Floor Statements

Madam President, finally, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, March 29; 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 the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Coloretti nomination; that the cloture motions filed during Thursday's session ripen following the disposition of the motion to discharge the Cook nomination; and that the Senate vote on the motion to discharge the Cook nomination at 11:45 a.m.; that if cloture is invoked on the Coloretti nomination, all postcloture time be considered expired at 5:30 p.m. and that the Senate recess following the cloture vote until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; further, that notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate vote on cloture on the Kang nomination at 2:15 p.m. and that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be considered expired following the disposition of the Coloretti nomination; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Tuesday's session of the Senate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Madam President, well, it was another busy and productive evening here on the Senate floor. Yesterday, we confirmed another six judges to important positions on the Federal bench and all of them, I am happy to say, with bipartisan support. We now have confirmed 56--56--judges under this Democratic Senate majority, and I thank my colleagues for their patience and for keeping the pace moving here on the floor last night.

There are two judges I am especially proud to have confirmed. First, we confirmed Hector Gonzalez to serve as a district judge for the Eastern District of New York. Mr. Gonzalez is a most deserving, most qualified, and most inspiring individual to serve as a judge. Born in Cuba, raised in Queens, he is the embodiment of the American dream.

We also finally confirmed a judge who has inspired me for more than a decade--Ali Nathan, now confirmed as circuit judge for the Second Circuit. When I first met her, I thought, ``Here is someone who is truly special,'' and I still believe that to this day. And, to boot, she increases the diversity of the court as only the second-ever openly

lesbian to sit on the Second Circuit--open lesbian on the Second Circuit. I believe that is in the whole Federal judiciary. We will check that.

The Second Circuit is one of the most consequential courts in the entire country, calling for only the best of the best to sit on the bench, and Ali Nathan fits the bill.

I am glad both of these nominees were confirmed with bipartisan support.

On the legislative front, the Senate is pressing ahead on bipartisan competition legislation to lower costs, boost American manufacturing, and fuel another generation of American scientific ingenuity.

For the information of all Senators, last night, I moved to file cloture on both the substitute amendment and the underlying legislation for our competitiveness legislation. As I have said previously, our plan has been to take up the House-passed version of this legislation and amend it with the exact same language the Senate approved last summer with bipartisan support, the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act.

Once we pass this amended bill, it will go back to the House, and they will be able to request a conference committee. As convoluted as the Senate process often is, the bottom line is that the train is moving forward when it comes to this bill.

A lot of Senators from both parties have worked for years to see legislation like this reach the President's desk. If the United States is to thrive in the 21st century, we need to keep our competitive edge in science and innovation, and this bill would do just that. We must continue growing American jobs. We must continue to lower the price of critical technologies like semiconductors, and this bill would do just that as well.

We have a few more steps to take before we reach a conference, but support of this bill is strong and bipartisan, and the process is moving forward.

Russia

Madam President, on PNTR, negotiations are continuing on passing bipartisan legislation to strip Russia of permanent normal trade relations with the United States. This legislation is greatly needed and timely as President Biden continues meeting with European allies regarding Putin's despicable war on Ukraine.

The House passed PNTR by 424 to 8--424 to 8--and the Senate absolutely should pass it with equally strong bipartisan support. There is no justification to delay a popular policy that would deal a heavy, heavy blow on Putin's Russia, especially given that it got such strong Republican support, including from Leader McCarthy in the House.

Yesterday, I am happy to say, my team and I had a productive series of talks with Senators Crapo, Wyden, Manchin, and the White House. We reached an agreement with Senator Crapo to move forward on PNTR as soon as we can, while addressing oil ban legislation separately. That way, the PNTR legislation can go right to the President's desk.

I hope the rest of my colleagues will get with the program quickly so we can send PNTR legislation to the President's desk as soon as possible. We need a little more work, but we are close to passing this urgent legislation.

Nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson

Madam President, finally, on SCOTUS, after 3 marathon days of speeches and questions and answers, Judge Jackson's public testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee has concluded.

After watching the judge weather 3 long days before the Senate Judiciary Committee, my respect and my admiration for her have never been higher. There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that she merits confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Once again, a handful of Members on the other side--not all, just a handful--tried to smear the judge with misleading and downright false accusations. Once again, the judge remained poised, thoughtful, and strong in her answers.

