Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gilibrand), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, today the Senate will vote on the nomination of Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett to serve as a U.S. district court judge for the Central District of California. Judge Garnett is an experienced jurist and a long-time public servant who will make an outstanding addition to the bench. During her 13 years as an assistant U.S. Attorney, she prosecuted hundreds of matters, including criminal street gang offenses, child exploitation, and threats made against government officials. In recognition of her accomplishments as a prosecutor, Judge Garnett received a number of awards from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the U.S. Postal Service. Since 2014, Judge Garnett has served as a Los Angeles Superior Court judge, presiding over misdemeanor and felony proceedings. In 2016, she also served as an appellate State court judge, presiding over criminal, civil, and family law cases. The American Bar Association has unanimously rated Judge Garnett as ``well qualified'' to be a district court judge. She also has the strong support of her home State Senators, Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Padilla. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Judge Garnett's nomination.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. Without objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in

Mr. DURBIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if I were to ask you ``How did you start your day?'' I would imagine you would have your own answer. Most people would say: Oh, I made a cup of coffee. I took the dog out for a walk. I went for a run. Another answer might come to mind: Oh, I took my vitamin tablet, my dietary supplement. In fact, 77 percent of people in America take a dietary supplement, including me. I take a multivitamin tablet. I don't know if it does me any good. I figure it won't do me any harm. I believe in it. I believe Americans ought to be able to make that choice. I also believe that Americans who take vitamins, minerals, and herbs for their health and well-being have a right to know what is in them-- pretty basic. Many people assume if that product is sold in the United States of America, somebody has inspected it, and it must be safe. Unfortunately, that is not always true. The Food and Drug Administration has the authority to regulate dietary supplements and take dangerous products off the market, but it lacks information that it needs to use this authority effectively. The Food and Drug Administration can't even tell us how many dietary supplements are sold in America. They give us a range: somewhere between 50,000 different dietary supplements and 80,000--50,000 and 80,000--a gap of 30,000 products? What is going on here? They don't even know how many products are being sold, let alone what they are or what is in them. Let's go back to 1994. That was the year Congress passed a law and gave the FDA the authority to regulate supplements. Now, we all know that the Food and Drug Administration has the most important responsibility when it comes to the drugs that we take to make sure they are two things: safe and effective--safe and effective. But what about dietary supplements? Well, we passed something called DSHEA, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. The law made some progress, but there was a problem with it. Manufacturers of dietary supplements--get this now--manufacturers of those vitamins and minerals that are for sale in all those shops and all those drugstores are not required to tell the Food and Drug Administration what products they are selling in the United States, under what names. They are not required to disclose to the FDA what is in those products or where they are manufactured. And believe me, a lot of them are manufactured outside the United States. So when it comes to dietary supplements, the Food and Drug Administration and American consumers are pretty much flying blind. Making matters worse, since 1994, this dietary supplement industry has grown dramatically. Listen to these figures. In 1994, there were 4,000 dietary supplements sold in the United States. Today, as I said earlier, the number is as high as 80,000. So in 27, 30 years, we have seen the number of dietary supplements for sale go from 4,000 to 80,000. Now, in 1994, dietary supplements were a $4 billion industry--today, over $50 billion in annual revenue. Let me give you an example of one ingredient sold in dietary supplements today in the United States. It is called tianeptine. It can produce opioid-like effects. It is a prescription anti-depressant in some countries, but it is not approved for any use in the United States of America. Yet it is inexpensive and easy to produce. Some have nicknamed it ``gas station heroin'' because you can buy it easily at gas stations across America. You can buy it online--one click, delivered to your door. It is marketed as a safe supplement that can improve users' moods and enhance concentration. How many ads do you see on television--maybe I am paying closer attention to them these days--that say: Take this supplement, and your memory is better. You can concentrate more. You are smiling, Mr. President, because we have all seen them. They are on television all the time. It is marketed also as a way to fight substance use disorders, this tianeptine. So last year, Consumer Reports--and I respect this magazine very much--published the results of an investigation it conducted into this supplement. It told the story of a Michigan woman who had used heroin for 10 years and survived countless overdoses and arrests. After her sister overdosed and died, she decided it was time to get clean. She was frightened. She was desperate enough to try anything. She heard about tianeptine--maybe that