Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have taken this time to talk about National Small Business Week, but because of the events of the last 48 hours, I need to comment on the Justice Alito draft opinion that, if it were adopted by the Supreme Court, would overturn Roe v. Wade.

I find this draft opinion to be outrageous. It puts the health, well- being, and constitutional rights of women across the Nation in great jeopardy, particularly those low-income women.

Thirty-six million women of reproductive age would be at risk if the Alito opinion became the ruling of the Supreme Court.

We look to our courts to protect and expand our constitutional protections, not to contract and weaken the constitutional protections, reversing nearly 50 years of legal precedent of Roe v. Wade.

What we need to do is to make sure that this body does everything we can to protect women's rights and to protect their healthcare right to make their own decision.

I am pleased that 16 States, including the District of Columbia, have taken action to protect women's rights, including my own State of Maryland, but we need to do more. We need to pass the Women's Health Protection Act. I am a cosponsor of that--proud to be a cosponsor of it--which would codify Roe v. Wade to protect reproductive rights for women. I hope we will have the opportunity to do that. I think we all recognize that we have a responsibility to act before the Supreme Court makes its ruling that could jeopardize the constitutional rights.

Mr. President, I agree with my colleague that the SBIR Program and the STTR Program are critical to our American small businesses. It offers them incredible opportunities to develop technology important for our Nation. I also agree with my colleague that it is important we prevent critical national security technology developed by the programs from being acquired by China and Russia.

I do point out that if you look at the COMPETES Act, there are safeguards to prevent our foreign adversaries from acquiring sensitive technology--and not just China and Russia but all foreign countries of concern, including Iran and North Korea. This effort

builds on section 223 of the fiscal year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act that provides protection and requires disclosure to guard against foreign influence on federally funded research and development.

I am going to support the motion to instruct and work with my colleague so we can develop clear language and make it clear that the technology developed by the SBIR Program and STTR Program are protected against being taken into China and Russia. I look forward to working with my colleague.

I support the motion.

Vote on Motion

Madam President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing April as National Minority Health Month. For over 35 years, commemorating National Minority Health Month every April has provided us the opportunity to celebrate the progress we have made in addressing health disparities and recommit to achieving health equity. I thank my colleagues, especially Senator Scott of South Carolina, for working with me to recognize this occasion formally through a Senate resolution.

Minority groups now make up more the 40 percent of the American population, and that number will continue to rise. Health disparities persist among racial and ethnic minorities. These disparities are plainly visible if we examine the mental health crisis or diseases such as diabetes and asthma.

Adults and children across all groups continue to experience increased behavioral health issues, but the burden on minority populations is heaviest. For instance, for American Indian and Alaska Native adults the death rate from suicide is about 20 percent higher than non-Hispanic White population. In 2019, suicide was the leading and second leading cause of death for Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders and African-Americans aged 15 to 24 respectively. High school-aged Asian American males were 30 percent more likely to consider attempting suicide than non-Hispanic White male students were.

This is why I continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate Finance Committee to improve access to behavioral healthcare for everyone. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in the Senate to get the bipartisan package signed into law and am proud to continue my work to improve behavioral health, especially through increased telehealth access.

More than 30 million Americans live with diabetes, but African- Americans are twice as likely and Hispanics are over 1.3 times as likely to die from diabetes as non-Hispanic Whites are. African- Americans are also over three times more likely to suffer from diabetes-related end-stage renal disease than non-Hispanic Whites are. African-Americans and Hispanics are also at higher risk of having other related complications, such as the need for lower extremity amputations.

Asthma is another disease that disproportionately harms African- American, Hispanic, and American Indian and Alaska Native peoples. These groups have the highest asthma rates, hospitalizations, and deaths. For example, African-Americans are nearly 1.5 times more likely to have asthma than non-Hispanic White Americans and 5 times more likely to visit the emergency room due to asthma.

Social determinants of health such as access to transportation, education, housing, and income play a key role in health and well- being. According to the Healthy Baltimore 2020 report, the discrepancy in life expectancy between higher-income and lower-income neighborhoods within the city is as high as

20 years--20 years based on one's Zip code. That is unconscionable.

To tackle health inequity, we must understand its underlying causes. I am proud of the work that the National Institutes of Health--NIH-- based in Maryland, and NIH's National Institute for Minority Health and Health Disparities--NIMHD--are doing to advance the field of scientific research into health disparities. The evidence-based research that NIMHD invests in at institutions throughout the country is expanding the scientific knowledge base and informing practice and policy to reduce health disparities. Some recent work of NIMHD has focused on the prevention, treatment, and management of comorbid chronic diseases, as well as COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy within communities of color.

COVID-19 has disproportionately affected communities of color, particularly African-Americans, Hispanic Americans, and American Indian or Alaska Native people, who are at an increased risk of getting sick, having more severe illness, and dying from COVID-19. This is why I have fought for additional outreach and better data to close this gap. As part of that effort, Senator Menendez and I introduced our legislation, the COVID-19 Health Disparities Action Act, which would support targeted and culturally competent public awareness campaigns about COVID-19 vaccines and preventive measures such as masking and social distancing.

I am glad to see NIMHD also targeting these issues through the theme of this year's National Minority Health Month, ``Give Your Community a Boost!'' which focuses on the continued importance of COVID-19 vaccination, including boosters, as one of the most effective ways to protect communities from COVID-19.

Accessible and affordable health coverage is key to addressing health inequities. I was proud to help pass the Affordable Care Act--ACA-- which expanded health coverage to millions of Americans across the country. The American Rescue Plan built on the success of the ACA and expanded care to an additional 5.8 million Americans including 181,000 Marylanders.

I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to build on this progress.

As we recognize April as National Minority Health Month, let us recommit ourselves to ensuring all Americans have access to affordable, high-quality healthcare and renew our pledge to do everything possible to eliminate health disparities and ultimately achieve health equity for all.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about two of the Federal government's most important innovation programs: the Small Business Innovation Research program, also known as the SBIR, and the Small Business Technology Transfer program, or STTR for short.

It is very appropriate we are having this discussion as we are about to go into conference in regards to legislation that affects America's competitiveness. The SBIR and the STTR program represent the best of government industry partnerships.

The programs harness the creativity and ingenuity of America's entrepreneurs and innovators, solve the most pressing public health and national security challenges of our time.

The programs are also primed to help our Nation rebuild our domestic production capacity, to reduce our reliance on foreign supply chains on critical products, and reduce costs for the American people.

I would like to remind my colleagues that fighting inflation and rebuilding our domestic manufacturing capacity are inextricably linked.

When factories close, when products sit in shipping containers in ports, when production capacity decreases due to sick employees, and when products take longer to get from the warehouse to the store, prices go up.

I have no doubt that every Senator has heard from businesses in all sectors of the economy about solving this critical issue.

According to a recent survey the National Federation of Independent Business conducted, more than half of all small business owners reported a significant impact due to supply chain disruptions.

