Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, I am introducing bipartisan, bicameral legislation with Senator Collins and Senator Merkley and Congressman Sarbanes that targets the fundamental goal of public education, which is to equip the next generation with the knowledge, skills, and experiences to understand the world around them and their ability to shape it. In the face of a global climate crisis, it is essential that all students graduate with environmental literacy skills to secure and sustain their future. The No Child Left Inside Act will ensure that our students will have the opportunity to develop environmental literacy.

Environmental education provides broad benefits. It has been shown to enhance student achievement in science and other core subjects and to increase student engagement and critical thinking skills. Moreover, it promotes healthy lifestyles by encouraging kids to get outside.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown us just how vital understanding the environment is to our own health, well-being, and ability to carry out our daily activities. As the pandemic took hold, Rhode Island's environmental educators sprung into action, creating outdoor learning support opportunities and virtual programs for students as they did school from home. We need this to work on a national level for all students.

The No Child Left Inside Act authorizes $150 million annually to supports States in the development and implementation of environmental literacy plans to integrate environmental education and field experiences into the core academic program in public schools, with an emphasis on professional development in environmental education for teachers. With this funding, States will provide grants for partnerships between school districts and parks, natural resource management agencies, educator preparation programs, museums or other organizations with expertise in engaging young people with real world examples of environmental and scientific concepts. The legislation also establishes a pilot program for outdoor school education programs that offer intensive, hands-on learning experiences, such as residential programs and summer camps.

The No Child Left Inside Act will also help coordinate the Federal efforts on environmental education. It requires the Secretary of Education to establish environmental literacy advisory panel to coordinate and report on environmental literacy activities across Federal Agencies. It also will prove easy access to environmental education resources through the Department of Education's website.

The No Child Left Inside Act has the support of nearly 100 organizations, representing educators, parks, museums, environmental organizations, and community-based organizations at the national, State, and local levels. They stand ready and willing to partner with schools across the Nation. The Federal Government should be a partner too. That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the No Child Left Inside Act.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Food and Fuel Family Savings Act, FFFSA, along with Senator Whitehouse, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Merkley. Price increases, particularly for basic necessities like food and gas, are weakening household buying power and cutting family budgets across the country. Americans are struggling, and it is critically important that we both address the long-term factors driving inflation and support the millions of families facing higher prices right now. That is why we are introducing this legislation, which would provide eligible individuals and families with debit cards to cover higher food and fuel prices in the short term and help tame inflation in the medium and long term.

A number of factors are driving our current bout of inflation. Pandemic-driven supply chain snarls, a surge and shift in demand towards goods, and corporate consolidation have created an imbalance between supply and demand. Energy prices have risen particularly quickly, as OPEC limits output and oil companies refuse to invest in domestic production to meet growing demand. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has also decreased global oil, fertilizer, and wheat supplies, moving prices higher for food and energy. These wide-ranging pressures pushed the Consumer Price Index up 7.9 percent in February--its fastest increase in 40 years.

Hard-working Americans are not at fault for these global price pressures. Yet, these households, which often put a large share of their income towards basic necessities, are being forced to bear the burden of higher costs. Indeed, U.S. grocery prices rose 8.6 percent in February, the largest annual increase in over 40 years, and U.S. gas prices were up a whopping 38 percent. While the wealthiest Americans can afford more expensive everyday goods, higher prices erode working families' buying power and can force them to delay or reduce critically needed purchases. We need to help them.

Our bill would take the burden off the shoulders of working Americans by providing targeted relief to low- and moderate-income individuals and families. It would provide eligible households with debit cards loaded with $600 per family member that work exclusively at grocery stores and gas pumps. The average American household would receive $1,500. Using estimates from Bloomberg economists, this payment should cover the additional $183 the average family will spend each month on food and fuel for the rest of 2022. In other words, our legislation would ensure households can put food on the table and gas in the car this year.

Importantly, this fiscally responsible legislation is fully paid for. In fact, offsets would pay for the cost of the debit cards and slash the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars. More than that, it would tamp down inflation in the medium and long term. Indeed, this bill would help families weather today's inflation while cooling price increases in the years ahead.

Congress must continue working on other measures to foster a stronger, more resilient postpandemic economy. Our legislation would aid these long-term efforts while providing Americans the financial help they need right now.

I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Protection from Abusive Passengers Act, a bill that is aimed at eliminating the rash of violence and abuse that is occurring on commercial flights across the country. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Representative Eric Swalwell of California, who is introducing companion legislation in the other body. The goal of our bill is to send a clear signal that individuals who engage in serious abusive or violent behavior on an aircraft or at an airport security checkpoint will be banned from flying.

Since 2020, we have seen an extraordinary increase in the number of cases of violence and abuse against crewmembers and airline passengers. In 2021, the Federal Aviation Administration received 5,981 reports of ``unruly passengers.'' Those complaints led to 1,124 investigations, nearly the same number of investigations as the previous 10 years combined. From those investigations, the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, has initiated 350 enforcement actions and proposed $5 million in fines. In February, it was widely reported that the FAA had referred 80 cases to the FBI for criminal investigation. Clearly, these are not minor infractions. Here some recent examples:

In December 2021, the FAA proposed a record $52,500 fine against a passenger who tried to open the cockpit door on a Delta flight from Honolulu to Seattle, struck a flight attendant twice, and threatened him.

The FAA also proposed a $45,000 fine against a passenger ``for throwing objects, including his carry-on luggage, at other passengers; refusing to stay seated; lying on the floor in the aisle, refusing to get up, and then grabbing a flight attendant by the ankles and putting his head up her skirt.''

It proposed a $30,000 fine against a passenger on a Jan. 3, 2021, flight from Atlanta for ``allegedly interfering with the flight attendants' deplaning procedures upon arrival. He attempted to gain entry to the flight deck by physically assaulting two flight attendants, threatening to kill one of them, and demanding them to open the door.''

Last December, a passenger on Southwest Airlines pleaded guilty to punching a flight attendant in the face multiple times in a May 2021 incident in Sacramento. According to prosecutors, the flight attendant was taken to a hospital with injuries that included a swollen eye, a bruised arm, and a cut under her eye that had to be stitched. She also had three chipped teeth, two of which: had to be replaced with crowns.