could help her--so she tried it. She became hooked and dangerously ill, ending up in the hospital with a dangerous infection called sepsis. One doctor said to her: ``I don't know if I can save your limbs, but I'll try.'' Another doctor told her she came within a day or two of dying. She was lucky. She survived. She now speaks publicly about the dangers of the product that nearly killed her. In her words, ``This is heroin times 1,000, and it's very devastating. It's life-destroying. I don't really know how to put into words how horrible this substance is.'' In the midst of a deadly opioid epidemic and a COVID pandemic, some unscrupulous characters are hustling to make a buck off of people's pain by selling them an unregulated product that might make them sick or even kill them. And the Food and Drug Administration lacks the basic knowledge, the basic information it needs to go after the people who are peddling these dangerous, life-threatening products. When asked about the situation, a Food and Drug Administration spokesman said the Agency has ``no systematic way of knowing what dietary supplement products are on the market.'' Think of that. The No. 1 Agency in the Federal Government, which you assume is taking a look at these products that you are buying at the vitamins and minerals store, has no way of knowing what is even for sale. As a result, the FDA, she said, is ``left trying to play catch- up'' after the bad results occur. This week, Senator Braun of Indiana and I are introducing a bipartisan bill to protect Americans by requiring supplement manufacturers to register their products with the Food and Drug Administration. Our bill would require dietary supplement manufacturers to provide the FDA--listen to the information we are asking--the names of their products, the ingredients they contain, an electronic copy of the label, a list of any health claims that they have made, and more. All of this information would be available to consumers--so Americans have the right to know. If there is a problem with a supplement, the FDA could quickly check the database to see what other products might contain the same ingredients and warn innocent consumers. Dietary supplement makers who refuse to register with the FDA would see their products misbranded, and FDA should be given the appropriate authority to take action against them. Now, I have been down this road before. I wanted to make sure that the dietary supplement manufacturers, when we had a report of an adverse event--somebody took their pill, thinking it was a harmless vitamin or mineral that might help them; it turned out to be dangerous; they got really sick or died--they had to report it. I worked on the floor for years to get that passed into law. My nemesis, my challenger on the whole issue, was the late Senator from Utah, Orrin Hatch. Eventually, we worked out an agreement. Adverse event reporting was required. Now, I might argue that it never worked quite as we expected it to, but at least it was an effort to alert people that sometimes what looks like an innocent vitamin or mineral can be dangerous. And the notion that the government has already checked it out is just plain wrong, as I have said here. But that was then. I will tell you what happened. I went into vitamin stores in the State of Illinois and saw my picture on every cash register. I was enemy No. 1 because I asked that dangerous supplements be reported to the government if somebody got sick when they took them. But having said that, I want to make something very clear about the difference the legislation Senator Braun and I have introduced will face. I have been through this, as I said. I proposed a change about 10 years ago, and the dietary supplement industry hated me. They fought me tooth and nail. They hated my idea like the devil hates holy water. In the year since Senator Braun and I started talking to them about this new bill, there has been a significant change, and I want to salute the industry for this change. A strong majority of the dietary supplement industry now supports responsible reporting requirements and stronger protections. Hats off to them. The industry's largest trade association, the Council for Responsible Nutrition, has endorsed our bill. Other trade associations support enhanced reporting requirements, generally. We hope these groups will join us in the effort. Responsible dietary supplement manufacturers should welcome this because the people who are abusing the market and endangering consumers are giving them a bad name. We are also glad for the support of Pew Charitable Trusts, which has worked diligently for years to protect consumers. Our bill will give the FDA what they must have: the information to protect Americans from dangerous products being sold as health supplements. Our bill will give them the information and the power. We urge our colleagues to join us in passing it as soon as possible. It is a commonsense, bipartisan compromise that will protect consumers' health and save lives. The bottom line is, I am willing to fight to protect every Americans' right to buy safe dietary supplements. It may help them; it may not. That is not my judgment. Each individual consumer should make that choice. As long as that dietary supplement is not dangerous to you or to Americans, as long as we know that it is for sale, who made it, what is in it, I think that basic information is what the government should gather. The vast majority of these supplements will not harm people, and the dietary supplement manufacturers know that, and that is why they are supporting our effort. I hope that more of my colleagues will join this bipartisan undertaking.