Thirty percent reported that the disruptions were causing a ``moderate impact,'' and 14 percent reported a ``mild impact.'' Only 5 percent of those surveyed reported that they were unaffected by the disruptions. Of the small business owners affected by disruptions, 80 percent reported that the disruptions have caused them to miss out on business opportunities.

I am very pleased to hear that President Biden announced during his State of the Union address that rebuilding America's domestic production capacity is central to his administration's plan to fight inflation and keep our Nation secure.

SBIR and STTR are two of the best tools in the Federal government's toolkit to achieve our goal. Congress created the SBIR in 1982 to increase the participation of small businesses and Federally funded research and development opportunities in areas ranging from clean energy to advanced manufacturing.

Under the program, Federal agencies that budget at least $100 million annually for outside research must allocate a portion--3.2 percent since fiscal year 2017--to support R&D and small businesses.

There are 11 Federal agencies and departments currently in the program, including the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of Education, and Health and Human Services. The program awards funds in three phases:

Phase 1 awards are worth up to $225,000 and may be used to conduct a feasibility study to determine an idea's scientific and commercial promise.

Phase 2 awards up to $1.5 million and may be used to conduct further R&D on the feasibility of turning an idea into a commercial product.

And phase 3 does not involve an award of funds, but denotes that an idea is ready to move from the laboratory to the marketplace.

During the commercialization phase, small businesses must raise funding from the private sector or secure non-SBIR Federal funds.

Congress created the STTR program in 1992. While the program is similar to the SBIR in structure, utilizing a similar three-phase progression, the STTR awards go to small businesses engaging in collaborative R&D with Federal labs, as well as nonprofit educational and scientific institutions.

The program requires Federal agencies and departments to spend at least $1 billion on outside research to allocate at least 0.45 percent of the funds to STTR opportunities.

Most people may not be familiar with SBIR or STTR, but they definitely recognize the products and companies in the programs that it helped create. Sonicare Electric toothbrush, iRobot, Lasik eye surgery, all received SBIR/STTR funding when they were startups. Qualcomm, which makes computer chips, semiconductors, and other technologies critical to our national communication infrastructure, also received funding from these programs. Progeny Systems, a small business based in Manassas, VA, received more than 300 SBIR and STTR awards to conduct research over a 20-year period. Progeny's research produced technology that drastically improves the Navy's torpedo capacity. The company is now the sole supplier of torpedos to the Navy; and, yes, it is still a small business.

This is another benefit of these programs: They expand and diversify the supplier base from which the Federal agencies source goods and services, increasing competition and investment in high-growth sectors, which reduce costs over time.

On the manufacturing front, several agencies, including NASA and the Department of Defense, are currently funding research on advanced manufacturing techniques, such as 3D printing and glass that can handle temperatures as high as 900 degrees, which would revolutionize our ability to monitor nuclear reactors and power plant furnaces to prevent accidents.

Simply put, SBIR and STTR are invaluable to our national security, and we should fund these programs adequately to rebuild our domestic supply chain. Unfortunately, authority for these critical programs will expire at the end of September unless Congress acts to extend them.

The House and Senate will go to conference soon on America COMPETES Act, which includes a 5-year extension of SBIR and STTR. I urge all my colleagues, especially those who will be conferees, to support this critical provision.

The junior Senator from Iowa has submitted a motion to instruct conferees to couple this effort to extend the SBIR program and the STTR program by 5 years with authorizing language to prevent China and Russia from acquiring critical national security technology developed by the program.

I agree with the Senator that the United States needs to safeguard technologies from being compromised and stolen, and I am pleased that the House Competes Act bill includes safeguards to prevent our adversaries from affecting our innovation--not just China and Russia, but all foreign countries of concern, including Iran and North Korea. This effort builds off of section 223 of the fiscal year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act that provides protections and requires disclosure to guard against foreign influence on Federally funded research and development.

So I will support the motion the Senator from Iowa will make; but we must recognize that if we are able to compete with China and Russia, extending the authorization for SBIR and STTR are critical. I hope she will work with me to keep this important program from shutting its doors on September 30.

I would like to add that this issue is very important to my constituents in

Maryland. Our State ranks number one in the Nation in R&D spending due to the presence of Federal and academic research institutions such as the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland.

I have had many discussions with State government officials and leading scientists in Maryland who have told me that one of the most sensible steps we can take to improve the SBIR and STTR program were to make these programs permanent. The research SBIR and STTR funds often continues for several years before producing a product ready to go to the market. Researchers need to know that these programs will not disappear in the middle of years-long research projects.

It is our responsibility to make sure that we act timely so that there is no lapse in these programs or reduced funding that is critically needed for these programs' success.

Any such action would be shortsighted and would have a devastating impact on small businesses engaged in cutting-edge research Nationwide. Reducing the size of these programs or allowing them to lapse altogether would hinder our efforts to restore the production of critical products.

I recently convened a hearing of the Senate Small Business Committee to examine the impacts of supply chain disruptions on small businesses. One of our witnesses, Dr. Sridhar Kota, who leads an organization that advocates for increased public and private sector investment in America's manufacturing sector, called the SBIR and the STTR ``one of the really good tools in the toolbox'' and urged the committee to strengthen the programs to support even more researchers. I could not agree more.

Instead of leaving the researchers who are inventing the tools that will power the economy of the future guessing about the SBIR and STTR, we in Congress have an opportunity--and I would say an obligation--to reauthorize these programs before they expire in September. We should also make them permanent, which both the Pentagon and NASA have urged us to do. This is in our national security interest, as well as our economic interest and fairness to small businesses.

Arthur C. Clarke wrote:

New ideas pass through three periods: (1) It can't be done.

(2) It probably can be done, but it's not worth doing. (3) I

knew it was a good idea all along.

The SBIR and the STTR programs help visionary entrepreneurs get through one and two to reach three. Getting to three makes America stronger and more prosperous.

Let us make sure that we act in time.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as Lady Bird Johnson said, ``The environment is where we all meet, where we all have a mutual interest; it is the one thing all of us share.''

This quote from when she served as First Lady of the United States during President Lyndon Baines Johnson's time in office, from 1963 to 1969, still resonates with us today as we commemorate Earth Day 2022 and reflect on our relationship with nature and the world we share with each of us every day.

April 22, 1970, marked the first annual Earth Day, which led to the formation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency--the Agency that is responsible for implementing environmental regulations and standards.

We have made great strides in protecting the environment and public health through the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act, but the data and science surrounding the harmful effects of climate change are alarming. Climate change is harming our ecosystems, waterways, forests, wildlife, and our general environment.

This year's sustainable development goals theme and call to action is ``Invest in Our Planet.'' The question for climate action is no longer ``if'' or ``when'' but ``how much?'' if we want to have a healthy, habitable Earth.

Strong policies that protect our water resources, fisheries, and wildlife and address the challenges of climate change are a top priority of mine in my role as a member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

I applaud President Biden for setting forth ambitious but attainable climate-friendly goals, driven by science, to help preserve the health and safety of our planet and the public. I applaud President Biden's Executive actions in January of 2021 to reverse steps President Trump took that weakened Federal protections under the Endangered Species Act. I applaud President Biden's commitment to conserving 30 percent of America's lands and oceans by 2030, also known as the America the Beautiful Initiative.

