event in washington, d.c. today, where it does not require mask wearing. there are other parts of the country, as you know, where he's traveled and he has been wearing a mask where that's the
recommendation. our protocols here coming and we would project this to the american people, that getting vaccinated and getting boosted -- and if you are immunocompromised or over a certain age, getting your next booster, is certainly a way to help protect yourself. that's something the president has done and every member of the seniors's david white house staff will continue to do though some of us are teasing the people over 50 that are not old enough yet but that's a sidebar. when we are we will be doing that as well. so it is to follow the particles and to recognize that the statistics show you are significantly more likely to be hospitalized and even to die if you are not vaccinated, if you are not boosted. and yes, we are living with covid-19. we are continuing to fight it. and our biggest message right now is that we need the resources from congress to continue to have -- to ensure we have programs for the uninsured, that we can provide treatments for immunocompromised, that we can make sure that we have testing mechanisms and booster
mechanisms. and we are going to -- we are at serious risk of those programs not being able to continue. some haven't, obviously. >> to follow on the title 42 question. you said the administration will take additional steps to make this clear it's not the time to come. that was a pretty explicit message from the president last year, do not come. is that the message on may 204th? >> yes. >> a follow-up to that. as the u.s. moves to and fatal title 42 in may, are there discussions or updates ending this requirement for reentry into the u.s. for people traveling here? >> i don't have any updates on that at this point in time. that's something we will continue to evaluate. >> i have a follow-up on sanctions and energy. they are asking russia every day a little more than 1 billion for gas and oil. how long can this go on, in the
president's view, without undermining the collective effort to punish russia? >> while i would say that we continue to believe that it's up to individual countries to make assessments about what additional measures they will put in place. while we are focused on continuing unity with our nato allies and partners and our european partners, it doesn't mean it's always identical coming into different countries have to make their own assessment. what we've also tried to do is take steps to ensure there are other options to reduce dependence, even if it's a small percentage. and if there is a very young, as you know, degree of reliance for these countries you're referencing on russian oil. and some of them have taken steps to convey they want to reduce or and their dependents or import of russian oil and that's something certainly we support and play a constructive role to helping expedite. >> follow-up on the question about hungary. are there plans to engage with
them at about a particular topic of paying in rubles in the coming days or weeks? >> i'm happy to check with the department to see if there's plans for engagement about that. >> you talked about the increasing picture of russia's economy. over the years, public reporting has shown that white supremacists and other domestic extremists have developed an affinity for russia. is there any concern that is the russian economy continues to degrade, that russia might try and inspire domestic extremists, domestic terrorists to commit acts of violence on american soil in retaliation? >> it's an interesting and scary question. i don't have any production or assessment of that, nor have i heard a prediction or assessment of that from our national security experts or the department of homeland security. i'm happy to check with them and see if there's anything on that front.
