Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 90 seconds.

Madam President, as America faces rising prices caused by corporate greed in a global pandemic and Putin's war, having a full Fed Board has never been more vital. Today, we take the first step.

Dr. Brainard is a highly qualified economist with decades of experience. She served as a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve since 2014. She championed efforts to modernize and strengthen the Community Reinvestment Act. She is committed to addressing and staying ahead of financial risks to our economy. She has a long history of bipartisan support and collaboration. She served in administrations of both parties.

I urge my colleagues to support the nomination and to vote for Lael Brainard to the Federal Reserve.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote with respect to the Cook nomination occur at a time to be determined by the majority leader following consultation with the Republican leader; further, that prior to April 29, 2022, the

Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following two nominations: Calendar No. 807, Jerome H. Powell, and Calendar No. 809, Philip Nathan Jefferson; that there be 60 minutes for debate, equally divided in the usual form, on each nomination; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that 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; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate then resume legislative session.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 minutes.

Madam President, I understand that the objection holds-- that the ranking member of the Senate's Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee is essentially saying he is not willing to vote on all three of these--two of them right now, the other one a bit later. I mean, it could be right now. Again, we have tried to move on these nominations.

My friend from Pennsylvania launched a boycott of a committee that I have never seen or a boycott which actually, because of the 50-50 Senate, stopped us--literally stopped us--from holding a vote. He knows that, and he knows they have done everything they can to stop Lisa Cook's nomination--everything.

I would point out also that it is not exactly an accurate version of history. Judy Shelton, whom my colleague mentioned, would have gone down if everybody had been there. He forgets that part. It wasn't just one Republican Member who was sick; it was another Republican Member who was going to vote no, and he understood the array of people in both parties who were opposed to Ms. Shelton.

In understanding that, my colleague is saying let's not vote on any of the three of them--on either the two of them today and then Lisa Cook later. I understand the rules of the Senate, and that is the way it will be.

Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.

I was going to say it is disappointing--I guess ``appalling'' would be the better word--but it is not at all surprising because I have watched my colleagues do everything they can to slow and delay, even boycott actual votes en bloc. I have watched what they have done to these nominees and watched them continue to play politics with our economy.

They have been AWOL on the fight against inflation for months. They talk about it a whole lot, but they don't really have solutions. Yet they haven't abandoned their tax cuts for the corporations that are raising people's prices, as the Presiding Officer knows and has spoken passionately about the companies that are making more and more and more money all the time--the biggest profits in American history. These companies continue to raise prices because they can; but my colleagues, when they have had opportunities to get talented, qualified women on the job to fight inflation at the Fed, they have blocked them.

Today, about an hour and a half, 2 hours ago, we offered to vote, right now, to get Chair Powell and Dr. Philip Jefferson on the Fed Board immediately, and part of that motion was to delay the vote on Dr. Lisa Cook until all of our Members are here and healthy.

My colleague on the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee understands that a number of Senate Democrats were sick today and couldn't come and vote. So we just said in our motion: Yes, let's go ahead and vote on Chair Powell--I am going to vote for him--and let's go ahead and vote on Dr. Jefferson. I am going to vote for him, too, and virtually all of my colleagues are, but let's just hold off on Dr. Cook because it is a close vote.

Every single Republican is voting against a very qualified and the first African-American woman to be on the Federal Reserve in its 109- year-old history, but Senator Toomey objected to those two votes and with the request to just delay Dr. Cook for a time until Members could come back. He would rather play politics. He continues to denigrate this distinguished nominee--again, the first Black woman to ever be nominated to the Fed. For some reason, the Republican members of my committee take great joy in trying to embarrass this nominee by saying she is not qualified.

Not qualified? Spelman College.

Not qualified? A Marshall Scholar.

Not qualified? A Truman Scholar.

Not qualified? Studied at Oxford.

Not qualified? Has a Ph.D. from Berkeley.

These are all some of the greatest schools in the country.

Not qualified? An economist at Michigan State University--one of the great State institutions in my part of the country. That is not qualified? Dr. Cook is a leading economist, with years of research and international experience in monetary policy on banking and financial crises.

Maybe this is what my colleagues don't like: She has seen how economic policy affects all kinds of different people in different parts of the country--from the rural South, where she grew up, to the industrial Midwest, where she built a career. These are two parts of the country that have been particularly affected in a negative way by globalization.

Again, she is a Spelman College alumna, a Marshall Scholar, a Truman Scholar; studied at Oxford; has a Ph.D. from Berkeley; is a tenured professor for economics and international relations in the State just north of me--in East Lansing, MI, at Michigan State University.

Yet, despite this extensive experience and her broad support, a small but excruciatingly loud--if I could use that adverb--minority, far outside the mainstream, has engaged in a smear campaign against Dr. Cook, the same sorts of attacks that Black Americans and women have faced for far too long.

I won't recite the litany of votes in my committee against very qualified women and very qualified African-American women. Senate Republicans buy into these attacks and in some cases are making these attacks.

These naysayers absurdly claim that Lisa Cook doesn't meet the standards for this position, standards that seem to apply only to certain nominees who happen to be women, particularly Black women.

It is sort of a game of Whac-A-Mole. Each time these assertions and these allegations are rebutted, a new, more untethered one seems to arise.

Dr. Cook would be--and I would assert. I don't just assert. I am certain she will be the first Black woman on the Federal Reserve in its more than 100-year history.

Think about that. This is a country that in my State--the ranking member's State--10 to 15 percent are African Americans. In this country, about 12 or 13 percent are Black. The Federal Reserve is made up of seven people. In 1913, it was founded. In 109 years, there has never been a Black woman. We have a chance to put an outstanding, very qualified Black woman on, and for some reason, they say no.

We are going to confirm her once our Members are healthy. There are a couple of Members who missed it. I believe it is two because of COVID. They are

going to come back, and we are going to confirm her. But for some reason, the ranking member of the committee would like to just embarrass Dr. Cook a little bit more.

First, they make all these unwarranted attacks. Then they block her in committee. Then they--well, they called a boycott to stop any committee action on another very qualified woman. And I might add, parenthetically, because the oil industry didn't like her.

One of the things I particularly like about Dr. Cook is she understands--and maybe this is the objection. They want a Federal Reserve that is more sort of corporate-dominated, corporate-oriented instead of putting workers at the center of our economy.

I know Senator Merkley has been one of the leaders here, always understanding that workers should be the center of this economy. That is what Dr. Cook will do in the Federal Reserve.

She understands the smalltown South. She understands the industrial Midwest. She has worked on the west coast. She has worked all over this country. She is international in the way she looks at things. But, fundamentally, she comes down to ordinary, middle-class people and those who aspire to the middle class.

She is ready to get to work to protect Americans from rising prices. We need her. We need all of President Biden's nominees on the job right now.

But, again, Senate Republicans could have earlier said yes--he didn't have to object--yes, we will go forward with Powell; we will go forward with Jefferson, but we want to embarrass Dr. Cook first. We want to show that we have the political muscle to defeat a really, really, really accomplished Black woman first.

That is what they decided, that scoring political points is more important than serving the public and bringing down prices.

So today, once again, a qualified Black woman is going to have to wait. A qualified Black woman is going to have to wait and wait and wait. We are going to confirm her, but she is going to have to wait a little bit longer until the two Members of the Senate who are sick can return.

The American people are going to have to wait, all because Senate Republicans have decided their political gamesmanship is more important than the constituents they are supposed to serve.

I, one last time, say: Make no mistake, we will confirm all of these Federal Reserve nominees. We could do it a lot faster if my colleagues wanted to cooperate.

I object.

Mr. President, just to be clear, we did offer just an hour, maybe 2 hours ago--the ranking member and I have spoken for maybe 20 minutes, more or less.

Just to be clear, we offered in that unanimous consent request that we vote on both Chair Powell and Dr. Jefferson and simply delay the vote on Dr. Cook because several Members who wanted to vote for her were not here.

Instead, the ranking member decided he wanted to just, one more time, try to embarrass Dr. Cook. It is not really going to work because we are going to confirm her. But just to be clear, my motion, only 2 hours ago, was let's move forward on those two. That was rejected by Senator Toomey.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the other Senator from Ohio, Senator Portman, for his work in Ukraine. I was with the Ukrainian group over the last week or so and talked about the work Senator Portman has done. And we also talked about how Putin has just been shocked by the passion and the effectiveness and the strength and the courage of the Ukrainian opposition, surely, and also Putin has been shocked by President Biden's skill at putting together this coalition in opposition to the Russians.

Germany, who hadn't really played in an exercise like this, in an action like this in decades, and Sweden and Finland and Switzerland-- countries that simply were neutral. And I appreciate Senator Portman's work on that and the President of the United States, and it is why we are doing a reasonably good job as a world, as a world community, in helping with refugees who have gone to Poland and Moldova and other areas while we are getting arms to them, while we are doing damage to the Russian economy and will continue to do that. So I thank my friend from Cincinnati.

Nominations of Lael Brainard and Lisa DeNell Cook

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues in joining me in voting to confirm the

nominations of Lael Brainard to be Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and Lisa Cook to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve.

Dr. Brainard and Dr. Cook are highly qualified economists with decades of experience, having provided exemplary service to their profession and to this country.

Since 2014, Dr. Brainard has served as a Member of the Board of Governors to the Federal Reserve. She has helped oversee the Fed's important financial stability work. She has worked to create a better payment system that works for consumers and for small banks.

Prior to serving on the Fed, Dr. Brainard was Under Secretary for International Affairs at Treasury, where she played a critical role in helping support our country's recovery from the Wall Street-induced financial crisis in 2008.

She has a long history of bipartisan support and bipartisan work. She served in administrations of both parties. She was Deputy National Economic Adviser in the Clinton administration. She was a staff economist at the Council of Economic Advisers during the first George Bush administration.

And in between her public service to our country, she served as a professor of applied economics at one of the nation's great institutions, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Throughout this distinguished career, Dr. Brainard has been not just a good economist, but she has been a persistent advocate for working families and for communities who have been left on their own for too long.

She understands the role of government and the role of the Federal Reserve should be--it is not always successful in getting them there; I think these new nominees will do that--putting workers at the center of our economy and putting the workers at the center of our financial regulatory system, and putting workers at the center of what we do here.

She led the way at modernizing and strengthening the Community Reinvestment Act, a landmark civil rights law passed to begin undoing the legacy of redlining and lending discrimination, spurring investments in neighborhoods and communities. The CRA has fallen short many times, partly because of the last administration and the damage it did, but we are breathing new life into the CRA. Dr. Lael Brainard has done a good job in keeping it alive and setting the stage.

She led decisive, bipartisan action to use the Fed's emergency lending and monetary policy tools to support families through the COVID-19 crisis.

Like Dr. Brainard, Dr. Cook is a leading economist with years of research and international experience in monetary policy, banking, and financial crises. She knows that workers drive our economic growth. She knows how important their local communities are.

Dr. Cook spent her formative years in the South, growing up in Milledgeville, GA. She spent a significant portion of her career in the industrial Midwest. She has seen how economic policy set here and economic policy set at the Federal Reserve affect all kinds of different people in different parts of the country.

She graduated from Spelman College, one of the great institutions in this country. She was a Marshall scholar and a Truman scholar. Whom do we know that are both of those things? And she chose both, very exclusive honors and academic disciplines. She studied at Oxford University. She earned a Ph.D. in economics, again, from one of our great institutions in this country, the University of California Berkeley.

She is a tenured professor of economics and international relations at one of the great institutions in my part of the country, Michigan State University. She taught at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. She served on the Council of Economic Advisers during the eurozone crisis and at the Department of Treasury.

Yet--yet--Mr. President, despite her extensive experience, despite her broad support, a small but really, really loud minority, far outside the mainstream, have engaged in a smear campaign against Dr. Cook. It is emblematic of the sorts of attacks that Black and Brown Americans, particularly women, have encountered for far too long here.

I won't go through what has happened in my committee. I chair the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. I won't lay out--for one thing, the Senators on my side of the aisle know it, and the Senators on their side of the aisle don't want to think about it--what has happened with very, very qualified, accomplished Black women coming out of my committee and how few Republicans have voted for them. Counting one after another, they get zero votes or 1 vote or 2 votes out of 12.

Women, and certainly Black women, know all too well what it is like to be called ``inexperienced'' when you are anything but. They know what it is like to be told that your qualifications are never enough, no matter how extensive they are, no matter how impressive they are.

These naysayers wrongly claim that Lisa Cook doesn't meet the standards for this position--standards that only seem to apply for certain nominees. Like the game of Whac-A-Mole, each time these assertions and allegations are rebutted--and each time they are effectively rebutted--a new, more untethered one arises.

She is unquestionably qualified. Dr. Lisa Cook is unquestionably qualified. If confirmed, she would be the first Black woman ever in the 100-plus year history of the Fed to serve on the Board. Think of that. In 1913, the Fed started, and 109 years later, seven people--not one person on the Fed, not one Chair; seven people on the Fed, most times-- but with seven spots on the Fed, she will be the first Black woman ever in 109 years. Think about that.

Dr. Cook and Dr. Brainard will be excellent additions to the Fed. We need them on the job now. As Americans face rising prices caused by corporate greed and the global pandemic and Putin's war, having a full Board has never been more vital than now. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Dr. Lael Brainard and Dr. Lisa Cook--their nominations--so they can get to work for the American people.

I yield the floor.

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 ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, April 26; 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 Brainard nomination, postcloture; that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; and that at 2:15 p.m. the Senate vote on the confirmation of the Brainard nomination; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Tuesday's session, that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

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

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

Madam President, it is an honor to support a thoughtful, experienced, historic nominee to our highest Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson.

I met with her yesterday. It was so clear she has the experience, she has the character, she has the commitment to justice needed to be an excellent Supreme Court Justice. We talked about the legacy and the unfinished fight of Dr. King, how we could never forget that he was martyred in Memphis while fighting for the rights of sanitation workers, some of the most exploited workers in segregated America-- segregated in Memphis, TN.

Dr. King understood better than perhaps anybody how worker rights and voter rights come together. It is clear that Judge Jackson understands the dignity of work and that the rights of workers are integral civil rights. People think of the Supreme Court as something like an ivory tower detached from people's everyday lives, and we know that decisions these Justices make affect America's workplaces and their paychecks and their safety on the job. That is why it matters so much whom we promote to these jobs.

I am confident that Judge Jackson will be a Justice who protects the rights of all Americans, not just the powerful, not just the privileged. She brings with her a diverse set of experiences and a perspective that has long been lacking from our Nation's highest Courts.