As Senator Booker said yesterday, no amount of cynicism and nastiness could overshadow that Judge Jackson's nomination is a cause for celebration. She is not only a historic nominee; she is one of the most qualified nominees to ever come before the Judiciary Committee.

Yesterday, Chairman Durbin announced that the Judiciary Committee will meet on Monday afternoon to begin the process of reporting Judge Jackson's nomination out of committee. There is nothing in Judge Jackson's record suggesting that the committee should have difficulty reporting her nomination out. Once the committee concludes its work, I will move to have her nomination come to the floor in short order. The Senate is on track to have Judge Jackson confirmed as Justice Jackson by the end of this work period.

I commend Judge Jackson for her excellent testimony over the course of this week. It is not easy to endure 3 days of testimony with the entire Nation watching, but Judge Jackson has erased any doubt that she is brilliant, she is beloved, and she belongs--unquestionably belongs-- on the U.S. Supreme Court.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as I have said all week long, there has been an imperative for the Senate to unite and quickly pass legislation stripping Russia of normal trade relation status with the United States. The House has acted; the White House supports it.

As the President meets with our allies in Europe, it is very important we send a message to the world that we are united in making sure Putin pays a heavy price for his war on Ukraine. After the House passed PNTR last week by 424 to 8, including the support from Leader McCarthy, it is unreasonable and deadly wrong for the Senate not to do the same, especially while the President is abroad. So we are seeking consent to move this legislation forward ASAP.

After a day of long negotiations yesterday, I reached an agreement with Senator Crapo, with concurrence from Senators Wyden and Manchin, to move forward on PNTR while also taking action on oil ban legislation separately.

Now, I understand that Senator Paul has further objection and is demanding we amend this agreement with a major change to the legislation. Senator Paul appears to be the lone Senator demanding this. I believe that all other 99 Senators are in agreement to proceed.

Look, all of us want to see this bill move quickly because it is so very much needed and it is so bipartisan. I

am willing to include, as part of our unanimous consent right now, that Senator Paul be entitled to have his amendment with a majority vote threshold.

The question before Senator Paul is, even though the vote was 424 to 8 in the House and is very bipartisan here in the Senate, is he going to tank PNTR because his arcane interpretation is not forced into the bill? Can Senator Paul take yes for an answer? Can he let us move forward today to hold Putin accountable?

Every Senator would like his proposal or her proposal put in the bill, but in the Senate, we vote; and we are willing to give the Senator a vote, even though we greatly disagree with his interpretation of the law that is here.

I truly, I earnestly, and I strongly hope that my Republican colleague does not object to bipartisan legislation that would deal a heavy, heavy blow on Putin's Russia, especially after the House of Representatives acted with overwhelming bipartisan support.

Many of our Republican colleagues have criticized the Biden administration for supposedly not acting quickly enough on Putin, but now, one Republican Senator is holding up this overwhelmingly bipartisan bill. I strongly hope some of my other Republican colleagues can persuade Senator Paul to accept our agreement here so that we can move forward. Let us be equally resolute in standing with Ukraine and fighting back against Putin's brutal war by passing PNTR in the Senate right away.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of H.R. 6968, the Russian Oil Ban, and H.R. 7108, Russia PNTR, both of which are at the desk; that there be 2 hours for debate on the bills en bloc equally divided between the two leaders or designees; that it be in order for Senator Crapo, or a designee, to offer the Crapo-Wyden amendment at the desk to H.R. 6968; that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided prior to the vote on the amendment; that it be in order for Senator Paul to offer the amendment at the desk to H.R. 7108; that there be 2 hours for debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form prior to a vote on the Paul amendment, and that these be the only amendments in order to either bill; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bills be considered read a third time en bloc and the Senate vote on passage of H.R. 7108, as amended, if amended, and H.R. 6968, as amended, if amended; finally, that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table without further intervening action or debate.

Before I yield to my friend from the State of Maryland, the author of the Magnitsky Act, let me just say this to my good friend from Kentucky: Every Senator would like their amendment to be easily inserted into a bill, but in the Senate, we vote. I am offering the Senator a vote on his amendment. If each Senator said ``my way or the highway,'' we would have total paralysis even on an important piece of legislation like this.