>> so, an american catholic nun has been abducted -- it happened monday night -- by gunmen in burkina faso in western africa. her name is sister suellen and she was doing missionary work. as the white house aware by chance of her abduction? >> i'm happy to check with our national security team and department. they would have a preview over any steps to bring -- tell me her name again. >> sister suellen working in burkina faso. >> she was doing incredible humanitarian work it sounds like on behalf of the people of burkina faso. i will check with the state department and see if there's updates on this specific case. >> okay, go ahead. >> i want to follow up on what you said yesterday about the lack of global covid funding. and you explained it essentially
means that the u.s. cannot turn the dozes that you already have in two shots and arms. and i believe that the u.s. has already purchased the 1.2 billion doses that it's pledged. and out of that, there is about 680 million that haven't been delivered. so, my question then is what will happen to those dozes. doses. i know we already have funding for delivery and training people and so on. but what happens to the rest of it when you are unable to turn those vaccines into vaccinations? >> we are not quite there yet and our hope is we will be able to turn them, vaccines, into vaccinations. as you know it's not just an issue of vaccine doses. it's the know-how, the capacity, it's the tools and mechanisms to be able to store, deliver, implementing getting shots into arms and a number of these countries, which is why a number of countries haven't even been able to accept the doses that we've been able to offer, because of that know-how and that's part of the program that is so essential to fund, through usaid and other of our international bodies to do exactly that. but we are not quite at that point. we are going to continue to press for international funding just like we are going to continue to press for domestic
funding because we feel it's important and imperative that we continue to be the arsenal of vaccines around the world. >> can you give us a sense on how you want to do that? is the goal to push for a separate package on global funding? >> i'm not going to get ahead of where we are. it was disappointing to say the least the package didn't move forward despite an agreement on that yesterday afternoon. but when i'm here to convey is that the funding, domestically and internationally, it is imperative, it's urgent, and we are going to continue to press for all of it. >> and i have one more question on the visit to india, which was also partly to go on a listening tour for the build back better world that was actually scheduled to be formally launched early this year. if you can give us an update on that and why it's not launched yet and at this point do you feel that it is -- with the projects -- with the listening tour, with the pilot projects that are being planned, is it
robust enough to be introduced to the world as a viable alternative to china's belt and road initiative? >> as you know the president used his own time to talk about build back better world and how important it is to our efforts to rebuild infrastructure without the strings attached around the world. and that speaks to our commitment on it. and obviously, our deputy national security advisor taking a trip himself, having a discussion about it is a reflection of our commitment to that and our efforts. >> can i ask you a follow-up question on covid-19? earlier this morning at the monitor breakfast, the director mentioned a classified briefing that took place earlier today between lawmakers, jake sullivan and others about, quote, escalating vulnerabilities around semi conductors. can you tell us more about this meeting and was it in an effort to get congress to hurry up on the reconciliation of the two related bills? >> i can't speak to the specifics of a classified briefing. what i can tell you is that we
can remain committed to supporting efforts to get this past, which includes significant funding for chips manufacturing and production, which as we know, is a big hindrance to our ability to manufacture a range of items in the united states including cars and others that rely on ships. and this bill has a great deal of funding for it. so i think it was a reminder -- and more details that i can't get into from here, on how important addressing the shortage and being able to produce them at home are moving forward. >> as the administration sort of collects this evidence for potential war crimes trials against russian officials, does the u.s., does the administration have a preferred venue over whether type of trial might take place? there are obviously a few avenues available in the international community. >> there are. there's a lot of president that has used different venues, so at this point, the determination has not been made. what we are doing and i would point you first to the attorney
general's comments earlier today about the role of the department of justice in this effort moving forward. but we have supported a range of efforts including the efforts by ukrainian special prosecutor together information and the work of the war crimes unit under the ukrainian prosecutor general, sorry, prosecutor general, not special prosecutor -- in a team of international prosecutors working with them. also in the last few weeks we helped establish investigations for the un human rights council and the osce of possible violations by russia. and we welcome the investigation opened by the icc prosecutor. so there've been different ways that war crimes, unfortunately there are past instances and examples, have been investigated and tried in the past. and we are going to support all of those efforts, but there hasn't been a determination yet about what mechanism it will take. >> has that effort changed at all the thinking of the administration as it relates to the relationship between the
u.s. and the icc? >> we are not a member of the icc as you know. that hasn't changed. we have supported and contributed data and information to the icc investigations in the past. we supported the un security council referral of libya to the icc back in 2011. and if you look back to 2004, we also provided the data and information to the icc investigation of darfur. so there is past president even if we haven't been members of the icc. >> a couple of follow-ups. when the president said that the u.s. was training ukrainians, was he talking about training that had occurred during his administration? >> i don't have any other additional details. what he was making the point about is what secretary alston said yesterday, which is without the extensive and robust military assistance we have provided, the ukrainians would not have been able to effectively fight and push ell as cloture on the scotus nomination. but first, i ask unanimous
consent that the senate consider -- to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record, and the president will be immediately notified on the senate's actions, and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. the question occurs on the knowledge nations en-- the nominations en bloc. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes have it. the nominations are confirmed en bloc. mr. schumer: now, mr. president, in a few moments, i will lock in an agreement on a number of important votes tomorrow. first and foremost, we have reached an agreement for the senate to conclude the confirmation process of judge ketanji brown jackson tomorrow.