Such actions in any setting would be deplorable and reprehensible, but on an airplane, such behavior can also represent a real threat to all passengers. Clearly, the existing regime of civil and criminal penalties has not been enough to deter the upsurge in cases. We need to send a signal that such types of behavior will not be tolerated.

The Protection from Abusive Passengers Act would require the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, to create and manage a program which bars passengers who are fined or convicted of serious physical violence and abuse from flying. Transparency and notice will be provided to banned individuals, including guidelines for removal. The bill would also permanently ban abusive passengers from participating in the TSA PreCheck or Customs' Global Entry programs.

The bill provides appropriate fairness and due process by ensuring that only

individuals who have been assessed a civil or criminal penalty for abusive and violent behavior will be included on the list of banned fliers. The bill also requires the TSA to explain how it will maintain its list of banned fliers, provide an explanation of how long the individual may be barred from flying based on the severity of the offense, and provide how the individual can seek to be removed from the list of banned fliers.

I believe this bill strikes the appropriate balance to assure fairness and transparency while sending a strong signal that violent and abusive behavior will not be tolerated. I am pleased that the bill is supported by both labor and the airlines, including American Airlines, Delta Airlines, Southwest Airlines, the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, Transport Workers Union of America, and the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important bill.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Protection from Abusive Passengers Act, a bill that is aimed at eliminating the rash of violence and abuse that is occurring on commercial flights across the country. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Representative Eric Swalwell of California, who is introducing companion legislation in the other body. The goal of our bill is to send a clear signal that individuals who engage in serious abusive or violent behavior on an aircraft or at an airport security checkpoint will be banned from flying.

Since 2020, we have seen an extraordinary increase in the number of cases of violence and abuse against crewmembers and airline passengers. In 2021, the Federal Aviation Administration received 5,981 reports of ``unruly passengers.'' Those complaints led to 1,124 investigations, nearly the same number of investigations as the previous 10 years combined. From those investigations, the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, has initiated 350 enforcement actions and proposed $5 million in fines. In February, it was widely reported that the FAA had referred 80 cases to the FBI for criminal investigation. Clearly, these are not minor infractions. Here some recent examples:

In December 2021, the FAA proposed a record $52,500 fine against a passenger who tried to open the cockpit door on a Delta flight from Honolulu to Seattle, struck a flight attendant twice, and threatened him.

The FAA also proposed a $45,000 fine against a passenger ``for throwing objects, including his carry-on luggage, at other passengers; refusing to stay seated; lying on the floor in the aisle, refusing to get up, and then grabbing a flight attendant by the ankles and putting his head up her skirt.''

It proposed a $30,000 fine against a passenger on a Jan. 3, 2021, flight from Atlanta for ``allegedly interfering with the flight attendants' deplaning procedures upon arrival. He attempted to gain entry to the flight deck by physically assaulting two flight attendants, threatening to kill one of them, and demanding them to open the door.''

Last December, a passenger on Southwest Airlines pleaded guilty to punching a flight attendant in the face multiple times in a May 2021 incident in Sacramento. According to prosecutors, the flight attendant was taken to a hospital with injuries that included a swollen eye, a bruised arm, and a cut under her eye that had to be stitched. She also had three chipped teeth, two of which: had to be replaced with crowns.

Such actions in any setting would be deplorable and reprehensible, but on an airplane, such behavior can also represent a real threat to all passengers. Clearly, the existing regime of civil and criminal penalties has not been enough to deter the upsurge in cases. We need to send a signal that such types of behavior will not be tolerated.

The Protection from Abusive Passengers Act would require the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, to create and manage a program which bars passengers who are fined or convicted of serious physical violence and abuse from flying. Transparency and notice will be provided to banned individuals, including guidelines for removal. The bill would also permanently ban abusive passengers from participating in the TSA PreCheck or Customs' Global Entry programs.

The bill provides appropriate fairness and due process by ensuring that only

individuals who have been assessed a civil or criminal penalty for abusive and violent behavior will be included on the list of banned fliers. The bill also requires the TSA to explain how it will maintain its list of banned fliers, provide an explanation of how long the individual may be barred from flying based on the severity of the offense, and provide how the individual can seek to be removed from the list of banned fliers.

I believe this bill strikes the appropriate balance to assure fairness and transparency while sending a strong signal that violent and abusive behavior will not be tolerated. I am pleased that the bill is supported by both labor and the airlines, including American Airlines, Delta Airlines, Southwest Airlines, the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, Transport Workers Union of America, and the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important bill.

Madam President, we are debating the President's nominee to succeed Justice Stephen Breyer, who has served this country admirably and with great distinction.

As a law student, I was fortunate to have Justice Breyer as an adviser, and I remain grateful for his guidance, encouragement, and counsel as I began my legal career. I have immense respect and admiration for him as a Justice, but even more so as a person.

When Justice Breyer announced his retirement, I stated my belief that the next Justice on the Supreme Court should be someone with Justice Breyer's integrity, independence, and keen intellect--someone with real-world experience who reflects the depth and breadth of the American people. You could not find someone who better fits that description than Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, and I rise today in wholehearted support of her nomination to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is a powerful arbiter of justice in our Nation, with few checks on the decisions of the Justices once they are on the Court. Therefore, a vote on a Supreme Court nominee is one of the most consequential that any Senator can cast. The Constitution makes the Senate an active participant, along with the President, in the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice.

Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution states that nominees to the Supreme Court shall only be confirmed ``by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.'' The Senate's role in the confirmation process places an important democratic check on America's judiciary. As a result, this body's consent is both a constitutional requirement and a democratic obligation. It is in upholding our constitutional duties as Senators to give the President advice and consent on his nominations that I believe we have one of our greatest opportunities and responsibilities to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

As I have stated before, my test for a nominee is simple and is drawn from the text, the history, and the principles of the Constitution. A nominee's intellectual gifts, experience, judgment, maturity, and temperament are all important, but these alone are not enough. I need to be convinced that a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court will live up to both the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The nominee needs to be committed not only to enforcing laws but also to doing justice.