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden), are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. Without objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. Without objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. Without objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, last week, America and Illinois lost a hero. Lorenzo Cervantes was his name. He had been a steelworker living in the small town of Sterling, IL, in the Rock River Valley. That is an hour or two west of Chicago. Mr. Cervantes was 98 years old. When he was a young man, he set out to save the world. He joined the U.S. Army in February of 1943, during World War II, before he had reached the age of 20. He was a member of an elite group. There was an American-Canadian commando unit known as the First Special Service Force, a top-secret band of brothers operating deep behind enemy lines. The Forcemen, as they were known, earned the nickname ``The Devil's Brigade'' from terrified Nazi soldiers and officers who said that they seemed to appear out of nowhere in the dead of night, like devils. That unit he served in suffered one of the highest casualty rates in the war. Listen to these figures. Of the 2,400 men who fought with the unit, 2,300 of them were either killed or wounded, but they never lost a mission--not one. The First Special Service Force existed for only 2 years, but the spirit of that force lives on in the Green Berets, Army Rangers, Navy SEALS, Marine Raiders, Canadian Special Operations Regiment, and, frankly, all of today's military Special Forces. For decades after World War II, the very existence of that unit remained top secret and classified. The Forcemen didn't tell anyone what they had done in the war, not even their families. Like Lorenzo Cervantes, they quietly returned home, married, raised families, and lived ordinary lives. In 2015, some 70 years after the end of World War II, they were finally honored for their service, and Congress awarded them the Congressional Gold Medal. I had the privilege of meeting two other Forcemen from Illinois at that Gold Medal ceremony. Casey Celske was one of them. He fought with the Devil's Brigade at the Battle of Anzio--one of the Allies' greatest surprise victories. He was among the first Allied soldiers to enter Rome and liberate it from the Nazis. Mr. Celske died 3 years ago, also age 98. After the war, he had returned to Illinois and married. He and his wife had 11 children--11. In 1995, 50 years after the war ended, Mr. Celske and one of his sons decided to go back to Europe to take a look and see the places where the First Special Service Force had fought and to visit the towns that the Force liberated. Near the Anzio beachhead, they spoke to an Italian man. When the man realized who they were, he dropped to his knees, broke out in tears, and thanked Casey Celske of Illinois. The Italian man said to his son: This is one of the soldiers who saved our village. Casey Celske turned to his son and said: All these years, I wondered what I was doing. Now I know.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters), are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, an hour or so ago on the floor of the Senate was an amazing sight. It has been a long, long time since I have seen the Galleries full. COVID-19 kept us apart. I missed it. I didn't realize how much until those full Galleries were here to witness the vote on the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. It was a time of great celebration for most Members of the Senate and I think for the Nation because we have achieved something which many doubted would occur. It has been 50 years since the first African American--Thurgood Marshall--was appointed to be a member of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was another 50 years for us to wait for the opportunity to put a person, a woman of color, on the Court. And we did it today. Soon, in the coming future, the President will be swearing in Judge, now-Justice Jackson. I am certain that she will be a credit to our Nation. She has already proven that in her lifetime of service. Many Members of the Senate, of course, were excited and happy about it. I was one of them. I want to thank my colleagues for their kind words, but I also want to acknowledge the obvious. All of the hard work that led up to this successful vote happened a lot behind the scenes. There were members of our staff who worked long hours--20-hour days--to prepare for this and to be ready to handle the important Judiciary Committee hearings. I would like to acknowledge the staff members on both sides of the aisle who worked tirelessly on Judge Jackson's nomination. I have got quite a team on my side, and I am very proud of them. I want to recognize the following individuals who played an important part in this historic process: Pat Souders, my chief of staff; Joe Zogby, my Senate Judiciary Committee staff director; Dan Swanson, general counsel; Stephanie Trifone, deputy general counsel; Sally Brown-Shaklee, my deputy chief of staff; Maalik Simmons and Miriam Wheatley, my floor staff who are often sitting right in the back of this Chamber; Claire Reuschel and Riley Foti, my schedulers; my press staff, including Emily Hampsten, my communications director; Jenna Valle-Riestra; Maddie Carlos; Theresa Bordenave; and Laura Keller, and many others on my Judiciary team, including Phil Brest, who was my chief nominations counsel--he worked so hard on this, and he is so good--Sarah Bauer, who was right by his side working every minute; and Gabe Kader, as well; Ziya Smallens, speechwriter; Joe Charlet; Vaishalee Yeldandi; Maggie Hopkins; Anna Shepard; David Adeleye; Eric Chung; Eliza Lehner; Samir Sheth; David McCallum; Mady Reno; Katya Kazmin; Rachel Martinez, Yashi Gunawardena; Doug Miller; Chastidy Burns; Nicole Walton; Lane Giardina; and many, many others. I also would like to recognize some members of Senator Grassley's staff. Now, he--for those who wouldn't know--is my Republican counterpart. I chair a committee evenly divided--11 to 11--and Senator Grassley