With the understanding that we need to meet the moment on climate change and preserve our planet, Congress passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which President Biden signed into law last November. This

historic legislation serves as a significant downpayment on our future as we seek to strengthen resiliency and mitigation measures against flooding and sea level rise; shift towards greener, cleaner energy and technology; and form meaningful habits to clean up the world around us by recycling, composting, and disposing of waste products properly.

The threat of sea level rise and warming temperatures is already detrimental to our coastlines and ecosystems, especially along the Chesapeake Bay. With numerous and successful restoration efforts underway, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act authorizes an additional $238 million to the Chesapeake Bay Program to make even bigger reductions in nutrient pollution to improve water quality in the surrounding tributaries.

In partnership with local jurisdictions, stakeholders, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the bipartisan infrastructure act will deliver $37.5 million in Federal funding for the Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Project. The purpose of the project is to rebuild the declining James and Barren Islands in Dorchester County and provide a substantial increase of habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife species by repurposing dredged material from the shipping channels for the Port of Baltimore. This is beneficial use of dredged material to keep our channels at the necessary depth for commerce but do it in a way that restores our environment. Wetlands provide natural flood control solutions as climate change brings increasingly frequent and severe weather events.

We only have one planet, which is why every decision and every failure to act matters.

I would like to thank our Federal workforce this Earth Day for its efforts to maximize this window for action on climate and environmental justice. The Biden administration has directed each Federal Agency to take strong action when it comes to dealing with our climate and environmental justice. Many civil servants are working around the clock to promulgate rules, strategy documents, and much, much more. For example, White House officials this month announced equity action plans for more than 90 Federal Agencies designed to combat systemic barriers to opportunities in underserved communities.

Each day of COP26 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Glasgow explored a new topic. Our Senate delegation had an opportunity to attend on the day that was devoted toward Nature Day. I mention that because our nature depends upon us dealing with the climate agenda.

I would just call to my colleagues' attention the series that is hosted by former President Barack Obama, ``Our Great National Parks.'' Take a look at how important it is in preserving our environment for the species around us, which affects not only their ability to live but our ability to live.

The month of April represents the opportunity to celebrate other related environmental and nature-focused holidays, such as Arbor Day, which falls on April 29 this year. My home State commemorated Maryland Arbor Day at the beginning of the month, on April 9. This year, we celebrate the 150th anniversary of Arbor Day. The goal of Arbor Day is to celebrate nature within our communities by organizing tree planting or trash and litter cleanups. As President Franklin Delano Roosevelt remarked, ``A nation that destroys its soil destroys itself. Forests are the lungs of our land, purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our people.''

The bipartisan infrastructure law also provides $275 million grant funding for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Post-Consumer Materials Management Infrastructure Grant Program, which the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act established. This program will help prevent plastic waste from entering our environment in the first place. The program will provide grants to States to improve local waste management systems, including municipal recycling programs, and to improve postconsumer materials management and infrastructure to reduce plastic waste in our waterways and oceans, ultimately protecting our planet.

I agree with Paul Hawken, who said this in a commencement address at the University of Portland in 2009:

At present, we are stealing the future, selling it in the

present, and calling it gross domestic product. We can just

as easily have an economy that is based on healing the future

instead of stealing it. We can either create assets for the

future or take the assets of the future. One is called

restoration and the other [is called] exploitation. And

whenever we exploit the earth we exploit people and cause

untold suffering. Working for the earth is not a way to get

rich, it is a way to be rich.

Protecting our planet is a collective and ongoing effort. While we still have much to do, I am encouraged by the legislative and administrative progress we have made so far. I urge my colleagues to take the next step and pass the Build Back Better Act--transformative legislation for a clean energy economy.

This Earth Day, let us heed Paul Hawken's comments: ``Working for the earth is not a way to get rich, it is a way to be rich.''

With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today in strong support of Judge Jackson to be the 116th Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

As a Senator, one of the most important responsibilities I have under the Constitution is whether to provide my consent to a President's nomination to the Supreme Court, the highest Court in our land.

The Framers carefully designed our Constitution using an intricate system of checks and balances. The Framers designed the third branch of government, the judiciary, to be an independent branch from the political branches of government: the legislature and the executive branch.

Judges were given the unusual protection--unlike Congress and the President--to have lifetime tenure and to hold their offices during good behavior. Judges, therefore, do not have to fear retribution or loss of their office or diminution of their paycheck if they make an unpopular decision.

So while the Supreme Court must show a healthy respect for the other coequal branches of government, it must, at the same time, preserve its own independence and ultimately interpret the laws and Constitution of the United States. A critical part of the Supreme Court's role is to preserve and protect the Constitution and to make sure that all Americans are treated equally under the law.

The marble entrance of the Supreme Court has etched above it the promise of equal justice under the law for all persons who enter. The Supreme Court must vigorously uphold the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans and pay special attention to safeguarding and enforcing the constitutional rights

guaranteed in our system of government.

As we know from our history, the Supreme Court has not always protected all Americans and, indeed, in the past has treated some Americans as less equal than others, simply due to their race, religion, or gender, among other factors. So let us remember the preamble to the Constitution, which declares that ``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice''--it is certainly not a perfect union, but I do believe in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that ``the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.''

Americans know that the Supreme Court makes profound decisions every day that impact the lives of people across this country. The Supreme Court regularly tackles so many of the controversial issues of the day that involve issues such as voting rights, criminal justice, labor law rights, environmental protection, and many, many more.

Turning now specifically to Judge Jackson's nomination, she would replace Justice Stephen Breyer on the Court, who, fittingly, she had clerked for after graduating from law school. Judge Jackson has an extremely impressive background and legal credentials and now sits as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, often called the Nation's second highest court.

The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave Judge Jackson a unanimously ``Well Qualified'' rating for the Supreme Court, which is its highest rating. The committee notes that to receive this highest rating:

A Supreme Court nominee must be a preeminent member of the

legal profession, have outstanding legal ability and

exceptional breadth of experience, and meet the very highest

standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial

temperament.

Judge Jackson passed all these tests with flying colors during her Senate confirmation process.

I had the privilege of chairing Judge Jackson's first Senate confirmation hearing in 2009, when President Obama nominated her to serve on the U.S. Sentencing Commission. I then had the opportunity to visit with Judge Jackson earlier this month, prior to her confirmation hearing. It was a real pleasure to speak with her. I am familiar with her background and many of her rulings. She is also a former Maryland resident. We had much to talk about, as she had many connections to my State.

Her brother served both as an infantryman and officer in the Maryland Army National Guard, during which he was twice deployed overseas; and he also served as an undercover narcotics recovery officer in the Baltimore City Police Department.