The nominee needs to be able to make the principles of the Constitution come alive--equality before the law, due process, full and equal participation in the civic and social life of America for all Americans, freedom of conscience, individual responsibility, and the expansion of opportunity. The nominee also needs to see the unique role the Court plays in helping balance the often conflicting forces in a democracy between individual autonomy and the obligations of community, between the will of the majority and the rights of the minority. A nominee for the Supreme Court needs to be able to look forward to the future, not just backwards. The nominee needs to make the Constitution resonate in a world that is changing with great rapidity.

Judge Jackson passes these tests with flying colors. Beyond her unquestioned intellectual gifts, her legal career over the past two decades demonstrates that she has the deep fidelity to equality, justice, and the Constitution required to be our next Supreme Court Justice.

We want Justices to be familiar with the Federal court system. Judge Jackson is. Indeed, soon after law school, Judge Jackson chose to clerk at three levels of the Federal courts, gaining valuable insights into the courtroom and learning directly from incredible jurists, including Judge Bruce Selya of Rhode Island, who was President Reagan's nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, as well as Justice Breyer himself.

We want Justices to understand that a guilty verdict involves the hard task of deciding the appropriate punishment. So while many of her law school classmates likely plotted paths to law firm partnerships, she chose instead to serve as Assistant Special Counsel and, later, Commissioner and Vice Chair at the U.S. Sentencing Commission, working to prevent unjust disparities in sentencing.

We want Justices to embody the fundamental notion of fairness at the heart of our justice system, that defendants have a right to counsel and must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So Judge Jackson chose to serve as a Federal public defender. If confirmed, she will bring this valuable, real-life perspective to our highest Court, where it is very much needed.

Over the past 10 years, first as a district judge and then as a circuit judge, Judge Jackson has been evenhanded and impartial in her decisions from the bench, without regard to partisanship, personal views, or ideology. Her opinions showcase an admirable commitment not only to fairness but to transparency. She takes the time to ensure that the parties fully understand her rulings and that the record clearly captures her thought process in deciding a case. She does not hide the ball--there are facts, there are arguments, and everyone is invited to read and understand them.

Beyond her career choices and accolades, she demonstrated her judgment, maturity, and equanimity during her recent confirmation hearings. In the face of hours of questioning, some of it quite pointed, political, and discomfiting, she showed incredible patience, resilience, and grace. Her independence, integrity, and deep understanding of the Constitution shined through in her answers. Her cool in that crucible was not only admirable, it was inspiring.

Judge Jackson is a trailblazer, not in the least because she is the first Black woman and first Federal public defender nominated to the Supreme

Court. While her individual accomplishments are personal, Judge Jackson's elevation to the U.S. Supreme Court will bring America closer to the ideal our country aspires to. Her service on the Supreme Court in the years to come will ensure that the Justices better reflect the diversity of our great nation and may help restore the people's faith in the fairness of the Court and in our justice system.

It is with great pleasure that I support her nomination to the highest Court in the land and urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senator Menendez in introducing the Insider Trading Prohibition Act, a bill that will finally define the offense of insider trading. This legislation is desperately needed because, in the absence of a statutory definition, the courts have cobbled together a dizzying array of interpretations of anti-fraud statutes, creating what is an inconsistent and complicated body of common law for deciding insider trading cases. What should be simple has become unnecessarily complex.

Indeed, Judge Jed Rakoff, who has presided over many insider trading cases before the Southern District of New York, wrote in a recent opinion that ``the crime of insider trading is a straightforward concept that some courts have somehow managed to complicate.''

Consider the following hypothetical example. A financial analyst receives information about XYZ Corporation's earnings from a company insider, like an executive or board member, before this information is publicly released. The analyst then shares this inside information with her portfolio manager who subsequently trades in XYZ stock. I suspect most Americans would agree that the portfolio manager was given an unfair advantage. But the courts are not so sure. They have left an open question whether this very trade would constitute illegal insider trading. Experts agree that this kind of judicial uncertainty is one reason among many of why Congress must clarify the law of insider trading.

Former SEC Commissioner Robert J. Jackson and former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara have written that ``[t]he shoddy state of American insider-trading law affects everyone. Prosecutors

and regulators are stuck enforcing laws that are ill-suited to 21st- century misconduct. Lawyers struggle to tell their clients what they can and cannot do within the bounds of the law. And ordinary Americans are left asking whether financial markets are stacked in favor of those who skirt the rules.''

Columbia Law School Professor John C. Coffee, Jr., noted that ``[t]here is general agreement today that the law of insider trading has grown overly complex and technical. As a result, it is hard for the public to understand its logic or for practitioners to give advice with respect to the scope of the prohibition. Moreover, to the extent that insider trading is judge-made law, disparities and inconsistencies among the U.S. circuit courts becomes inevitable because there is little in the way of a definitive statutory text to provide precise guidance.''

State regulators agree, too. For example, Maryland Commissioner of Securities Melanie Senter Lubin recently stated on behalf of the North American Securities Administrators Association that ``[d]efining the standards for insider trading liability by statute would add greater clarity and consistency to this important area of the law.''

This is precisely what Senator Menendez and I are doing in our bill. We are seeking to finally distill the offense of insider trading to clear bright line rules. Simply put, if a person trades a security on the basis of information that the person is aware is material and nonpublic and is aware was wrongfully obtained, then that person has engaged in unlawful insider trading.

Under our legislation, insider trading would be prohibited if a trader knows or has reason to know that her information was wrongfully obtained, for example, through theft, bribery, hacking, misappropriation, or a breach of a fiduciary duty for a personal benefit. We do not intend to restrict those who take the time to independently develop their own information from publicly available sources from trading on the independently developed information.

By cracking down on those who rig securities markets to favor the well connected, our legislation provides everyday investors with a fair shot at seeing some returns after investing their hard-earned savings. Incidents of insider trading, and the perceived pervasiveness of the practice, have for years served to validate the public's worst assumptions about Wall Street culture. It is time we clearly define what is appropriate under the law and take this meaningful step towards improving the integrity of our securities markets for professional traders and retail investors alike.

I would like to thank Senator Menendez for working with me on this legislation, and I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting the Insider Trading Prohibition Act.

Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senator Menendez in introducing the Insider Trading Prohibition Act, a bill that will finally define the offense of insider trading. This legislation is desperately needed because, in the absence of a statutory definition, the courts have cobbled together a dizzying array of interpretations of anti-fraud statutes, creating what is an inconsistent and complicated body of common law for deciding insider trading cases. What should be simple has become unnecessarily complex.

Indeed, Judge Jed Rakoff, who has presided over many insider trading cases before the Southern District of New York, wrote in a recent opinion that ``the crime of insider trading is a straightforward concept that some courts have somehow managed to complicate.''

Consider the following hypothetical example. A financial analyst receives information about XYZ Corporation's earnings from a company insider, like an executive or board member, before this information is publicly released. The analyst then shares this inside information with her portfolio manager who subsequently trades in XYZ stock. I suspect most Americans would agree that the portfolio manager was given an unfair advantage. But the courts are not so sure. They have left an open question whether this very trade would constitute illegal insider trading. Experts agree that this kind of judicial uncertainty is one reason among many of why Congress must clarify the law of insider trading.

Former SEC Commissioner Robert J. Jackson and former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara have written that ``[t]he shoddy state of American insider-trading law affects everyone. Prosecutors

and regulators are stuck enforcing laws that are ill-suited to 21st- century misconduct. Lawyers struggle to tell their clients what they can and cannot do within the bounds of the law. And ordinary Americans are left asking whether financial markets are stacked in favor of those who skirt the rules.''

Columbia Law School Professor John C. Coffee, Jr., noted that ``[t]here is general agreement today that the law of insider trading has grown overly complex and technical. As a result, it is hard for the public to understand its logic or for practitioners to give advice with respect to the scope of the prohibition. Moreover, to the extent that insider trading is judge-made law, disparities and inconsistencies among the U.S. circuit courts becomes inevitable because there is little in the way of a definitive statutory text to provide precise guidance.''

State regulators agree, too. For example, Maryland Commissioner of Securities Melanie Senter Lubin recently stated on behalf of the North American Securities Administrators Association that ``[d]efining the standards for insider trading liability by statute would add greater clarity and consistency to this important area of the law.''

This is precisely what Senator Menendez and I are doing in our bill. We are seeking to finally distill the offense of insider trading to clear bright line rules. Simply put, if a person trades a security on the basis of information that the person is aware is material and nonpublic and is aware was wrongfully obtained, then that person has engaged in unlawful insider trading.

Under our legislation, insider trading would be prohibited if a trader knows or has reason to know that her information was wrongfully obtained, for example, through theft, bribery, hacking, misappropriation, or a breach of a fiduciary duty for a personal benefit. We do not intend to restrict those who take the time to independently develop their own information from publicly available sources from trading on the independently developed information.

By cracking down on those who rig securities markets to favor the well connected, our legislation provides everyday investors with a fair shot at seeing some returns after investing their hard-earned savings. Incidents of insider trading, and the perceived pervasiveness of the practice, have for years served to validate the public's worst assumptions about Wall Street culture. It is time we clearly define what is appropriate under the law and take this meaningful step towards improving the integrity of our securities markets for professional traders and retail investors alike.

I would like to thank Senator Menendez for working with me on this legislation, and I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting the Insider Trading Prohibition Act.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the RECORDS on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators .

Mr. President, today marks 1 month since the illegal and unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukraine began. Since that time, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has proven himself a courageous and inspiring leader, the Ukrainian military has performed heroically in the face of overwhelming violence, and the Ukrainian people have shown the world what true courage looks like.

There is one person who is responsible for so much suffering and catastrophe: Vladimir Putin. Faced with this senseless attack, Ukraine and the

international community have rallied together to stand up to Putin with a unified front. It is stunning, therefore, that many of my Republican colleagues now seem intent upon suggesting that Russia invaded Ukraine because of something the Biden administration did or failed to do.

There is no polite way to put this: This attempt to score political points by blaming the Biden administration for Putin's invasion is unacceptable and inappropriate.

I think it is important to remind my colleagues of some important facts they are ignoring.

To be clear, the Biden administration has done more than any previous administration when it comes to support for Ukraine. In the roughly 14 months since taking office, the administration has provided more than $2 billion in security assistance to Ukraine, including weapons like Stingers and Javelins that are proving so effective today. This is far more than any previous administration, and I applaud those 17 Republican Senators who voted for this military and humanitarian aid for Ukraine.

Further, since last fall, the Biden administration has worked tirelessly to build a coalition of nations committed to supporting Ukraine. So when the time came to stand up to Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine on February 24, the United States stood with more than 30 countries from across the globe to condemn the violence, to execute the largest sanctions and export controls in history, and to support the Ukrainian people by surging humanitarian and security aid into the country. This overwhelming international response would not have happened without President Biden's leadership.

We also should not forget a major reason Vladimir Putin felt so emboldened to invade Ukraine and challenge NATO. For 4 years, President Trump treated our allies like adversaries and pandered to dictators and despots--especially Putin. Mr. Trump's animosity toward NATO created lingering doubt about the United States' reliability and the cohesion of the alliance, jeopardizing our greatest advantage against Russia.

The Trump administration's failure to hold Russia accountable for numerous violations of international norms served only to embolden Putin in challenging U.S. leadership and the rules-based international order.

Most disturbing, of course, was the offense that led to Mr. Trump's first impeachment: his efforts to extort Ukraine's security for political favors at home. That an American President would abuse his office to pressure a foreign government to interfere in our democracy as part of a reelection bid remains deeply troubling.

Mr. Trump's actions damaged NATO, weakened Ukraine, and ceded political leverage to Putin. Now, the Ukrainian people are paying the price. Fortunately, at this critical time, the United States and our allies are no longer hamstrung by Mr. Trump's erratic leadership--a fact Vladimir Putin must understand very well at this stage.

If Putin thought his actions over the past month would drive a wedge between NATO members and within the international community, he has found himself badly mistaken. Led by President Biden, the international community has united in a way not seen in generations, and Russia is already straining under the immense costs we have levied against it and the courageous actions of the Ukrainian people.

With that in mind, I would like to take a few moments to correct the record on a few debates about our ongoing support for Ukraine.