is in charge of the Republican side. We have developed a strong friendship and trust over the years that really meant a lot during this process. I want to recognize Senator Grassley's staff members, in particular: Kolan Davis, his staff director of many years; Brendan Chestnut, his chief nominations counsel; and Lauren Mehler, his senior counsel for nominations. Our two staffs worked very well together in this process, and I really appreciate that. I want to thank Senator Grassley, again, for it. I want to thank the committee's nondesignated staff, including Heather Vachon, Michelle Heller, Bryan Palmer, Kara Dubbs, Shannon Bartley, Chuck Papirmeister, and others. I want to also express my gratitude to the larger Senate community who played a part in Judge Jackson's nomination process: the staff of the Architect of the Capitol, the Sergeant at Arms, and of course the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police Force who were critical to the success of the hearing and markups for Judge Jackson's nomination. More than 1,000 people occupied the chairs in the back of the committee room in the 4 days of hearings. It was the largest gathering, largest crowd, short of the State of the Union Address, in modern memory on the Senate. And today's Gallery attendance, again, was something, a welcome change from the forlorn empty Chamber's Galleries that we have come to be used to. I also want to thank and add the names of the Senate staff who were so instrumental in supporting the committee's proceedings. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of Senate staff who were instrumental in supporting the committee's proceedings.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this Capitol Building has served as the backdrop for some of the most notable moments in America's history. In this building, wars have been declared, peace treaties have been signed, and the march toward progress has either moved forward or has been stopped in its tracks. Today, the Members of this Senate have the opportunity to take a monumental step forward. We will vote to confirm a once-in-a-generation legal talent, a jurist with outstanding credentials and a lifetime of experience, and the first-ever African-American woman to serve as Justice of the Supreme Court--Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Judge Jackson's confirmation will be a glass-shattering achievement for America. Consider this moment in history. When the Supreme Court first met in this building in 1801, there were 1 million slaves in this Nation--a Nation of 5 million people. This very building was built with the labor of enslaved people. And at the time the Court met, neither Black Americans nor White women had a constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. Women had no place in that first Supreme Court chamber, and Black women would only enter to clean it in the dark of the night. We know what followed. America's battle to end slavery saw a bloody civil war and decades of efforts to break down racial barriers, and the efforts continue to this day. Our struggle to enfranchise and empower women did not end with the 19th Amendment, 102 years ago. It continues to this day, as well, as we strive to give our daughters the same opportunities we give our sons. This confirmation of the first Black woman to the Supreme Court honors the history that has come before it. It honors the struggles of the past and the men and women who waged them. And this confirmation draws America one step closer--one step--to healing our Nation, one step closer to a more perfect Union. Nearly a century after our founding, we guaranteed the rights of citizenship, finally, to every American, including, for the first time, those who were born into bondage, with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. It took a long century later for us to expand the bounds of liberty again. We ensured the Federal Government could vigorously protect the right to vote, the most fundamental of rights, with the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. One victory for progress begat the next. Two years after the Voting Rights Act, we confirmed the first Black American to ever serve on the Supreme Court--Justice Thurgood Marshall. But I would like to remind you: That was 50 years ago. Now, with the passage of that time, we are beginning to write another chapter in our Nation's quest for equal justice under the law, and that chapter begins with three letters: K-B-J. With Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation to the highest Court in the land, we are not only making history; we are carrying on a great American tradition: elevating one of our Nation's best and brightest legal minds to an honored position of service. There is no one more deserving of this high honor. As we have learned over the past month, she is the best of us. She has devoted her life to serving our country. She has done so at every level of the Federal judiciary, and at every turn, she has distinguished herself. But I hear the critics say she is soft on crime. I wonder how they explain that she was endorsed by the largest law enforcement organization in America, the Fraternal Order of Police, as well as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, as well as an army of Federal prosecutors who have appeared in her courts. She is dedicated to protecting judicial independence, to advancing freedom and liberty, and deciding every case, as she says, from a neutral posture. That is exactly what you will find in evaluating nearly 10 years of service on the bench. I hear Senators come to the floor and say: Well, there is one opinion I disagree with. For goodness' sake, she has issued almost 600 written opinions in 10 years on the bench in the district court. She has been reversed a small percentage of the time. Her work speaks for itself, and when you