We, of course, know she is the first Black woman nominated to serve on the Court. She is a daughter of a public schoolteacher. She went to public schools herself--not that common, frankly, on the U.S. Supreme Court--and she is a former public defender. The nomination is truly historic.

Her parents attended segregated primary schools, and now, their daughter will ascend to the highest levels of our government. Think about that.

Judge Jackson has a history of bipartisan support. Republicans supported her confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals. I am glad a few of my Republican colleagues have recognized those unimpeachable qualifications and are supporting her confirmation this week.

I don't know how anyone could doubt her intelligence, her thoughtfulness, her knowledge of the law, and her commitment to justice. She clerked for Justice Breyer. She has shown she is the ideal nominee to carry on his legacy of building consensus, in listening to all perspectives.

It was an honor to talk with her yesterday and to hear her views. It will be an honor to vote for her later this week.

Over the coming months and years, the Supreme Court is set to make decisions on everything from Ohioans' healthcare to workplace safety to their right to vote. If the Court makes these decisions that affect all Ohioans' lives, I am confident that Judge Jackson understands the importance of equal justice and as a commitment to our Constitution, including civil rights and including worker rights. She will serve Ohioans and all Americans with the same grace and dignity and commitment to our country she has shown over the past several weeks-- meeting with Senators, speaking to the President, and in speaking to the Nation through the Judiciary Committee hearings. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting her confirmation.

Madam President, it is my honor to--this is something I get to do once a year now--it is my honor to join Senator Rounds of South Dakota and Senator Hirono from Hawaii, and then Senator Collins later, Senator Baldwin, Senator Romney, and Senator Warnock, to join my colleagues of both parties on the floor to read one of the greatest pieces of writing of the 20th century, Dr. King's letter from the Birmingham jail.

I thank those Senators for joining us. Our former colleague, Senator Doug Jones, began this tradition. He did it in 2019 and 2020. As he left the Senate in late 2020, he asked me to continue the tradition that he began. He would have been here on the floor with us to watch and to listen, but he was called to the White House on his work with Judge Jackson.

This is a bipartisan reading. I very purposely chose three Republican

friends--Senator Rounds will go first--and three Democrat friends, followed by Senator Hirono. And let me just lay out where we are and what we are doing.

It is April 1963. Dr. King was held in the Birmingham Jail for the supposed crime of leading a series of peaceful protests and boycotts in the city of Birmingham, AL. The goal was to put pressure on the business community to end discrimination in their hiring for local jobs. Some White ministers from Alabama would take issue with these boycotts. They said: Slow down, Dr. King. Don't move too fast. We are for voting rights, too. We are for ending discrimination, but don't demand too much all at once.

Dr. King rejected that premise. That is what this letter is about. It is about demanding justice now for people in Alabama whose skin was Black and who simply could not vote because of the color of their skin.

We can't wait around and hope that problems in families' lives will solve themselves. It is up to us as citizens, as leaders, as members of our churches in our communities.

Dr. King made this point more eloquently and persuasively, certainly, than I can. We will begin the reading of the letter with Senator Rounds from South Dakota.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and

Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few

years I have been gravely disappointed with the white

moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion

that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward

freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux

Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to

``order'' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which

is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the

presence of justice; who constantly says: ``I agree with you

in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of

direct action''; who paternalistically believes he can set

the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a

mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro

to wait for a ``more convenient season.'' Shallow

understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating

than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.

Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright

rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that

law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice

and that when they fail in this purpose they become the

dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social

progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would

understand that the present tension in the South is a

necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative

peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust

plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men

will respect the dignity and worth of human personality.

Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not

the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the

hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the

open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that

can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be

opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air

and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension

its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and

the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though

peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate

violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like

condemning a robbed man because his possession of money

precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like

condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to

truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by

the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock?

Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God

consciousness and never ceasing

devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of

crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts

have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an

individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic

constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate

violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the

robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would

reject the myth concerning time in relation to the

struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a

white brother in Texas. He writes: ``All Christians know

that the colored people will receive equal rights

eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a

religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two

thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of

Christ take time to come to earth.'' Such an attitude

stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the

strangely irrational notion that there is something in the

very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills.

Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either

destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that

the people of ill will have used time much more

effectively than have the people of good will. We will

have to repent in this generation not merely for the

hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the

appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never

rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the

tireless efforts of men willing to be coworkers with God,

and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of

the forces of social stagnation. We must use time

creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe

to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of

democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a

creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our

national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to

the solid rock of human dignity.

You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At

first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would

see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began

thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two

opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of

complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of

long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect in

the sense of ``somebodiness'' that they have adjusted to

segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who,

because of a degree of academic and economic security and

because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become

insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is

one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close

to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black

nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation,

the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim

movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the

continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement

is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have

absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded

that the white man is an incorrigible ``devil.''