First, on the issue of arms transfers, the United States has led the international effort to identify capabilities the Ukrainian military can put to immediate use, and I think we have to emphasize ``immediate use.'' Transferring equipment that cannot be used effectively because of the combat conditions in the area or because we need to train or refit the equipment is not going to give the Ukrainian forces immediate assistance, and that is the kind of assistance they need.

In fact, over the past few months, the State Department has worked with incredible speed to facilitate the transfer of U.S.-origin equipment from partner nations to Ukraine. However, all of these transports, whether it be former Soviet-era air defense systems or former Soviet aircraft, occur on a bilateral basis, and ultimately, it is a decision for each partner nation to make within their own internal channels.

With regard to a no-fly zone, the United States has enjoyed air superiority for the past 20 years of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, so it is, perhaps, understandable that some of my colleagues think such endeavors are easily achieved and without risk. However, establishing and enforcing a no-fly zone against a near-peer competitor like Russia is far more complex. To do so would almost certainly drag the United States and the entire NATO alliance into a direct armed conflict with Russia. It would also put the women and men tasked with flying such missions at great risk. President Biden has rightly said that the United States will not seek direct conflict with Russia, and establishing a no-fly zone would almost certainly defy that aim.

So, to my colleagues both on this side of the aisle and on the other side of the aisle, enough with trying to blame the Biden administration at every step in this conflict. This crisis demands unity and strength, and I call upon my colleagues, particularly my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to join me in condemning the one person who bears responsibility for the horrific violence against the people of Ukraine: Vladimir Putin.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I request unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from Oklahoma.

As the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, we rise to commemorate and celebrate the distinguished career of Chief Warrant Officer Donald R. Crutchfield of the U.S. Army.

Mr. President, a native of Ohio, Don joined the Army in 1998 and has worked at every echelon since, from the 516th Personnel Services Battalion; multiple brigades; III Corps; Office of the Vice Director of the Army Staff; Headquarters of the Department of the Army; and the Army General Officer Management Office. In every assignment, he was known to his colleagues as a dedicated leader and an expert of his craft.

Mr. President, Don did not serve alone, however. Throughout his career, he was supported by his family, friends, and colleagues. We owe a special debt of gratitude to Don's wife, Christine, and his daughters, Amber and Lydia, who supported him with strength and love. His contributions to the Nation were possible because of their support.

Mr. President, I notice the arrival of Senator Hawley. I think we are both prepared at this point for me to make a unanimous consent request, and I would like to do so now.

Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 599, 477, and 472; that the nominations be confirmed; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I think one of the messages that the Senator from Missouri was trying to convey is ``do our job.'' One of our fundamental jobs is to review, vote on, and confirm or not confirm nominees to critical positions in the Department of Defense, and this effort has completely frustrated that goal of doing our job.

We have seen repeated blockage of nominees who are fully qualified, forcing votes--and the gentleman from Missouri is talking about we should have had votes this week--forcing votes because one or two people object. And, of course, the final outcome is 90 votes, 85 votes in favor of the nominee.

The will of the Senate was very clear: These people should be in their office, doing their jobs, helping us maintain our security, not subject to the whims and the will of one or two people.

The nominees I just referred to are three individuals nominated to critical positions within the Department of Defense. The Armed Services Committee held hearings on all three of these nominations months ago, and all three were reported out of the committee by voice vote. I am unaware of any objections to these nominees relating to their qualifications for the positions for which they have been nominated.

I need not remind my colleagues that with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, a war of choice against a modern, functioning democracy, how critical it is to have people in place in the Department of Defense.

It is very difficult to complain about the policy of the administration when there has been a deliberate attempt for more than a year to delay critical nominees from taking their position in that Department.

And, more importantly, I think this is a trend that was observed by the Commission on the National Defense Strategy under President Trump. It said:

The implementation of the National Defense Strategy must

feature empowered civilians fulfilling their statutory

responsibilities, particularly regarding issues of force

management. . . . Strong civilian oversight is an essential

hallmark of civil-military relations codified in the

Constitution and embraced throughout the nation's history.

What is frustrating that principle? Actions like today, where fully qualified individuals who pass by voice vote through the committee are held up. If there is a weakness--that has been identified by other sources in the National Defense Strategy at the Department of Defense-- it is in one case the lack of sufficient civilian leadership and continuity, and that is exactly what this action today will continue to foster.

For example, Mr. Ashish Vazirani was reported out of committee on December 8 and would become the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the No. 2 official in the Department in charge of military and civilian policy and the readiness of our Armed Forces.

Mr. Alex Wagner was reported out of the committee in October of last year, and he would become the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, the senior official within the Department of the Air Force with responsibility for military and civilian personnel policy and the readiness of Air Force and Space Force personnel.

Ms. Rachel Jacobson was reported out of the committee in October of last year, and she would become the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Energy, Installation, and the Environment. She will be responsible for managing the Army's physical footprint and, particularly, she will oversee contracts that would increase installation resilience and the modernization of Army infrastructure, particularly with regard to energy, which is one of the issues that we are talking about with great emphasis today and in the proceeding several weeks.

All of these positions are critically important to the Department of Defense. And I am unaware of any substantive objection to these nominees on the basis of their qualifications. The sooner they assume their offices, the better for the Department's ability to tackle the challenges on behalf of servicemembers and their families.

I also think it is important to recognize some of that discussion about the situation in Ukraine. The Biden administration sent $650 million in aid--military assistance and aid--to the Ukrainian Government in the last year, far surpassing anything that was done in the Trump administration. In fact, we spent many hours here on the floor of the U.S. Senate in an impeachment proceeding based on what many of us thought was the attempt by then-President Trump to use military aid to extract a political concession from President Zelenskyy. That is quite a stark difference than what President Biden's administration has been doing for the last year.

There was a reference made to dealing with Saudi Arabia. Well, President Trump's first trip overseas was to Saudi Arabia to cavort with his friends, the Kings and Princes of Saudi Arabia. His son-in-law made multiple trips over there, and it wasn't in the spirit of condemnation; it was in the spirit of businesslike behavior, I would say. Khashoggi was killed by agents of MBS, the Crown Prince, but the details of the report were never released by the Trump administration. President Biden released those details, earning, I think, the enmity of the Crown Prince. So this story of the ineffectuality of the Biden administration is completely, in my view, without basis.