Judge Jackson is eminently qualified. In our meeting, we talked about her personal experience and her commitment to equal justice under the law, especially for those who have had difficulty accessing our legal system. She discussed her work as a public defender and providing defense free of charge to the most vulnerable members of our society. In this work, Judge Jackson carried out the mandate of the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, which provides that:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the

right to a speedy and public trial . . . and to have the

Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

She talked about her outreach to our next generation, in terms of talking to students in high school and college, as well as our next generation of lawyers in law school. I am often reminded of the words of my dear friend, the late Congressman Elijah Cummings of Baltimore, that ``our children are the living messages we send to a future we will never see.''

I do think Judge Jackson is having an important and ongoing conversation about democracy with our students. I frankly think she will be a powerful role model for so many who will follow in her footsteps--in particular, women and women of color who see Judge Jackson break yet another barrier and glass ceiling at the Supreme Court. These students can believe that, yes, they belong even in the highest Court in the land and the most elite corridors of power in our Nation's Capital.

We discussed the importance of an independent judicial branch of government and protecting the rights of individuals against powerful special interests that would abuse their power. I was impressed with Judge Jackson throughout our conversation.

Judge Jackson exemplifies the American story and experience. Her parents were public schoolteachers, and Judge Jackson said she was inspired to go into law by watching her father study when he was in law school. Raised in Miami, FL, she attended Florida public schools. She then went on to earn her BA magna cum laude from Harvard University and, later, her JD cum laude from Harvard Law School.

She went on to clerk for three different Federal judges: Judge Patti Saris in the District of Massachusetts, Judge Bruce Selya of the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and then Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court of the United States.

After working in private practice, she joined the U.S. Sentencing Commission as an assistant special counsel before serving as an assistant Federal public defender in Washington. Judge Jackson then returned to private practice again before being nominated in 2009 by President Obama to serve as a commissioner and, later, vice chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

As I noted earlier, I had the privilege to chair this confirmation hearing for Judge Jackson, after which she was unanimously confirmed by voice vote in the Senate in 2010. In this role, I noted that Judge Jackson often worked to find common ground with her fellow commissioners, who brought very different backgrounds and perspectives to the Commission. In particular, Judge Jackson made significant strides to make our criminal justice system and sentencing policy more fair and just.

For example, she worked on a bipartisan basis to effectively implement the Fair Sentencing Act, which addressed the 100-to-1 disparity in the law regarding crack cocaine and powder cocaine, which had led to disproportionate and discriminatory treatment of minorities in our criminal justice system.

I am hopeful that Judge Jackson can use these same skills of finding common ground with individuals from different backgrounds and build a consensus as a Justice on the Supreme Court.

In 2013, President Obama nominated Judge Jackson to serve as the U.S. district judge for the District of Columbia, and again, the Senate unanimously confirmed her nomination by voice vote. As a district court judge, Judge Jackson wrote more than 500 opinions and considered a wide array of issues that would come before the Supreme Court. She has a real breadth of experience here, including cases involving constitutional, civil rights, and national security issues; administrative issues involving Federal Agencies; environmental issues; criminal law and procedure issues; and matters involving government transparency.

On the bench, her record clearly demonstrates that Judge Jackson impartially applies the law and precedent to the facts in a fair and impartial manner, regardless of her own personal views on the subject. Judge Jackson took special care to make sure the parties before her understood her approach to deciding cases, and she issued clearly reasoned decisions.

As Judge Jackson said in her confirmation hearing for the district court circuit, When I worked with clients as a defender, ``[m]ost of my clients didn't really understand what had happened to them. [N]o one really explained to them what they were supposed to expect, so they did not know where things might have gone wrong.''

Therefore, as a judge, Judge Jackson said that she will ``take extra time to communicate with'' the parties. ``I speak to them directly and not just to their lawyers. I use their names. I explain every stage of the proceeding because I want them to know what is going on.''

In reviewing her record, I notice that Judge Jackson's analysis and decision making have led her to rule both for and against the government in different cases, both for and against employers and workers, for and against criminal defendants and prosecutors, based on the merits of the case and her application of the law to the facts of that particular case.

In her confirmation hearing and written answers to questions for the record,

Judge Jackson pledged to support and defend the Constitution and further pledged to rule without fear or favor or prejudice or passion, consistent with her judicial oath. She indicated she understood the limits of the judicial role and the importance of adhering to precedents of the Court.

Just last year, President Biden elevated Judge Jackson to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Senate confirmed Judge Jackson to this position by a bipartisan vote of 53 voting in favor in an evenly divided Senate.

In that confirmation hearing, Judge Jackson again stressed the importance of courts having ``a duty of independence from political pressure, meaning that judges must resolve cases and controversies in a manner that is consistent with what the law requires, despite the judge's own personal views of the matter, and this is so even with respect to cases and controversies that pertain to controversial political issues.'' She is committed to carrying out her oath as a judge.

She particularly noted that she did not pay attention to who was in the administration when ruling on cases, which is consistent with her case record, ruling both for and against the Trump administration in different cases.

Judge Jackson did a superb job during the recent confirmation hearings, as our Presiding Officer knows, and consistently impressed me with her talents. Not only was she eminently qualified--we already knew about her outstanding qualifications; not only was she in command of all the legal subjects--we knew that she would excel in discussing the law and her job as a judge; but her demeanor in the face of repeated and often outrageous assaults by Republican Members of the Senate truly set her apart. She maintained her judicial temperament throughout this week's hearing and showed why she will be a major factor on the Supreme Court. Judge Jackson's confirmation hearing reinforced to me how critical it will be to have her on the Supreme Court.

Members of the committee unsuccessfully tried to distort Judge Jackson's sentencing record. The record clearly rebuts these charges, as Judge Jackson's sentences are well within the judicial mainstream, and Judge Jackson often followed the recommendations made by the probation office.

The ABA Standing Committee debunked several of these myths when they analyzed Judge Jackson's record as part of their review process before her confirmation hearing.

The ABA testified at the hearing:

We did speak to various prosecutors and defense counsels

for Judge Jackson. . . . None of them felt that she

demonstrated bias in any way. . . . One prosecutor said, ``I

did not observe any bias, and the Judge was fair to all sides

in connection with sentencing in all aspects.'' . . . We

asked pointed questions as it related to bias--whether it be

to defendants, whether it be to the government, and we found

no bias.

That was the ABA.

In terms of the allegations that Judge Jackson is ``soft on crime,'' the ABA testified:

We heard consistently, from not only defense counsel but

prosecutors, how unbiased Judge Jackson is. We heard phrases

like ``doing things by the books.'' For example, one

prosecutor described the sentencing hearing involving a very

high profile, sensitive national security matter. What she

said was, it was classic Judge Jackson. . . . What really

impressed this prosecutor was that after oral argument, Judge

Jackson took a recess, went back to [her] chambers, and when

she resumed the bench, came out with a sentence that was more

in favor of the government. What more impressed the

prosecutor was that the Judge's ruling included arguments

that had been made both by the defense and [the] prosecutors

during oral arguments. It is not as if she came into the

hearing with her mind made up. She listened to what counsel

on both sides said and came up with a sentence that the

prosecution was quite happy with.