I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that

we need emulate neither the ``do nothingism'' of the

complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black

nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and

nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the

influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became

an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not

emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am

convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced

that if our white brothers dismiss as ``rabble rousers'' and

``outside agitators'' those of us who employ nonviolent

direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent

efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and

despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist

ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a

frightening racial nightmare.

Madam President, thanks to my colleagues, Senator Warnock, Senator Baldwin in the Presiding Officer's Chair, Senator Rounds, Senator Hirono, Senator Collins, and Senator Romney for joining me to read these powerful words today.

This tradition began in 2019 when Senator Doug Jones from Alabama, a leader in the civil rights movement, as Senator Warnock who just spoke also is--he began this tradition in 2019. And then when he left the Senate in 2020, he asked me to continue and together read these powerful words--a diverse group on the floor today. We come from different backgrounds. We disagree on a number of things. We love this country. We know we can do better for the people who make it work.

In my meeting yesterday with Judge Jackson--soon to be Justice Jackson--we talked about the deep connection between civil rights and workers' rights. Dr. King spoke to labor audiences throughout his life. He preached with a unique eloquence about the inherent dignity of work. He said that

``so often we overlook the work and significance of those who are not in professional jobs, of those who are not in the so-called big jobs . . . Whenever you are engaged in work that serves humanity and is for the building of humanity,'' Dr. King said, ``it has dignity and it has worth.'' He said that ``no labor is really menial unless you're not getting adequate wages.''

I think about the campaign Dr. King waged when he was assassinated. We will never forget that he was martyred in Memphis while fighting for some of the most exploited workers in the country: sanitation workers in segregated Memphis.

We know too many workers face a similar exploitation today. We have seen, over the past 2 years, how many workers corporations call essential but treat as expendable. It is their whole business model.

It is not a coincidence that many of those workers look like the ones for whom Dr. King was fighting for, that they are not the ones in the so-called--his words--``big jobs.''

When on occasion, a company tries to do the right thing when they announce a pay raise or investment in workers, often Wall Street punishes them.

This week, Starbucks--a corporation currently fighting its own workers trying to organize a union--announced they are throwing a bone to workers. The company is going to do a little tiny bit less in executive compensation in the form of stock buybacks this year and do some investment in the workers instead, and their stock price went down. The Wall Street business model doesn't just do nothing for workers--pardon the grammar--it actively discourages investment in workers.

It has to change. Until hard work pays off for all workers, Dr. King's work remains unfinished. That means paying all workers a living wage. Senator Warnock is still on the floor, and Senator Baldwin, the Presiding Officer, are two of the people that fight the hardest for that.

All workers must make a living wage, have more power over their schedule, provide good benefits and safety on the job, and not fight organizing a union. That means all workers get a fair share of the wealth that they create. It means recognizing the dignity of the communities that Black Americans have built over generations. That is how we bring ourselves closer to the society that Dr. King envisioned where all labor has dignity.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise as chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee to honor and recognize the contributions of Kay Guinane upon her retirement from the Charity and Security Network.

In 2009, Ms. Guinane founded the Charity and Security Network--C and SN--a resource and advocacy center for nonprofit organizations to promote and protect their ability to carry out effective programs that support peace and human rights, aid civilians in areas of disaster and armed conflict, and build democratic governance.

Kay formed C and SN after observing significant obstacles in achieving critical humanitarian, peacebuilding and human rights programs. She recognized laws that restricted interactions with and financial support for designated groups and individuals were also severely limiting the critical work of civil society programs that provided assistance to the most vulnerable populations around the world. C and SN blazed a trail in being one of the first nonprofit organizations to address these issues.

Early on, in concert with colleagues around the world who had experienced similar impediments, Kay began engaging with elected officials and administration policymakers, seeking solutions, including the committees in Congress responsible for illicit finance and sanctions policy. Kay and her organization were a critical resource for the Senate Banking Committee for years as we addressed important policy issues, and unintended consequences of certain policies around illicit financing, bank de-risking, the conveyance of remittances overseas from families in the US--including large communities of Somalis, Ethiopians, and people from across Latin America--and other issues.

In May 2010, Kay testified in the first congressional oversight hearing since September 11, 2001, to look at the impact of anti- terrorist financing enforcement policies on the U.S. charitable sector. The hearing entitled, ``Anti-Money Laundering: Blocking Terrorist Financing and Its Impact on Lawful Charities,'' was held by the House Financial Services subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. During the hearing, a Treasury official acknowledged that the laws aimed at stopping terrorist financing could have the unintended consequence of harming the effectiveness of certain charitable programs. Kay outlined specific problems faced by the U.S. nonprofit sector, including the issue of banks freezing accounts indefinitely, and noted the negative impact of U.S. Treasury enforcement actions on legitimate charitable organizations operating solely to assist vulnerable populations.

Over the next decade, Kay and the work of C and SN were a driving force in efforts to address challenges civil society groups had in implementing their essential lifesaving, peacebuilding and human rights work. Kay's vision and efforts built an impressive network of nearly 200 organizations internationally with a shared goal of assisting the most vulnerable and protecting fundamental civil liberties. These organizations addressed issues surrounding civil societal concerns and financial access restrictions for nonprofits to combating obstacles in reaching general populations due to specific sanctioned entities.

By drawing on legal expertise, firsthand experiences of those working with these limitations, and policy analysis, the work of C and SN has helped raise awareness of and craft solutions for civil society and human rights concerns around the world. It has also resulted in tangible improvements in regulations, international guidelines, and policies. One notable and tangible

legislative victory was in key provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, which assisted to improve financial access for charities.

While her steadfast work will be missed, Kay's legacy at C and SN and its network of affiliates will have an impact on global civil liberties and human rights issues going forward. I offer her my heartfelt congratulations to her on her retirement, and wish her--and C and SN, which she leaves in good hands--all the best going forward.

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

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

just broke in the last couple of days--that corporate profits are at the highest they have been since 1950. In other words, corporations are making more money in the calendar year 2021 than any year since 1950. That is 70-plus years. Corporate profits are through the roof.

We also know--and that came out today--the Wall Street Journal, a very pro-business, pro-corporate America newspaper, pointed out that CEO compensation has gone up stratospherically.

We know, as the Presiding Officer from Illinois has pointed out in the past, too, that corporate profits have continued to go up, that CEO pay has been stratospheric, and that workers' wages have essentially been flat.

We also know that corporations--especially oil companies, shipping companies, meatpacking companies, and drug companies--have raised their prices dramatically higher than inflation.

So what we are seeing is that corporate profits are the highest in 70 years; CEO compensation is the highest ever--big raises last year; and prices have gone up, especially in those four industries, because they have essentially taken advantage of the pandemic, the opportunity during the pandemic for them to raise prices.

So one of the biggest reasons we have inflation is not because we invested in the American people with the Recovery Act and the bipartisan infrastructure bill; one of the biggest reasons for inflation is corporate executives saw an opportunity during the pandemic. All these supply chain issues, all these problems of outsourcing jobs to China--in the meatpacking industry and the oil industry and the prescription drug industry, in industry after industry--the shipping industry--these CEOs are thinking they can raise their prices more. So they have raised their prices more, their profits have gone up, executive compensation continues to go up dramatically, and then they blame inflation on the President or blame inflation on the Congress or whatever.

The fact is that these companies have abused the public trust, as we know, by dramatically raising prices in one of the most difficult times in our Nation's history, during this pandemic. They should be ashamed of themselves, but many of them brag to stockholders ``Look how well we are doing,'' and that is a serious problem.

In fact, there is a company in Ohio that not too long ago announced-- a big, storied U.S. company, Goodyear--that they were going to expand manufacturing in the United States. Do you know what happened? Their stock price went down because these companies decided that maybe that is not such a good thing. The stockholders decided it.

Starbucks' CEO has come back--the CEO and the founder--and he announced that his company was going to cut back or eliminate some of the executive compensation, some of the stock buybacks. His stock price went down.

So investors are saying: Yeah, we love our country, but if it is going to help workers, maybe we are not so excited, or if it is going to help communities, maybe we are not so excited.

It is sort of capitalism upside down. We know from this President and from what we are doing, our economy is growing faster than China's-- first time in 20 years. We know that the President and the Senate and the House are putting workers in the center of our economic policy. But we know CEOs aren't following that playbook. They are squeezing workers as hard as they can. They are paying themselves more in stock buybacks. Their profits are up. Their stock prices, when they talk--we know all those things. Yet CEO behavior simply hasn't changed.

Our mission as Members of this body is to continue to invest in workers, to continue to invest in the middle class, to continue to advocate for the dignity of work, and continue to put workers in the center of our economy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will be very brief. I know we have an 11:45 vote scheduled.

I urge my colleagues to join me in advancing the nomination of Judith Pryor as Vice President of the Ex-Im Bank. I appreciate the ranking member of the committee's comments about her qualifications. She is clearly qualified.

What we need to always remember is our foreign competitors operate more than 100 export credit agencies and credit programs supporting our manufacturers. As if our policy has not been stupid enough as a country--PNTR with China, which caused the hollowing out of community after community in southwest Virginia and in my State and much of the area throughout the Midwest--China's export finance activity is larger than all of the export credit that G7 countries collectively provide. China will continue to use export credit to win manufacturing businesses in critical sectors.

In Ohio, we just lost two more light bulb manufactures, LED manufacturers. The light bulb was invented by an Ohioan, Thomas Edison, in a New Jersey lab. We used to lead the world. Now, 99 percent of LED light bulbs are made in China. Does that not teach us something?

How about semiconductors? We invented semiconductors. We only make about 10 percent of them in the country right now.

As First Vice President of Ex-Im, Ms. Pryor will help lead the Nation's official export credit agency as it supports workers and manufacturers throughout our country.