What we have seen--and I think the Presiding Officer recognizes it as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee--is probably the most sophisticated development of an alliance to oppose tyranny that we have seen in many, many years.

When the whole world is united by the diplomacy of this administration to stand up against Vladimir Putin--

and I must say practically the whole world. That is an amazing demonstration of diplomacy and statesmanship. And it happened because of the leadership of the President, the leadership of Secretary Blinken, the leadership of Secretary Austin. And, again, when you have Switzerland joining in sanctioning a country--the greatest neutral nation in the world--that is a remarkable accomplishment.

We still have a long way to go. The outcome is still very much uncertain, but to date, the President and his administration has done an extraordinary job.

Afghanistan is an issue that we have dealt with for 20 years. One of the first things we did was to ensure that in the National Defense Authorization Act, there was an independent study which will be conducted, but it is not going to focus on the last 2 weeks; it is going to focus on 20 years. It is going to assess whether the decision to invade Iraq was a critical strategic mistake--which I think it was. That is why I opposed it originally.

It is going to look at the Doha agreement, in which the Trump administration basically said, ``We are leaving,'' which gave the Taliban one of their greatest psychological and, indeed, in a way, military weapons because they went from village to village and said: Here it is, signed, sealed, and delivered. They are going. And when they go, who are you going to be with, Ghani or us?

So in any way to estimate the culpability, the responsibility of our role in Afghanistan, it will take that kind of 20-year look by independent experts who are concerned to find the truth, not to find a political argument.

I am just very disappointed that we are going to continue to avoid our duty to ensure that there are civilians in the Department of Defense who are able to carry out the policy of the United States, which is the basic principle of civil and military relations in the United States and in the Constitution of the United States.

Energy

Mr. President, retaining my time, I would now like to resume my comments with respect to the energy situation and the United States.

As I indicated previously, the invasion of Ukraine has revealed the vulnerability that our dependence on oil creates for our economy and for average Americans trying to fill up their cars and pay their heating bills.

The fact is, the United States has sufficient domestic production to meet our energy needs today. We are producing more oil and refined product than ever before. Oil production was up more than half a million barrels a day from January to December of last year and is expected to rise even more this year, which I would assume would mean that more and more Americans are working in the oilfields and elsewhere. In fact, I believe, last year, the workforce grew about 6.6 million jobs, which we hadn't seen in the last year or two of the Trump administration.

Unemployment now is hovering around 4 percent. Gross domestic product has been significant and much more so than the preceding several years. But we do have problems economically, and some of those problems are related to the international oil supply. Now, we certainly don't need Russian oil and I have said we should stop importing it and I am glad that this morning the President announced the United States will officially ban the importation of oil from Russia, denying Putin a key revenue source for his illegal war. This is something both Democrats and Republicans have called for, and the American people should know this policy choice will likely affect the price of gasoline.

But even if we don't use Russian oil, everyone needs to know that petroleum is traded on the world market, and the United States is part of that world market. The chaos Putin is sowing in Europe will continue to have an effect here regardless of where we get our oil. Our energy policy of overreliance on fossil fuels is a matter of national security, and it is time we embrace all that it entails.

The reality of a world market, combined with the impact on regular Americans who need to fill up their cars, means the United States will have to make some tough choices on whom we buy from if we are not buying from Russia. We will have to more carefully consider what we are exporting, how we will prevent profiteering, and what pain people should expect at the pump.

If the climate crisis, raging fires, historic droughts, and flooding aren't enough to convince our colleagues on the other side of the aisle of the need to kick our oil addiction, I hope the national security and economic vulnerabilities exposed by Russia's invasion of Ukraine will be enough. As long as we base our energy future on oil, we choose to make ourselves vulnerable.

Unfortunately, many of my Republican colleagues don't seem to recognize that reality. Instead, they focus on never-built pipelines geared toward exporting our oil, not using it here in the United States. Most of the oil that was going through the pipeline that President Biden--I think, because of many, many considerations--decided against was destined for exportation, not for use here in the United States, or they make claims about energy production under Democratic Presidents that either contort or suspend reality. It is time--to borrow the phrase from my Rhode Island colleague, Senator Whitehouse-- it is time to wake up. Indeed, their solution to higher gas prices is more oil dependency.

The bottom line is that we need to accelerate the transition to clean, renewable energy sources that aren't subject to worldwide scarcity and manipulation by our adversary. There are, however, things we should do in the short term to help consumers.

Again, the advocates for the oil companies, the advocates for special tax arrangements, the advocates to continue to pump oil and pump oil and pump oil are playing right, in my sense, into the hands of Putin because if our world economy is based on hydrocarbons, then Russia is going to make some money. If our world economy is based on other sources of power--alternative sources of power--then his cash register is going to ring close to zero.

I am pleased that President Biden listened to me and others in Congress and decided to tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help bring down the price of oil. He wisely coordinated the release of 60 million barrels with our international partners. The action sends a reassuring signal to markets, but we may need to release more to tamp down prices. We also need to insist that our Middle East partners do more to increase production to help stabilize prices and meet demand in Europe.

We should also ask domestic oil and gas producers to pitch in. Despite the other side of the aisle's claims about the economy, Big Oil is earning some of its highest profits in years. They are not simply passing on the cost--additional cost--to the consumer reluctantly and grudgingly and sadly. ExxonMobil and Chevron, for example, reported a combined net annual profit of nearly $38.6 billion in 2021, but are they investing those profits in new production, particularly when they have 14 million acres in unused leases? No. Instead, they are issuing higher dividends and buying back stock to boost share prices. These windfall profits should be used to help consumers, not their billionaire investors.

Of course, the easiest way to insulate ourselves from higher costs is to become more energy efficient. When we consume less, we pay less. That is why I have long advocated better fuel economy standards for cars and trucks, something that the last administration worked against. Yes, the Trump administration tried to derail an increase in gas mileage that the automobile companies were in favor of. Even when automakers said we should keep the tougher standards, Trump said no. Why? Let's be more dependent on gasoline. It is not only to this country's oil-producing benefit. Guess what. Putin benefits and others benefit.