Several prominent law enforcement organizations support Judge Jackson's nomination.

The Fraternal Order of Police wrote:

From our analysis of Judge Jackson's record and some of her

cases, we believe she has considered the facts and applied

the law consistently and fairly on a range of issues. There

is little doubt that she has the temperament, intellect,

legal experience, and family background to have earned this

appointment. We are reassured that, should she be confirmed,

she would approach her future cases with an open mind and

treat issues related to law enforcement fairly and justly.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police supports Judge Jackson's nomination. They wrote:

[W]hen the IACP chooses to support an individual, we do not

take it lightly, and [we] take into careful consideration

their background, experience, and previous opinions issued as

they relate to law enforcement and criminal justice issues. .

. . During her time as a judge, she has displayed her

dedication to ensuring that our communities are safe and that

the interests of justice are served. We believe that Judge

Jackson's years of experience have shown she has the

temperament and qualifications to serve as the next Associate

Justice on the Supreme Court.

That was the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

Judge Jackson has an unusually broad range of support from law enforcement groups, crime victims and survivors, business associations, and civil rights groups.

Former DC Circuit Judge Thomas Griffith introduced Judge Jackson at her confirmation hearing. Judge Griffith, a President George W. Bush appointee, vouched for Judge Jackson's ``careful approach, extraordinary judicial understanding, and collegial manner. . . . Judge Jackson has a demonstrated record of excellence, and I believe, based upon her work as a trial judge when I served on the Court of Appeals, that she will adjudicate based on the facts and the law and not [in a] partisan [manner].

Former Fourth Circuit Judge Michael Luttig, a President George H. W. Bush appointee who recently advised Vice President Pence, offered a similar endorsement when he wrote that she is ``eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court'' and is ``as highly credentialed and experienced in the law as any nominee in [recent] history.''

Her colleagues have given her the highest ratings. Those who know her best, those who have worked with her, give us all great confidence in her qualifications and ability to serve on the Supreme Court.

A group of conservative lawyers--many of whom served in previous Republican administrations--wrote in strong support of Judge Jackson and said:

While some of us might differ concerning particular

positions she has taken as a judge, we are united in our view

that she is exceptionally well-qualified, given her breadth

of experience, demonstrated ability, and personal attributes

of intellect and character. Indeed, we think that her

confirmation on a consensus basis would strengthen the Court

and the nation in important ways.

It is long past time for the Supreme Court to seat a highly qualified, Black, female attorney as a member. As we strive to provide equal justice under the law to all Americans, she would be only the sixth woman out of 116 Justices to serve on the Supreme Court and only the second woman of color and the first Black woman. A Justice Jackson will bring sorely needed diversity to the Supreme Court, both demographically and professionally.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights noted:

This professional diversity is another critical step in

ensuring our courts look more like America. Judge Jackson

will be the first justice with any significant criminal

defense experience since the retirement of Justice Thurgood

Marshall in 1991, and she would be the only Supreme Court

justice to have served as a public defender. Public defenders

play a [critical] role in our legal system, yet they are

vastly underrepresented on the federal bench. At all levels

of our judiciary, there are nearly six times as many former

prosecutors on the federal bench than former criminal defense

lawyers, and just over 5 percent of federal appellate judges

have experience as a public defender. . . . Our highest court

should reflect the diversity of the legal profession, and

Judge Jackson's meaningful experience is greatly needed on

our Supreme Court.

I believe that Judge Jackson will faithfully uphold her judicial oath, which contains a special provision whereby judges promise to ``administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and the rich.'' I believe she respects the separation of powers and checks and balances in our system and that she is committed to uphold the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans.

I will proudly vote to confirm Judge Jackson so she will become Justice Jackson.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are at a critical point in our battle against COVID-19. While we are still losing Americans to the virus, we have reached a stage where most of us are able to resume many of the daily activities we used to regard as normal. But our sustained effort to improve health outcomes and keep our economy on track is running out of funding. Now is the time to act.

Over the last 2 years, our communities have taken necessary mitigation measures. Healthcare and frontline workers have given everything they have to care for our loved ones. The Biden administration, with funding provided through the American Rescue Plan, has worked hard to ensure we had the resources necessary to continue to adapt our response to COVID-19.

After the peak of the Omicron variant, the reduced COVID-19 transmissions has made it safer to reconnect with friends and family and resume some of the activities we have all missed during the past 2 years. Due to the tireless work of the Biden administration, testing capacity and therapeutics are more available than they have been at any time during the pandemic. Over 81 percent of Americans who are 5 years or older have had at least one COVID-19 vaccination, and nearly 50 percent of Americans who are eligible are fully vaccinated and have had a booster. In Maryland, 91 percent of Marylanders 5 and older have had at least one COVID-19 vaccination shot.

Overall, we have made significant strides in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic, but the threat is not over. Many Americans have children who are too young to be vaccinated and are immunocompromised or otherwise at high risk, so they may not be able to resume normal activities. While positivity rates and hospitalizations are decreasing, almost 700 Americans still are dying, on average, each day.

Additionally, new variants continue to emerge. Countries across Europe and Asia have seen new spikes in cases due to a more contagious version of Omicron known as BA.2. We could soon see a renewed surge as we are oftentimes only weeks behind rising cases in Europe. This latest subvariant already makes up 35 percent of the cases here in the United States.

Fortunately, at this stage, BA.2 appears no more severe than the original Omicron variant. In the United Kingdom, however, as BA.2 increased, children 2 to 11 years old had the highest rate of infections of any group in the country, the younger children.

To respond rapidly to emerging variants, we must keep financing pandemic prevention and response needs. The White House and the Department of Health and Human Services have made it clear that at least $22.5 billion of additional funding is necessary to replenish pandemic prevention programs that are nearing completion or have already been depleted. Without these funds, we will have to cut back on critical aspects of the pandemic response.

Here are some examples. Our national testing capacity will decline, leaving us vulnerable and less able to detect emerging variants. It will become harder to diagnose infections early enough to take effective treatments. Also, uninsured individuals may no longer be able to access vaccines, tests, and treatments for free. This will cut off a critical support for uninsured individuals and health providers who care for them if they become ill with COVID-19.

In addition to testing and acute care, vital COVID-19 research will suffer if we do not provide sufficient funding. Continued development of new medications and vaccines is critical, but without additional funding, research will stop, leaving us potentially vulnerable to a variant resistant to our current arsenal. Specifically, the National Institutes of Health may shut down some of its COVID-19 research.

Further, the Food and Drug Administration recently granted an emergency use authorization for a new monoclonal antibody treatment that is effective against the Omicron variant. Without additional funding, however, the Federal Government won't be able to continue ordering the monoclonal antibody treatments, vital therapies for immunocompromised patients, and antiviral pills, all of which are already in short supply.

Additional funding is critically important if we want to see the United States continue its leadership role in distributing vaccinations across the world to prevent more and worse variants from taking off and arriving on our shores.