we will hold a cloture vote tomorrow morning at approximately 11:00 a.m. and the final vote on her confirmation is on track to take place around 1:45 p.m. tomorrow afternoon, depending how many members wish to speak. it will be a joyous day, joyous for the senate, joyous for the supreme court, joyous for america. while we still have a long way to go, america tomorrow will take a giant step to becoming a more perfect nation. i will have more to say on this historic occasion tomorrow, but for now, i wish to thank my senate colleagues for working together to advance and finalize this historic nomination to the supreme court. second, i will also lock in an agreement to hold a series of votes on pntr and the oil ban tomorrow. after many rounds of negotiations are republicans, we have reached important and crucial breakthrough.
this agreement clears the path to finally approve legislation that will strip russia of permanent normal trade relations with the united states, and it will also allow the senate to take separate action on an oil ban proposal, as we originally sought. these proposals both have the support of the white house, and it's a big, big deal that we are finally getting them done. now, i wish this could have happened sooner, but after weeks of talks with the other side it's important that we have found a path to get -- path forward to get pntr done on a bipartisan basis, and i want to sincerely thank senator crapo, who worked in good faith with us together, and we wouldn't have reached this outcome without his diligence and good faith. now, putin absolutely must be held accountable for the detestable, detestable, despicable war crimes he is committing against ukraine. the images we have seen coming out of that country, especially
out of the town of bucha, are just pure evil. it reminds us of the worst moments in human history, caused by the evil man, putin. hundreds of civilians murdered in cold blood. men, women, children, the elderly, the defenseless, people with hands tied behind their backs and left dead on the streets, civilians shot in the back of the head, all for one reason, they're ukrainians, one despicable reason. this is genocide. when we murder wantonly innocent civilians because of who they are, whether it be their religion, race or nationality, that is genocide, and mr. putin is guilty of it. formally revoking normal trade relations with russia is precisely the right thing for the senate to do, because it will land another huge blow to putin's economy. ity a key part of any strategy
for holding putin accountable for his savage attacks on innocent civilians. again, i thank all of my colleagues for their good work and look forward to passing pntr in the senate tomorrow morning. and so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow, april 7, the senate resume legislative session, and to proceed the en bloc consideration of h.r. 6968, russian oil ban, and h.r. 7018, russia pntr, both of which are at the desk, that amendment number 5021 to h.r. 6968 be considered and agreed to, and amendment to number 5020, an amendment, number 5020, to h.r. 7108, be considered and agreed to, and that those bills be the only amendments in order to
either bill, the bills as amended be considered read a third time en bloc, and that the senate vote on passage of h.r. 7108 as amended and h.r. 6968 as amended, that with respect to both bills the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, further, that on disposition of h.r. 6968 the senate resume executive session and vote on the motion to invoke cloture on executive calendar 860, the nomination of ketanji brown jackson. finally, i ask that the mandatory quorum call for the cloture motion with respect to the jackson nomination be waived and that if any nominations are confirmed during thursday's session of the senate, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified on the senate's actions. the presiding officer: is there objection?