evaluate it, you will find out she is thoughtful and evenhanded. As the American people saw during last month's hearing in the Judiciary Committee, Judge Jackson has the right judicial temperament. Calm, collected, she answered every question, even when the questions were hostile and confrontational. She answered them with dignity and grace and stood by for more than 24 hours of questioning. She is a proven consensus builder. She has been confirmed by the Senate on a bipartisan basis more than three times--three times, I should say--and soon, we hope, she will be confirmed again by a bipartisan majority. She has earned the support from leaders across the political and ideological spectrum. Civil rights leaders, leaders in law enforcement, former Federal judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans--all of them have lined up proudly to endorse her. Perhaps most importantly, Judge Jackson will help ensure that the law works for the people and that the people understand the workings of the courts. For many Americans, what happens in a courtroom can be cold and impersonal. Judge Jackson has made a habit of making it real. She looks people in the eye, walks them through her decision making with patience and empathy, and she reaches every one of her decisions by following the facts and the law, wherever they lead. She said that her opinions can run long. That is by design, because she wants America to rest assured--whether she writes in the majority, the concurrence, or dissent--they will know exactly where she stands on the most important issues. Serving as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee during Judge Jackson's confirmation has been one of the highest honors of my Senate experience. I want to give a special thanks to the man who spoke before me, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa. His friendship and fairness have really guided our relationship throughout this historic process. In the weeks since President Biden announced her nomination, Judge Jackson has already lifted the spirit of countless Americans, inspiring a new generation of aspiring jurists and public servants. Millions of Americans see themselves in Judge Jackson--Black Americans, members of law enforcement families, working moms, public high school graduates like her fellow Palmetto Panthers in Florida. Everywhere I have gone for the last few weeks when I go home-- visiting law schools, going to the grocery store--I have been approached by people who have been following this nomination closely. They tell me how deeply impressed they are with Judge Jackson, even under fire from her critics. Hannah Amundsen is one of those people. She is a law student in Waukegan, IL, a city on the shores of Lake Michigan. In a letter to my office, Hannah wrote: If you can see it, you can be it. [And] I'm very excited to see . . . [America's] first black female justice. Reverend Krista Alston is a Baptist minister in the city of Chicago. She comes from a long line of Baptist ministers. She calls herself ``a civil rights baby,'' born in 1964, the year LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. Rikki Jones is also from Chicago. She has been working for civil rights for nearly 60 years--since she was a teenager. Well, late last month, Reverend Alston and Ms. Jones, with four other people, drove 11 hours from Chicago to attend an hour of Judge Jackson's hearing. Rev. Alston said she was moved by the judge's courage, grace, integrity, and wisdom. She imagined what it will be like years from now to tell her future grandchildren what it was like to be in that room for that historic moment. And Rikki Jones said she had never even expected to hear about a Black woman being nominated to the Supreme Court, let alone to be in the room for her hearing. She said that as she watched Judge Jackson, ``it felt like the fulfillment of everything I've worked for my whole life.'' She thought of all the strong Black women who came before her and helped make the movement possible: Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, Ida B. Wells, and my personal late friend, the Reverend Willie Barrow, a Black woman minister from Chicago who worked alongside Dr. Martin Luther King. This moment was about them too, she said. And this moment is possible because of Judge Jackson and who she is-- her qualifications, her integrity, her record of excellence. She has earned her seat on the Supreme Court. That is why it is so unfortunate that several Republicans on the Judiciary Committee did not approach Judge Jackson's hearing with that same level of fairness and respect as their colleagues. Thankfully--thankfully--there are Members of the Senate who are willing to rise above the partisan fray. I want to particularly commend Senator Susan Collins of Maine, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Senator Mitt Romney of Utah for their political courage and their willingness to support a singularly qualified and historic nominee to the Supreme Court. You know, when Senator Romney announced his support for Judge Jackson's confirmation, I couldn't help but remember his father, the late George Romney, who served as Governor of Michigan in the 1960s, during the height of the civil rights movement. Governor George Romney knew a thing or two about political courage. As a proud Republican Governor, in 1963, he marched alongside the NAACP Detroit President Edward Turner in support of civil rights. That same year when Dr. Martin Luther King organized a march in Detroit, Governor George Romney declared the occasion ``Freedom Day'' in Michigan. To my colleague, Senator Mitt Romney, you are your father's son. This week marks 54 years since the shot rang out in Memphis, TN, claiming the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, an American who spoke with greater moral clarity than nearly any other in our history. The night before he died, Dr. King spoke at a rally in support of the city's striking sanitation workers. There was tension in the air. From the moment he set foot in Memphis, he had received a barrage of death threats. As Dr. King spoke to the crowd at the Mason Temple, death was on his mind. He said: Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. His next words proved prophetic. Dr. King said: I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land. Rikki Jones said that she thought about Dr. King's prophecy when she realized the Judiciary Committee was voting on Judge Jackson's nomination on the anniversary of Dr. King's death. It felt like the prophecy had come to pass. Dr. King didn't make it to the Promised Land, but Judge Jackson's ascension to the Supreme Court brings us closer to that longed-for place. I would like to close with one last personal plea to my Senate colleagues. I hope you will think about this. In the years to come, long after we have left the Senate, one of our grandchildren may ask where we were on this historic day, April 7, 2022, when America broke down what seemed like an impossible racial barrier and voted to send the first African-American woman to serve on our highest Court. I will be proud to say I was on the Senate floor, standing at my desk, and casting my vote with pride for the next Associate Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. I hope my colleagues will join me in sharing this historic moment. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened to the Republican leader speaking about the Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is coming before the Senate either today or tomorrow, we hope, for a confirmation vote. We have solid support for her nomination on the Democratic side and three Republican Senators who have announced that they will join us to make it a bipartisan majority in her favor. She is deserving of this. She has an extraordinary background. She has the kind of resume that every lawyer would dream of: to graduate from Harvard Law School and then to clerk at every level of the Federal judiciary, including clerk to the Justice she hopes to succeed, Stephen Breyer; and then to serve on the Sentencing Commission, which is considered one of the more prestigious assignments, trying to rationalize the sentencing under Federal law; and then, of course, to serve on the district court in the DC district and to issue some 570 or 80 different opinions--written opinions--during that time; to be elevated to the DC Circuit Court, often called the second highest court in the land, where she served as well with distinction; and now to be the first African-American woman nominated to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. It is an incredible record. And she has made the rounds, as they say, in the Senate, visiting 95 or 96 different Senators, sitting down with them privately in their offices, answering any questions or concerns that they wish to express. So I think she is an exceptional person. If you look at her record in all of these cases that she has handed down written opinions in--as I said, it is close to 600, and 100 of them were criminal cases where she imposed sentences, and some 10 or 15 of those cases which have been highlighted by her Republican critics, relating to the issue of the exploitation of children and pornography, in every single case, she imposed a prison sentence. So to argue that she is soft on crime is to ignore that reality and to ignore the reality that she is endorsed--endorsed--by the largest law enforcement organization in America, the Fraternal Order of Police. She is endorsed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police and other noteworthy organizations, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement, former prosecutors in the District of Columbia. She has made it very clear that when it comes to applying the law to the facts, she does it with evenhandedness, so much so that she is respected by both sides of the table--the prosecutor's side of the table and the defense side of the table. That takes some doing, but she has achieved it. And that is why her selection by President Biden is the right person for the right time for the right job. She is going to make history if we give her this confirming vote. Now, I will tell you, when you publish some 580 to 600 opinions, you are going to find something in one of those opinions to raise. I listened carefully as Senator McConnell went to one of those opinions and drew his own conclusions. I would ask him to take care in accepting that as the fair way to measure a person. People often say that in the U.S. Senate--they ask us: Are you conservative or are you liberal or are you a fiscal conservative? Where do you stand on civil liberties? And people announce a position that they would like to believe they fit in. Then folks go back and look at your voting record and then ask: Well, how do you explain this, Senator? So in any given day, any given vote can raise a question as to a generalization about who you are and what you believe. For instance, there was a time, as hard as it may be to believe, when people were suggesting amending the Constitution of the United States to make burning an American flag a violation--controversial. All of us revere the flag, but the notion of making this an amendment to the Constitution was a matter of great controversy and debate. I remember it well in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I came down against it, saying that I revered the flag, but the principles and values behind it were equally or more important to me, and so I opposed flag burning and so did the Senator from Kentucky. Yes, the minority leader, Senator McConnell, opposed flag burning. The organization that agreed with our position was the ACLU. Now, can I generalize from that position which Senator McConnell took years ago that he is an ACLU-type of Senator? It would be wrong to draw that conclusion. There may have been other instances where he agreed with them, but it was rare. What I am saying is, if you can take one vote and measure a Senator and realize that it falls short of being an accurate and honest measurement, the same thing is true for a judge, to take one opinion and say: Well, she ruled against President Trump on the issue of immigration, therefore, she is an activist liberal judge. She ruled as well for President Trump in other cases in his favor, and ruled against Democratic Presidents when they came up with their proposals before the court. So generalizations are not fair for her or for individual Members of the Senate based on one opinion, one vote, and that is what many are trying to do. I will also tell you that this notion--and it pains me to even bring it to the floor, but I know it is going to come up in the next day or two--that she is soft on crime. As I mentioned, the law enforcement groups would not be endorsing her if they believed she was soft on crime. And the notion that she is somehow, in the words of one Republican Senator--that her sentencing ``endangers children,'' that is painful because he said as much in front of her family. And I thought about that, how painful that must have been for her to hear those words. They are not true. And to take one or two situations, each of them unique in their factual circumstances, and to generalize in terms of her position on an issue of that gravity is fundamentally unfair. But we have done it, too, on the Democratic side, and I am going to be the first to admit, as I look back in history, there are things that should have been handled better when Republican nominees were before us. And the majority of Republican Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Ranking Member Chuck Grassley, I believe, were respectful and dealt with the judge in a fair manner. They asked tough questions, as they were expected to, but did not cross the line into personal attack. There were three or four who broke that rule, as far as I was concerned, but the vast majority of Republican Senators were factual, were fair, and were basing their questions on sound legal questions before any Supreme Court nominee's consideration. That I think will be talked about over the next couple days, as it should be.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I have to ask myself, why now? Why does the junior Senator from Missouri bring this bill to the floor of the U.S. Senate today? When you think back, this matter has been considered. Originally, the guidelines were considered in 1984. The question of child pornography came back to us in 2003. In 2005, there was a Supreme Court case about applying the guidelines on sentencing to these types of cases--a case known as Booker. We know that in 2005, that decision was handed down. We know that in 2012, the Sentencing Commission said to Congress and to the world that you need to do something here. These guidelines that you promulgated don't reflect the reality of today. We know, as well, that the guidelines were written--some were written in an era when the materials we are talking about were physical materials. And we now live in the world of internet and access to not just tens and hundreds but thousands of images, if that is your decision. And all these things have happened, and we come here today--today. I don't know exactly how many years the Senator from Missouri has been in the Senate, but to my knowledge, this is his first bill on this subject that he has presented in the last few weeks. And I wonder why--why now? Are there valid questions about sentencing guidelines? Certainly, there is no question about it. I said as much, and he quoted me. The Sentencing Commission told us over a decade ago, in 2012: You have got a problem here. The world has changed, and the law doesn't reflect it. But this is the first time, to my knowledge, that the Senator from Missouri or any Republican Senator has tried to enact legislation on the subject. Why now? Well, I know why. He said as much. It is because we are now considering the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. This Senator has suggested over the course of the last 2 weeks in hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee that somehow this judge--this judge who is aspiring to the Supreme Court--is out of the mainstream when it comes to sentencing in child pornography cases. It is no coincidence that the Senator from Missouri comes to the floor today while Judge Jackson's nomination is pending on the Senate calendar. It was discharged from our committee by a bipartisan vote in the Senate last night. It is no coincidence that he is raising this issue within hours or days before her confirmation vote. It is one more, very transparent attempt to link Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation with this highly emotional issue of Federal sentencing when it comes to child pornography or child exploitation. There are some political groups--at least one well-known political group--that manufacture theories about child pornography, pedophilia, and the like and that even inspire deadly reactions to them, and they are cheering this on. I have seen their reactions already, this morning, in the newspaper. They are watching this and hoping that someone can keep this issue alive on the floor of the U.S. Senate--for them. The Senator from Missouri has even gone so far as to make the outrageous claim that this woman, Judge Jackson--the mother of two wonderful girls, whom I had a chance to meet, a mother who comes to this issue not only as a judge but as the sister and niece of law enforcement officials who have been part of her family--in the words of the Senator from Missouri, that this woman ``endangers children''-- ``endangers children.''