I will continue to fight to ensure that we get additional COVID-19 funding. The American Rescue Plan Act demonstrated our ability to pass legislation that quickly ramped up pandemic response efforts and effectively mitigated the negative economic impact of the pandemic. This legislation has been critical in helping individuals and communities respond to the challenges brought on by the pandemic. Local governments have had to provide essential services at an unprecedented level, and they have risen to the occasion without falling into financial ruin. Now is not the time to take the foot off the gas.

Restaurants, for example, still need help. The American Rescue Plan created the Restaurant Revitalization Fund, but the $28.6 billion provided to the program was not enough to meet demand. I remain gravely disappointed that the fiscal year 2022 omnibus spending package Congress passed earlier this month did not include additional assistance for restaurants and other hard-hit small businesses. For the last 2 years of the pandemic, nearly all restaurants have been under great strain as they have struggled to keep staff and adapt to the new variants, while facing increased pricing due to supply chain disruptions and inflation. And those have been the restaurants fortunate enough to survive the pandemic. Thousands have closed their doors for good.

More than 100,000 restaurants received grants from the Restaurant Revitalization Fund that have helped them keep their doors open, but more than 180,000 restaurants that submitted their applications on time to receive funds--their applications were there--have received no funds at all. That is not fair, and they desperately need our help.

If Congress had not acted quickly to replenish the Paycheck Protection Program when it ran out of money weeks after it opened in April 2020--and we did that, by the way, with strong, almost unanimous support, and it was hundreds of billions of dollars that we were short--the program would have been a half-measure, necessary but not sufficient. Instead, we extended the emergency aid needed to meet the crisis we faced, and that is exactly what we need to do again with the Restaurant Revitalization Fund.

For the past 2 years plus, I have worked hard to secure vital resources to fight the COVID-19 pandemic and ensure that those who are struggling from the economic effects or emotional toll have the necessary support going forward. I will continue that fight.

The novel virus continues to challenge our Nation and the world, so we must be prepared. I urge the Senate to pass necessary additional funding for COVID-19 relief so Americans can continue to face this challenge head-on and prevail.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this March, as we mark National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, we must remember those we have lost to colorectal cancer, acknowledge the progress we have made to date to reduce colorectal cancer cases, and renew our commitment to fighting this devastating illness. Since its inception in 2000, National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month has given us the opportunity to raise awareness and remind people of the importance of cancer screening in the early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer.

While cases of colorectal cancer have declined, it is still the second leading cause of cancer death among men and women combined in the U.S. This year alone, more than 150,000 Americans will be diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Over 52,000 people will die from the disease. In 2018, 2,597 Marylanders were diagnosed with colorectal cancer, and 982 patients died from it.

Colorectal cancer has a disproportionate impact among racial and ethnic minorities, particularly Black Americans, Jews of Eastern European descent, and Indigenous communities. Black men are 22 percent more likely than non-Hispanic White men are, and Black women are 18 percent more likely than non-Hispanic White women to be diagnosed with colorectal cancer. American Indians and Alaska Natives are 10 percent more likely than non-Hispanic White Americans to die of colorectal cancer. Jews of Eastern European decent are two to three times more likely to get colorectal cancer than the greater population.

Fortunately, because of early detection and prevention tools, colorectal cancer is among the most preventable of all cancers. Colorectal cancer screenings not only detect the disease in its early stages, but can catch precancerous growths, or polyps, too. When these polyps are found, they can be removed and prevent cancer from occurring. Regular screening saves lives. Over 60 percent of deaths from colorectal cancer could have been prevented with screening, but one in three adults in the U.S. aged 45 to 75 years old is still not getting screened as recommended. Colonoscopies are one of the most effective screening methods for colorectal cancer.

That is why I have long worked to increase access to colonoscopies. The Affordable Care Act ensured that Medicare would cover the cost of screening colonoscopies without cost-sharing for most seniors, but the work was not done. Since 2013, I led the Removing Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening Act with Senators Brown, Wicker, and Collins to ensure Medicare beneficiaries would not be charged for a colonoscopy, regardless of whether a polyp or tissue is removed. This legislation was included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. The law decreases barriers to screening by ensuring that seniors do not have to worry about unexpected medical costs if a polyp is detected and removed during a screening colonoscopy.

I am also proud of the work Maryland is doing to decrease rates of colorectal cancer. Through the Maryland Colorectal Cancer Control Program, Maryland has used funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--CDC--and the State's CRF Cancer Prevention Education, Screening, and Treatment Program to promote screening. The program partners with local health departments, community health centers, and various health systems, among other entities. Because of these and other initiatives, 72.5 percent of adults 50 years and older in Maryland were up-to-date with colorectal cancer screenings in 2018, slightly above the Healthy People 2020 target of 70.5 percent.

Still, we must do more to ensure younger Americans are aware of their risks of colorectal cancer and its symptoms and get the appropriate

screenings to prevent and detect the disease. This year, Fight Colorectal Cancer placed 27,400 blue flags on the National Mall to represent the number of people under 50 expected to be diagnosed with colorectal cancer in 2030. The installation not only raises awareness of the increase in colorectal cancer in this younger population but also serves as a tribute to all those touched by the disease. By 2030, colorectal cancer is projected to be the leading cancer killer for those aged 20 to 49.

This is why continued investments in awareness and screening programs and research into effective treatments are so essential. Colorectal cancer research is one of the least funded among different cancers. I am proud of the work that the National Institutes of Health's National Cancer Institute and other Maryland-based research institutions and healthcare providers have done to reduce colorectal cancer rates, but they all need more resources.

We have made progress in combatting colorectal cancer, but there is more work for us to do. This is why I will continue to work my colleagues to fight this terrible disease.

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the outstanding leadership of Donald B. Tobin, Esquire, as dean of the University of Maryland Francis Carey King School of Law, following his announcement that he will step down at the end of the 2021-2022 academic year and return to full-time teaching as a member of the Maryland Carey Law faculty. This decision concludes an 8-year chapter in service to the school's 645 students, 176 faculty members, and thousands of alumni. Dean Tobin has been a tireless advocate and instructor who truly treasures the law school community.

Donald Tobin has been dean and professor of law at my alma mater, the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law located in Baltimore City, since 2014. Under his leadership, the law school has built upon two centuries of distinguished history to deliver its core academic mission of integrating legal theory and practice, serving as a resource and partner to neighboring communities and training the next generation of excellent lawyers and leaders. As dean, he has risen to meet the unprecedented challenges of the last decade.

Donald Tobin grew up in Columbia, MD, and began his career on Capitol Hill, as a professional staff member for my predecessor, the inimitable U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes. Donald also staffed the Senate Committee on the Budget and the Joint Economic Committee. He worked on the Hill before, during, and after the time he was attending law school at Georgetown University, where he earned his J.D. in 1996. It was here in this Chamber that Donald first contributed to policy at the national level. He went on to serve as a law clerk for the Honorable Francis Murnaghan, Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and as an appellate attorney in the Tax Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Donald remains a leading expert on the intersection of tax and campaign finance laws, an area of law more critical to our democracy today than ever before.

Donald was professor of law and associate dean for academic affairs and associate dean for faculty at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law before he decided to come back home to Maryland. Given his wealth of expertise, I am particularly excited for him to rejoin the faculty as a professor in this next phase of his career. Donald has demonstrated an abiding passion for education, scholarship, and the public service mission of the law school. He has wisely invested his time in understanding the needs of the Maryland legal and nonprofit community. And he has fostered a supportive community that provides personalized learning experiences, which empower the school's students to realize countless possible career pathways.

Donald has always provided a welcoming presence around the school. He has taught the popular ``Lawyers as Leaders'' class, and he has put his tax law knowledge and Maryland Bar membership to use by working with students in the Low-Income Taxpayer Clinic.

The Clinical Law Program makes experiential education a core component of the law school's curriculum, and it makes advancing access to justice a prerequisite for graduation. This program is unique among law schools nationally.

The law school requires every student who initially enrolls as a first year, full-time day student to provide legal services to people who are poor or otherwise lack access to justice in order to graduate-- a provision known as the ``Cardin Requirement,'' which I championed. It attracts students who care deeply about their clients and their communities.

It is no surprise that students attracted to a law school for its spirit of excellence in public service would choose someone of Donald's character for its leader. He brings that same personal attention to the law school's relationships among its many constituents, the bar, and the surrounding community.

Donald's positivity and kind nature were critical to his success throughout a deanship ``book-ended'' by unthinkable events. In the aftermath of the killing of Freddie Gray in the spring of 2015, Donald led efforts to expand the law school's positive impact in the community, bolstering channels to local volunteer opportunities and providing forums for students and faculty to explore the systemic causes that led to Baltimore's unrest and to possible solutions. Donald redoubled the school's efforts to recruit and retain highly qualified and diverse students, while keeping legal education accessible and affordable. Our law firms, judicial benches, and nonprofit leadership should all equitably reflect Maryland's population. Donald's commitment to facilitating an inclusive law school community has brought us closer to this imperative.

As a member of the Law School Board of Visitors, I greatly appreciate Donald's support for establishing the Honorable Elijah E. Cummings `76 Scholarship Endowment at the law school in 2019. The scholarship pays apt tribute to our former colleague--another luminary of the Maryland congressional delegation--and to his many contributions to his District and to our

Nation as one of our most distinguished alumni. Board of visitors member and former chair Bob Kim--class of 1983--has spearheaded establishing the scholarship, which will support law school students who have an interest in public service, a record of academic excellence, and demonstrated financial need.

Toward what would be the end of his time as dean, Donald maintained a cohesive law school community despite the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustained high turnout at virtual versions of beloved events such as the alumni honors banquet and Morris Brown Myerowitz Moot Court Competition evinced this resilience and unity, with alumni volunteers serving as mock judges or interviewers, during a time of social distancing.

Even before the global pandemic, Donald took an active role in protecting student health and well-being, instituting Kindness Week to promote student resources and self-care in partnership with the board of visitors.

William Butler Yeats wrote, ``Education is not the filling of a pot but the lighting of a fire.'' For over 20 years now, Donald Tobin has been lighting fires among his students, and their glow has brought light to the law school community, the city, our State, and the Nation. I thank him for his tremendous service to the law school's students, faculty, staff and alumni, and I wish him well on this exciting new chapter in his exemplary career.

I reserve the right to object in regard to the Senator from Kentucky's request.

Mr. President, first, let me just correct some of the statements that were made. This bill went through the committee. It was voted on in the committee. Amendments were offered in the committee. The Senator from Kentucky was present during the markup in the committee. That is the way legislation should be considered in this body.

We are talking about how the Senate can work the way it should? Let the committees function. And that is exactly what we did in regard to the legislation that is on the floor. It went through the regular process. And the Senator's request is despite the fact that the majority leader has said he will allow a vote on the floor and let the Members of the Senate make the decision as to whether they agree or disagree with the arguments made by the author of the amendment. That is how a democracy should work. That is how the legislative process should work.

So I am somewhat shocked that the Senator would object to the majority leader's request that would allow the legislation to come to the floor and let the Senate work its will by majority vote. That is what the majority leader said.

Let me give you a little bit more history on this. The original Magnitsky bill was originally attached to the PNTR for Russia, and it was aimed solely at the tragic death of Sergei Magnitsky. We wanted to hold those responsible for his death accountable. That is why the language the Senator is referring to was included in the original act. It was aimed at one episode and one set of abusers.

It became such a successful tool for diplomacy that, working with Senator McCain, the two of us worked on making it a global bill so that it would apply beyond just Russia and that we could use this to advance American foreign policy.

And we worked--and quite frankly, we didn't have the enthusiastic support of the administration because the Senator from Kentucky is right: Administrations like to have their own authority; they don't like Congress to intercede. And on the Magnitsky, we can make recommendations as to who should be considered for sanctions. So it was a major step forward, and we were able to pass Global Magnitsky.

In the meantime, President Trump worked with us on this. He was a supporter of using this tool. And he passed an Executive order--signed an Executive order, that included provisions that we asked him to include in the Executive order because we recognized that corruption was the fuel for Mr. Putin and Russia and authoritarian regimes. So we wanted to make sure that we could include corruption. We wanted to make sure that we could include the enablers--those who enabled these human rights abusers to do what they do, and that was included in the Executive order.

And we worked with the Trump administration. And we have worked with the Biden administration. And we now have a workable standard. And better than that, as a result of our leadership, we have gotten our countries around the world to conform to our tool. The European Union has passed Global Magnitsky. The UK has passed Global Magnitsky. Canada has passed Global Magnitsky. Japan is considering it as we speak.

It is becoming the standard. So from a process point of view, what was passed out of our committee, what was passed out of the House committee, both authorizing committees have agreed on this language, which has been signed off by Treasury so they know they can use it, which has due process in it because we are dealing with property rights.

So now let's get to the substance of what the gentleman's amendment would do. The substance of it is that it would not allow us to do what we need to do in regards to Mr. Putin and Russia as a result of his invasion of Ukraine. And the sponsor of this amendment is very clear what he is trying to do. He is trying to take back the current authority under the Executive order and would, therefore, not even be useful at all in regards to going after Mr. Putin.

We would be taking a step back. It was just a few days ago that President Zelenskyy asked us to expand the individual sanctions, and that is what is on the floor right now in the majority leader's request, so we can expand it, we can give him the tools he needs, so that we can respond and help the people of Ukraine. That is what is involved here.

But with the amendment being offered by the gentleman from Kentucky, we would be moving backwards. We would be doing just the opposite. It would weaken where we are today. So I am really puzzled as to why we can't trust the judgment of the Members of the Senate to make this decision. Let's argue over the 2 hours that the majority leader will give us to argue this point. I look forward to that argument on the floor of the Senate. I already had that argument in our committee. Because the two--the gentleman from Kentucky and I, along with the Presiding Officer, served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We had this argument in committee. And if I am correct, I believe, the vote was all but one supporting my position.

So we have already had this debate where it should take place among the experts. And the gentleman's not satisfied with that. I am at a loss here because I know how important it is for us to move forward to help the people of Ukraine.

Every day, we see the bodies on the ground. We see the horrific action by Mr. Putin, and we really want to do everything we can to help the people of Ukraine. The action the majority leader is asking us to take will help the people of Ukraine. And as I understand it, one Senator is going to deny us the opportunity to take a very positive step, to stand up for democracy, and for standing up for the people of Ukraine.

I object to the request.

Madam President, reserving the right to object to the request from the Senator from Idaho, it is my understanding that the Senator's modification would not include provisions that were included in the House-passed legislation that modifies the global Magnitsky sanction regime.

I just would like to speak for a moment, if I might. There is no question that we stand with the people of Ukraine against the unprovoked attack by Mr. Putin. We are inspired every day by the courage of the Ukrainian people and by their inspirational leader, President Zelenskyy.

The United States has shown leadership, and I congratulate the Biden administration. We have led the free world in providing defensive lethal weapons to Ukraine to defend itself. We have provided humanitarian assistance, joining the global community, including dealing with 3 million Ukrainians that are now refugees in other countries and 10 million that have been displaced as a result of Mr. Putin's unprovoked attack.

And we have led on sanctions. We have led in getting the global unity to impose sanctions against not just the Russian sectors, but also against individuals. And when Mr. Zelenskyy spoke before the Members of Congress, he specifically mentioned the importance of these sanctions; and he asked us to expand those covered by the sanctions to include the enablers, those that are enabling Mr. Putin--the oligarchs--to be able to fund his aggression against Ukraine.

So what did the House send over to us? In their bill, they sent over a global Magnitsky modification. It is identical to legislation that was filed by Senator Portman and myself that included the revocation of PNTR for Russia, along with the global Magnitsky. First and foremost, it removes the sunset that is in the legislation that would sunset this year.

Mr. Zelenskyy asked for us to be resolved in being willing to stand up to Mr. Putin, that it would take some time. A clear message is that we remove the sunset on the global Magnitsky statute. And we know how difficult it is to get legislation passed in this body.

It also expands the global Magnitsky to include the enablers--exactly what Mr. Zelenskyy asked us to do--those that enabled--the oligarchs that allowed him to be able to finance this. The language that is included in here is very similar to the language that was included in President Trump's Executive order. This is critical legislation.

Now, let me just tell you how appropriate it is that it is included in a PNTR bill--because the first Magnitsky sanction bill--and Senator Wyden was very important in getting this done--was included in the original PNTR bill for Russia, and we were able to get it done at that time.

We then made it a global Magnitsky, and my partner on that was the late Senator McCain. It has always been bipartisan. My partner now is Senator Wicker. The two of us have joined forces to make sure we get it done now. It is critically important in order to impose banking restrictions on those that are targeted under the global Magnitsky, as well as visa restrictions on being able to travel.

How important is it? Ask Mr. Usmanov, who is one of the principal oligarchs to Mr. Putin, who solves Mr. Putin's business problems. Guess how he solves those problems? Well, his yacht has now been confiscated in Germany. That is how important these sanctions are and how we have to move them forward.

So, if I understand my colleague's request, it would deny the opportunity for us to act on the global Magnitsky, which Mr. Zelenskyy has specifically asked us to do. We would lose that opportunity. We would be sending this bill back to the House that is not in session, which means there will be a further delay in repealing PNTR for Russia, which is something we need to do now, today. We can get it to the President for signature today under the majority leader's request.

And as the majority leader has indicated, I support the energy ban--I support the Russian energy ban. President Biden has already taken steps to do that. And I agree with my colleague from Idaho. I would like to incorporate that in statute, but there is no urgency to do that as there is on repealing PNTR and the global Magnitsky. That is the urgency. That is what we need to get done today. That is what we can get to the President this afternoon under the majority leader's request, and that will be denied if my friend from Idaho's request were granted.

So, for all those reasons, I object.

Mr. President, let me thank the chairman on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for his incredible leadership on this issue and so many others.

I want to point out that our committee has already approved this language. This is already approved. This is not something that is new to this body. We have been debating this for some time. It has been the United States and the U.S. Senate that have taken the leadership to provide tools to go after human rights abusers. We were the first to act, but, as a result of our action, Europe has now acted, the UK has acted, and Canada has acted. So we have provided global leadership. It is one of the strongest tools we have against human rights violators, and our No. 1 target today is Mr. Putin and what he has done.

So we have a chance to really show our leadership--continued leadership--in this area.

I am also encouraged by Senator Crapo's assurances that we are going to try to get this done today. We want to get this bill to the President. We want to have it clear that we reauthorized it in a way that would be effective moving forward.

On one last point, if I might, no one knows exactly what happened in the first summit meeting between President Putin and President Trump, but the reports were that probably one of the very first issues that was raised by Mr. Putin was global Magnitsky sanctions, how it is so sensitive to him.

A clear message against Mr. Putin is the passage of the reauthorization and, as the chairman said, fine-tuning of the global Magnitsky statute. I hope we can get that done today. I thank my colleagues for their comments.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session and vote on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 683, the nomination of Julie Rubin, under the previous order.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, before I start my remarks in regard to the

2-year anniversary of the CARES Act, I just want to compliment my colleague from Maryland on his statements in regard to Mr. Putin's aggression in Ukraine.

Everything he said I totally concur in--the unity that President Biden has been able to instill not only among our traditional allies but the global community; the strength of our help to the Ukrainian people, the help that we have given in regard to humanitarian relief; and the sanctions that were led by the United States--but we now have global support for many of these sanctions, which are making a difference.

This is clearly a battle between good and evil, and I just really wanted to compliment my colleague from Maryland on his statement, one on which I hope all of us agree, and that we can move forward very quickly on the legislation you refer to that passed the House of Representatives that would make it clear that we will not do business with Russia as normal; that we will revoke the favored nation status and normal trade relations; and that we will do what Mr. Zelenskyy has asked us to do, and that is to make it clear that the Magnitsky sanctions, which are individual sanctions imposed against the perpetrators, Mr. Putin and his enablers in Russia, will be maintained with reauthorization of the global Magnitsky statute.

I hope we will get to that as early as this week because I agree with my colleague that every day we delay it, in fact, is helping Mr. Putin. We need to make it clear and enact that statute, which, by the way, the Biden administration strongly encourages us to do.

CARES Act

Mr. President, 2 years ago, the United States declared COVID-19 a national emergency. By then, it was clear that we were experiencing a once-in-a-century pandemic and that preventing the spread of this dangerous virus would require our Nation's greatest collective effort since World War II. Here in the U.S. Congress, we knew that this era- defining challenge would require unprecedented action from the Federal Government to confront the economic and public health crisis created by