This is the most pro-worker President of the United States in my lifetime. He puts workers at the center of

our economic agenda, our manufacturing agenda. We know what that means for building middle-class lives. More to the issue, the Senate previously confirmed Ms. Pryor to be a Board member of Ex-Im in July 2019, 77 to 19. More recently, she was advanced out of the Banking and Housing Committee, which I chair, by a voice vote--12 Republicans, 12 Democrats--a voice vote. There was no objection, no dissension. The Chamber of Commerce--not always an ally of the Biden administration-- the Chamber of Commerce supports Ms. Pryor. She worked with former president Kimberly Reed, a Republican appointee; and current member Spencer Bachus, a former Republican Congressman, to reopen Ex-Im to full operations.

My interest in her is a national interest. My interest is also that she is a native Ohioan. She hails from Richmond Heights, a Cleveland suburb, with 25 years of international business, finance, and public policy experience.

Don't be misled by attacks on Ex-Im's creation of a new financing facility for U.S. exporters. They already have a quorum. She is not essential for that quorum. She is essential because she is so darn good in her job. Ex-Im President Reta Jo Lewis is doing exactly what Congress--a majority of Congress, not unanimous, but a majority of Congress--told the Bank to do when we reauthorized this charter in 2019: Help American exporters compete with China.

Our economy--this is almost hard to believe--I mean, it is hard to believe--for the first time in 20 years, our economy is growing faster than China's economy. That is because we are finally stepping up with a real manufacturing policy. We are not asking Congress to waive any rules. The Bank is required to show that its financing does not crowd out financing from the private sector. It is essential that our manufacturers have every tool at their disposal so they can compete globally. That is why we need Judith Pryor at Ex-Im. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Ms. Pryor's nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to join me in confirming Lisa Cook to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Dr. Cook hails from the Presiding Officer's home State of Georgia. She grew up in Milledgeville, GA, where my mother's college roommate-- during World War II, before she moved to Washington to be part of the war effort--was a roommate of my mother who is from Mansfield, GA, as the Presiding Officer knows. She roomed with someone from Milledgeville, GA.

Lisa Cook has good smalltown values, good southern values. She now teaches at a great Midwestern State university with good midwestern values.

She is unquestionably qualified, an economist with many years of experience. She is a graduate of Spelman. She was a Truman Scholar in England, something that very few Americans qualify for. It is a very small, elite, important program. She then got her Ph.D. at Berkeley.

She brings a breadth of research and international experience on monetary policy, on banking, and on financial crises. In fact, she is one of the country's leading researchers on international economic growth and innovation economics.

Dr. Cook currently serves as a dual-tenured professor of economics and international relations at Michigan State. She previously taught at the Kennedy School of Government. She served on the Council of Economic Advisers during the eurozone crisis and at the Department of Treasury.

She is a historic nominee. If confirmed, she would be the first Black woman ever in the more than 100-year history of the Fed. Think about that. In 1913, the Federal Reserve began, created by this body and the House of Representatives, signed by President Wilson. So in 109 years, seven Governors on the Fed--most stay no more than 5 or 6 or 7 years-- and she will be the first Black woman to ever serve on the Federal Reserve.

I am thrilled about this nomination. I am thrilled because of the diversity of gender and race but also--maybe especially--the diversity of experience. She knows, in her recognition, that workers should be at the center of our economy. She knows that workers drive our economic growth. She knows how important local communities are. She spent her formative years in the South and a significant portion of her career in the industrial Midwest. She has seen how the economy works and sometimes doesn't work so well for all different kinds of people in different parts of the country.

She arrived on campus in East Lansing, MI, a few years before the financial crisis. She saw its impact on the students, the professors, the entire community. She takes that with her--that experience, that knowledge, that insight--to the Federal Reserve.

That is an unusual thing for a Fed Governor. She has made it clear she is dedicated to Fed independence. She will uphold the Fed's dual mandate of maximum employment and price stability.

Her nomination represents another example of the Biden administration's serious effort to make the economy work for everyone, not just those at the top. That is what especially makes her an outstanding nominee.

It is a critical time for the Fed. We need Dr. Cook and other qualified nominees on the job immediately to fight inflation. Dr. Cook is unquestionably qualified. She possesses bipartisan support from top economists, former Fed Governors, bankers, civil rights organizations.

Yet despite her broad support, a small but loud minority have wrongly claimed that she doesn't meet the standards for this position, standards that only seem to apply for certain nominees.

Still, she has met and she has exceeded those high bars. She is a Ph.D. economist and a tenured professor. She is sought by organizations around the world for her input, for her knowledge, for her wisdom, for her perspective. She will bring a critical voice to the Fed, one that has been missing for far too long.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Dr. Lisa Cook's nomination and getting her on the Board right away to help with our economic recovery.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today's powerful new sanctions against hundreds of Putin allies are another critical step in U.S. leadership, bringing our allies together to ratchet up pressure on Russia to halt its brutal invasion of Ukraine.