mr. crapo: the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: mr. president, i rise in strong support for senator schumer's request for unanimous consent for the senate to resume to en bloc consideration of the russian oil ban, and h.r. 7108, the russia permanent normal trade relations legislation. i want to thank senators schumer, wyden, wicker, paul, cardin, murkowski, manchin, lankford, risch, menendez and sullivan, a long list of those who worked hard to get us to this point. they ek ex em-- exemplify how to be both principled and reasonable. i want to again thank senator schumer. we worked tireless days working to try to make sure this worked out and we, i think, both acknowledge that we respect the
good faith each of us have shown in moving this forward and getting it to this point. thanks to the efforts of all of these senators, the senate is in a position to pass these important bills. importantly, their efforts in this chamber reflect the best of what ukraine desperately seeks to preserve, and that which vladimir putin is determined to destroy -- freedom and representative government. that is why the legislation at issue is so important. it strikes directly at putin and cuts off the lifeblood for his war machine and his autocracy by banning u.s. imports of russian energy products, including petroleum, natural gas, and coal. it places russia and belarus in the same pariah status as north korea and cuba for trade. the congressional action, including the certification criteria in the bills, is critical, because it signifies a standing commitment to the ukrainian people and to our nato
allies that is more durable than putin's match nations -- machineiations in ukraine. this will inspire allies to take similar actions against russia. as president zelenskyy told us when he asked for the ban, it can be called an embargo or it can be just morality. because this is so critical to the support of ukraine, we must act in unison and call on speaker pelosi to promptly vote on this legislation in the house, where it will also receive a resounding vote in favor. therefore, mr. president, i strongly second senator schumer's request and also ask that the senate agree to it. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. and thank you, my friend, the senator from idaho.
thank you, mr. president. and thank you, my friend, the senator from idaho. now, as we move on, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on foreign relations be discharged from further consideration of s. 3522 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 3522, a bill to provide enhanced authority for the president to enter into agreements with the government of ukraine so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the cornyn substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i know of no further debate on the bill. the presiding officer: if there's no further debate, the question is on passage of the bill. all in favor say aye.
all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill as amended is passed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 4008, a bill for minor league sports teams and so forth. mr. schumer: in order to place the bill on the calendar under rule 14, i object to proceeding. the presiding officer: objection as having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. schumer: i understand there is a bill at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill. the clerk: s. 422.
mr. schumer: i now ask for a second reading and in order to to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will receive its second reading on the next legislative day. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 295, s. 270. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 295, s. 270, a bill to amend the act entitled act to provide for the establishment of the brown the board of education national historic site in the state of kansas so forth fanned for other purpose -- and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the
committee-reported be withdrawn, the coons amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to and the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i know of no further debate on the bill. the presiding officer: if there's no further debate, the question is on passage of the bill, as amended. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill, as amended is passed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 3113, which was received from the house. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3113, an act to require the secretary of the interior, the secretary of agriculture and the assistant secretary of the army for civil works to digitize and make publicly available geographic
systemmation for federal lands and waters for outdoor rakes and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask the chair lay before the senate the message to accompany s. 400. the presiding officer: the chair lays before the senate a message from the house. the clerk: resolved that the bill from the senate s. 400, entitled an act to designate the headquarters building of the department of transportation located at 200 new jersey avenue southeast as the william t. coleman federal building do pass with an amendment.
mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar 272, s. 2991. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 272, s. 2991, a bill to establish a department of homeland security center for countering human trafficking and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn, the peters substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate now proceed en bloc to consideration of the following senate resolutions introduced earlier today, s. res. 579, s. res. 580, s. res. 581,
s. res. 582 and s. res. 583. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measures en bloc. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent resolutions be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on thursday, april 7, and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. that upon conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of ketanji brown jackson to be associate justice of the supreme court. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand aid understand under the
previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow. after spending much of the day debating the nomination of judge ketanji brown jackson. a final confirmation vote is expected by the end of the week. republican senator susan and met romney already announced they will support the nomination also today senators voted to confirm james o'brien as the state department sanctions coordinator. as always, you can follow the senate live when it returns here on c-span2. the world changed in an instant, but mediacom was ready. internet traffic soared and we never slowed down.
schools and businesses went virtual but we powered a new reality because that mediacom we are powered to keep you ahead. have already announced they will support judge jackson's nomination. a final confirmation vote is expected to come by the end of the week. up next to some of the floor speeches by senate lawmakers on the nomination. creating the current norms around the judicial appointments these days the