Fortunately, the Biden administration has a broader vision for a clean energy future that eases the burden on consumers.

While there is much more to do, the bipartisan infrastructure law took important steps on this front. It invested $7.5 billion to build out a national network of electric vehicle charges, $5 billion for electric buses, and $90 billion to improve public transit systems.

It also includes $65 billion to upgrade our power infrastructure, including by building thousands of miles of new, resilient transmission lines to facilitate the expansion of renewable energy. And

we can't just look at transportation because consumers are also facing the pinch on home energy prices.

Now, last year, I worked to secure $4.5 billion in the American Rescue Plan for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program to help consumers pay their energy bills. In the coming days, we will pass an omnibus appropriations bill to provide base funding for that program, which still lacks the resources to help all who qualify for assistance. But we need to do more.

We also need to make other long-term investments. In his State of the Union Address last week, President Biden emphasized the need to weatherize homes and businesses to be more energy efficient, which in turn lowers energy costs and reduces greenhouse gases and emissions, and I cannot agree more.

It is why I have led the fight to fund the Weatherization Assistance Program, which received $3.5 billion in the bipartisan infrastructure law. This program has helped more than 7 million low-income families reduce their energy bills by making their homes more energy efficient.

It saves participants nearly $300 in energy bills a year, and a Department of Energy study found that in 1 year, it reduced carbon emissions by more than 2.2 million metric tons, the equivalent to taking more than a half a million cars off the road.

To make the most of this investment, this week, I introduced the Weatherization Assistance Program Improvement Act along with Senators Collins, Coons, and Shaheen. Our bill would make critical updates, including increasing eligibility, raising the per unit funding level for weatherization projects, and setting aside funding to make critical health and safety repairs in conjunction with weatherization projects. Together, these reforms will make the program more effective and will help it serve even more households across the country.

These are significant steps, but we need the full package of climate energy reforms that the President has been calling for, including tax credits and grants that would make clean energy, clean vehicles, and other clean technologies more affordable and better.

If we do these things, we will make a huge difference in the lives of Americans today and for generations to come.

Just a final thought, I think one of the greatest nightmares that Vladimir Putin has is a world that is powered by electricity, not generated by hydrocarbons, a world in which the gasoline and oil that he has in Russia is not worth $150 a barrel but $1.50 a barrel.

We can do it, and it will be one of the most significant national security endeavors when we accomplish that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Weatherization Assistance Program Improvements Act, which will make critical updates to ensure this important program can effectively serve even more households across the country.

Since 1976, the Weatherization Assistance Program has helped more than 7 million low-income families reduce their energy bills by making their homes more energy efficient. The Department of Energy estimates that these upgrades help each household save $283 in energy bills annually. Those energy savings free up limited financial resources for essentials, like groceries and medicine.

In addition to traditional services like attic and wall insulation, the program also provides services that help with home health and safety measures, such as installing smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. Energy efficient homes also help cut down on our carbon footprint, reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change.

An independent study of the Weatherization Assistance Program by Oak Ridge National Laboratory found that children in weatherized households miss less school, improving educational outcomes. Adults miss less work, increasing both their own incomes and their contributions to the economy. Families also reported experiencing fewer flu and cold symptoms and emergency room visits, decreasing costly medical expenses.

The Weatherization Assistance Program also helps boost our economy. The program supports over 8,500 jobs for energy experts and contractors, while increasing our national economic output by $1.2 billion.

The program is a win-win for all involved. That is why, as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have led my colleagues in supporting strong funding for it every year. And that is why I am introducing this bill--to ensure it continues to work for years to come.

This bill, which is cosponsored by Senators Collins, Coons, and Shaheen, will help expand the program to many more low-income households that are currently unable to receive weatherization services because their homes are not structurally sound. The bill will authorize a Weatherization Readiness Fund, providing $65 million a year for 5 years to repair structural issues and prepare homes for weatherization assistance, increasing the number of homes the program is able to serve.

At the same time, it will raise the amount of funding allowed to be spent on each home to keep up with current labor and material costs, and it will raise the cap on the amount of funding allowed to be spent on renewable energy upgrades in each home. These provisions are essential updates to a program that has helped so many families over the past few decades.

I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this commonsense legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Weatherization Assistance Program Improvements Act, which will make critical updates to ensure this important program can effectively serve even more households across the country.

Since 1976, the Weatherization Assistance Program has helped more than 7 million low-income families reduce their energy bills by making their homes more energy efficient. The Department of Energy estimates that these upgrades help each household save $283 in energy bills annually. Those energy savings free up limited financial resources for essentials, like groceries and medicine.

In addition to traditional services like attic and wall insulation, the program also provides services that help with home health and safety measures, such as installing smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. Energy efficient homes also help cut down on our carbon footprint, reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change.

An independent study of the Weatherization Assistance Program by Oak Ridge National Laboratory found that children in weatherized households miss less school, improving educational outcomes. Adults miss less work, increasing both their own incomes and their contributions to the economy. Families also reported experiencing fewer flu and cold symptoms and emergency room visits, decreasing costly medical expenses.

The Weatherization Assistance Program also helps boost our economy. The program supports over 8,500 jobs for energy experts and contractors, while increasing our national economic output by $1.2 billion.

The program is a win-win for all involved. That is why, as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have led my colleagues in supporting strong funding for it every year. And that is why I am introducing this bill--to ensure it continues to work for years to come.

This bill, which is cosponsored by Senators Collins, Coons, and Shaheen, will help expand the program to many more low-income households that are currently unable to receive weatherization services because their homes are not structurally sound. The bill will authorize a Weatherization Readiness Fund, providing $65 million a year for 5 years to repair structural issues and prepare homes for weatherization assistance, increasing the number of homes the program is able to serve.

At the same time, it will raise the amount of funding allowed to be spent on each home to keep up with current labor and material costs, and it will raise the cap on the amount of funding allowed to be spent on renewable energy upgrades in each home. These provisions are essential updates to a program that has helped so many families over the past few decades.

I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this commonsense legislation.