I think Putin has been shocked by a couple things. Putin has been shocked that the Ukrainians have had such furious, effective, courageous resistance. He didn't see that coming.

The other thing that shocked Putin has been the skill with which President Biden assembled this coalition of countries to stand up to Putin, to provide assistance to refugees and assistance to Ukrainians in their country, to provide military assistance, and to put the squeeze on sanctions against Russia.

He has assembled this coalition skillfully, including countries like Germany and Sweden and Finland and Switzerland, even--countries that never really played here and nobody really expected. And Biden has brought them in, in a coalition, and extracted--and with the right kind of target on sanctions.

In addition to sanctioning the banks and the oil companies, in addition to sanctioning the oligarchs and Putin himself, the President is announcing now sanctioning Russian parliamentarians and the Parliament itself, the Russian Duma, a dozen more Russian arms merchants and defense firms that have enabled this war, and additional Putin cronies, including the CEO of Russia's largest bank.

I don't understand opposition to what we are trying to do. I don't know. Do we have Members of this Senate, perhaps, that, for whatever reason, side with Putin or side with the oligarchs? I don't know. But this is legislation we ought to be able to get moving quickly through this body as it did in the House.

As long as Putin's invasion goes on, we will continue to lead the world, turning up the heat and weakening Russia's war machine.

Today, I come to the floor to support the removal of permanent normal trade relations with Russia. It is not, as the Presiding Officer from Maryland knows--it is not the first time a number of us have been concerned about our government's mistakes, in large part, because of corporate lobbying on permanent normal trade relations with countries around the world.

One of worst decisions ever made in this body, or at least in recent history, and the damage it did to manufacturing in the industrial Midwest and elsewhere, was giving permanent normal trade relations to China and the advantages that gave them.

American companies, always in pursuit of cheaper labor, if going south wasn't good enough--they would go to Mexico and then they would go to China, close the plants in Ohio or Western Maryland, move to China, open up plants there with cheap labor and with pretty much nonexistent environmental regulations, and then ship those jobs back to the United States. That was permanent normal trade relations with China that we gave them some 20 years ago. It was a horrible mistake, but, today, this is about--for a different reason--permanent normal trade relations with Russia that we have granted.

The President has already committed to ending permanent normal trade relations with Russia, and the House has already passed a bill ending PNTR with Russia, so what are Senate Republicans waiting for?

Russia should not have free and unlimited access to America's economy or to the global economy. There should be no place for Putin and his cronies to hide.

We are trying to get this done in the Senate. I was on the floor yesterday hoping we could see this done then. Twenty-four hours more have passed; 24 hours more of Putin attacking, as a war criminal, people in Ukraine, people who are innocent, people who should never have to deal with this; another night in Ukraine under fire from an unprovoked Russian advance on civilian families; another day of destruction of civilian buildings in peaceful cities.

So waiting every day hurts the Ukrainian people. We need to do our part to give the President immediate legal authority he needs to work with our allies on this to shut off access to favorable tariff treatment for Russia's goods here and around the world.

Senator Paul, one Republican Senator, needs to relent to let us pass this. I mean, I know what Liz Cheney, a Member of the House, the daughter of Vice President Cheney under President Bush--I know what she said some time ago, and she is a Republican. She talked about the Putin wing of the Republican Party.

I have no idea who in this body is in the Putin wing of the Republican Party, but I do know that there is resistance on the other side of the aisle to doing what we need to do to give President Biden even more tools to do even more than he has already done in this.

The bill passed the House with a nearly unanimous vote. We need to finalize it in the Senate so we can ratchet up the pressure further, cut off Russia's ability to finance its unprovoked invasion of another member country in the World Trade Organization.

Even before this war, we knew that Russia, like China, games the rules. They cheat on trade. I said it yesterday on the floor: They subsidize their industries. They pollute the environment to gain that unfair advantage. It is cheaper to make something if you don't dispose of waste or you put contaminants into the air instead of disposing of them in another way.

Ohioans know all too well about being forced to compete with countries that cheat.

Why have we let another day go by with this still on the books? If we don't remove it now, Russia will continue to use the status to position their industries in the global market, hurting American companies in the process.

It is not a partisan issue. A couple weeks ago--almost a month ago--I introduced the bicameral, bipartisan bill with Senator Cassidy of Louisiana to remove Russia's permanent normal trade relations status. There is bipartisan support to do this quickly.

I have worked with my colleague Senator Crapo on many Russia sanctions efforts over the years. I trust him. I know we share the same goals, but it is Senator Paul, speaking for whomever on this, not letting this bill through.

I am hopeful there is a path forward. I hope we can work out differences quickly. The majority--an overwhelming majority of this body wants to move. We all--we should all stand together saying countries that invade a sovereign nation will not have free and unrestricted access to our economy, period.

Again, countries that invade another sovereign nation will not-- should not--have free and unrestricted access to our economy. It is time to come together to end permanent normal trade relations with Russia.