I yield to the Senator from Maryland.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motions on amendment No. 5002 and H.R. 4521 ripen at 5:30 p.m., Monday, March 28; that if cloture is invoked on the substitute, all postcloture time be considered expired; the remaining pending amendments be withdrawn; no further amendments be in order; the substitute amendment be agreed to; the cloture motion on the bill be withdrawn; the bill, H.R. 4521, be considered read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with 60 affirmative votes required for passage, all without further intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, yes, I give the Senator from Vermont my firm commitment to do whatever I can to get an agreement to have votes on his two motions to instruct when the message comes back from the House on this measure.

Having made that commitment, I ask the Senator from Vermont whether he might allow the Senate to agree to my original unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 725.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 791.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today, March 24, be waived.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I have four requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 2102 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Boozman substitute amendment be considered and agreed to and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

I know of no further debate on the bill, as amended.

Mr. President, I further ask that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 253 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Feinstein amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I understand that there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

In order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I would object to further proceedings.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur immediately following my remarks.

Mr. President, on PNTR, as President Biden begins the most important foreign trip of his Presidency, the best thing the Senate can do this week is pass PNTR legislation to land another devastating blow on Putin's economy.

Over the past few weeks, Republicans have complained that President Biden hasn't acted quickly enough against Putin. Yet for the past few days, they have stymied swift action on PNTR, despite the fact that the House approved it 424 to 8, with Leader McCarthy supporting it.

In particular, the senior Senator from Idaho has sought to amend the bill to include an oil ban. We are willing to work with Senator Crapo to address his concerns, but there are a few reasons we should move quickly with PNTR.

First, President Biden has already implemented a ban on Russian oil and gas. So passing this legislation is not a priority the way PNTR is. Second, there remain serious questions about whether the proposal from Republicans would delay the ban on buying Russian oil for a period of time. This is a consequence no one wants. Senator Manchin brought this up when he saw the language, and it is something that we have to make certain that this proposal isn't weaker than what the President has put into effect. Third, showing unity, particularly at this time when the President is meeting with our European allies, is especially important.

Finally, the House is not in session. Any changes we make to the PNTR legislation delays enactment by at least a week.

There is no reason--absolutely no reason--to change what the House has already approved on PNTR and delay action by a week or more. Again, Democrats are willing to work with Senator Crapo on this issue if he can agree to let this process move forward.

So let me say it again. PNTR has already been approved overwhelmingly by the House, and it is the most logical next step in the fight against Putin's barbaric war, and the Senate should thus act. Republicans who complain of

delay are the ones who are delaying. The Senate has been most effective when working quickly and in unison to support the President and our European allies against Vladimir Putin. Passing PNTR with overwhelming bipartisan support is another chance to do just that.

Insulin

Mr. President, on insulin, yesterday I held a handful of conversations with colleagues from both sides of the aisle on one of the most confounding problems facing millions of Americans--the skyrocketing cost of insulin. Making insulin more affordable is a top priority to Democrats, so right now, there are bipartisan talks underway by Senators Shaheen and Collins to cap insulin at $35 a month and make changes to drive the cost down in a comprehensive way.

I intend to put a proposal on the floor as soon as we can after Easter. There should be nothing remotely partisan about making sure Americans don't go broke to manage their diabetes. So Democrats are eager to work wherever we can on legislation that will cap insulin at $35 a month and give millions a long-overdue break at the pharmacy.

It is reported that at least one in four insulin users has to ration their use of insulin because they can't afford it. The exponential spike in the cost of insulin is truly one of the most frustrating trends of the past two decades. This is a drug with no patent on which millions of Americans rely to manage their diabetes. Today, a 40-day supply of insulin can exceed $600 a month--a prohibitive and downright immoral price that makes no sense at all.

Over the past few weeks, a number of my colleagues, including Senator Warnock, Senator Shaheen, Senator Murray, and Senator Collins, have worked assiduously on proposals for bringing down the price of insulin, bringing it back down, as part of our larger effort to lower costs for American families. The latest bipartisan effort will combine elements from Senator Warnock's and other proposals, and it has my enthusiastic backing because lowering the cost of insulin is so important.

I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for working on this issue in good faith. Bipartisanship has been the kindling for a number of recent Senate accomplishments, and insulin should be another issue where we deliver.

In addition, incidentally, while we are talking about cost-cutting, we are having hearings this week on a number of issues relating to high cost. Senator Casey, in the Aging Committee, is leading a hearing on home care and the high cost there today. Senator Carper is leading a hearing on clean energy and national security and the high cost of energy. In Agriculture, Senator Stabenow had a hearing yesterday on the cost of rural childcare, rural elder care, and healthcare.