Madam President, I rise in support of the swift consideration of President Biden's five nominees to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Over the last year, our economy has improved tremendously, thanks to President Biden's American Rescue Plan and the bipartisan infrastructure law, and we have been guided along the way by steady leadership at the Fed. We are seeing positive results.

Last year, GDP grew by 5.7 percent, and we gained over 6.6 million jobs. In each month during the second half of last year, the family tax credit in the American Rescue Plan pulled approximately 3.5 million children out of poverty; unemployment claims are at a 50-year low; the unemployment rate is at 4 percent; and nominal wages are rising at the fastest pace in decades.

We have also begun investing $1.2 trillion from the bipartisan infrastructure law that will help businesses and the economy in the decades ahead and will provide an extraordinary number of jobs.

We are not yet out of the woods from the pandemic, and there are critical economic challenges we need to address, including inflation, the lack of affordable housing, the high cost of prescription drugs, the need for affordable childcare, and others. The Fed plays a pivotal role in making sure our economy grows on an even keel so that we can meet these challenges and remain the world's leader.

I might add also that this is a very, very difficult time for the world economy as we respond to the illegal attack by Putin on Ukraine. The world, under the leadership of President Biden and the United States, has imposed unprecedented sanctions. It is in this volatile moment that the Fed also will play a critical role.

Unfortunately, Republican partisan brinkmanship is now preventing us from having a fully staffed and functioning Fed, just as Republicans have stymied nominations of qualified individuals to serve at key posts in the Defense Department, in the State Department, and in several other Agencies.

I would note that, at times, we are being forced to break filibusters on nominations that eventually pass with 70, 80, or 90 ``yes'' votes. Perhaps my colleagues think that these tactics are somehow politically beneficial, but the fact is that these tactics diminish and degrade the ability of the Federal Government to serve the American people.

And so we come to the Federal Reserve. The seven-member Board is technically operating with four of its seven members today, and two of those are in confirmation limbo.

Jerome Powell, who has been nominated for a second term as Chair, is serving on an acting basis. Lael Brainard is a Governor and is also the pending nominee for Vice Chair. There is no Vice Chair for Supervision, and two ordinary Governor seats are vacant.

The President has nominated a slate of five qualified, bipartisan candidates to fill these positions, including Mr. Powell.

Mr. Powell was first appointed Fed Chair by Donald Trump and has served admirably for the last 4 years. Lael Brainard was confirmed to her current position on the Federal Reserve Board with strong bipartisan support. Sarah Bloom Raskin is a former Governor and has been nominated as Vice Chair for Supervision. The Senate confirmed Ms. Raskin to the Federal Reserve Board a decade ago by voice vote and as Deputy Treasury Secretary on a bipartisan vote. Lisa Cook and Phil Jefferson are mainstream academic economists who have been nominated as Governors.

Earlier this year, the Banking Committee held hearings on these nominees. They demonstrated their qualifications and responded to hundreds of questions. They have met with Senators on the committee individually as well. But on February 15, my Republican colleagues blocked the Banking Committee from voting on these nominations. They didn't show up and vote no on the nominees whom they opposed; they just didn't show up. They decided to skip the meeting precisely to keep the committee from moving these nominees to the full Senate. They have taken this step during a pandemic, a bout of inflation, and a growing, violent conflict in Europe. At a time when the Federal Reserve's job has never been more important, our Republican colleagues have chosen to stall the confirmations of qualified nominees to help lead our economy.

The Federal Reserve's monetary policy decisions are made by the Federal Open Market Committee, also known as the FOMC. The FOMC has 12 voting members, including all seven Governors on the Board in Washington. The others are presidents of the regional Reserve banks. Due to the Republican boycott, the FOMC is now operating with only nine members--four Governors and five Reserve bank presidents.

The FOMC's primary job is to establish interest rate targets and authorize open market operations to achieve those targets. This function makes it the most important economic policymaking body in the world.

The FOMC now faces enormous challenges to bring prices under control

without harming the strong economic recovery. Supply chain disruptions and the pandemic have pushed inflation up. Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, which many economists expect to make supply shortages much worse and cause energy prices to rise, creates huge risks for the global economy.

These economic challenges collectively demand a fully staffed FOMC. Indeed, one of the FOMC's biggest strengths is its ability to inspire confidence in the United States and in the world. It is able to do this because it typically works by consensus--consensus that reflects the view of its 12 expert members. But when the FOMC doesn't have its full complement of members and when members are serving in an acting capacity, it doesn't speak with the same authority. At a moment when there is so much turmoil in the domestic and global economies, it is reckless to deny the FOMC its full membership.

My Republican colleagues have spent plenty of time talking about inflation without offering solutions. Now, when presented with a chance to empower the FOMC to combat higher prices, my Republican colleagues have instead chosen to handcuff it.

By weakening the FOMC, Senate Republicans are increasing the odds of a mistake. That makes it more likely for higher prices to persist, and this outcome is unacceptable when millions of Americans are struggling to cover increased costs for everyday expenses. The American people should not need to bear any further economic hardships, however slight, that could result from Republicans continuing to block these nominees.

Blocking these nominees also robs Congress and the public of an important mechanism to hold the FOMC accountable for its decisions. My Republican colleagues say they are committed to accountability, but their blockade is ensuring that the five Reserve bank presidents, who answer to the Nation's commercial banks and are not confirmed by the Senate, are a majority on the FOMC. That means these five non-Senate- confirmed officials predominate when it comes to interest rate decisions.

Congress promised the American people an FOMC led by members who exclusively serve their interests. I urge my Republican colleagues to deliver on that promise.

If the Federal Reserve fails to deliver maximum employment and stable prices, the American people will question why.

Reasonable minds can differ about whether the FOMC ultimately raises interest rates too much, too little, or just enough. Economists are sure to debate that question in the years to come. But one obvious conclusion will be that the FOMC lacked a full complement of members to support the difficult decisions that it will make this year. That conclusion will spread doubts about the integrity of the Federal Reserve and its policies. If those doubts take root, it will be harder for our Nation's central bank to support the economy.

In these rather uncertain economic times, the American people need more certainty, not less, and they need an FOMC that is accountable to them.

I urge my Republican colleagues to allow the Senate to vote on these highly qualified nominees.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the RECORDS on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators .