Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I will yield when I am finished. One conservative former prosecutor called Senator Hawley's charges ``meritless to the point of demagoguery.'' I have read so many reviews of the Senator's charges against this judicial nominee, and not one of them gives him any credence. They basically say: What you are dealing with here is a complicated area of the law, a controversial area of the law, and to try to ascribe to this one nominee these motives, these outcomes, is baseless and meritless. Consider this: How can this judicial nominee possibly have the endorsement of the largest law enforcement organization in America--the Fraternal Order of Police--the endorsement of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and many other law enforcement groups--how could she possibly have all of that and be as wrong on a critical issue as the Senator from Missouri has asserted? How is it possible that the American Bar Association took a look at all of her contacts as a judge, as a lawyer, as a law student and came up with 250 individuals who knew her personally, appeared in court with and against her, judged her in her individual capacity as a lawyer--how can the American Bar Association interview those 250 and find no evidence of the charges that have been made by the Senator from Missouri? How is it possible that they would review all of this and miss such a glaring fact? They didn't. They told us, under oath, that they were asked point blank: Is her sentencing standard soft on crime? different than other judges? The answer was no, no. The net result of it was that the American Bar Association found this nominee, whom the Senator from Missouri charges with these outrage claims--they found her to be unanimously ``well qualified''-- unanimously ``well qualified.'' Yet the Senator from Missouri believes that he has discovered something that the whole world has missed. Unfortunately, he is wrong, and he doesn't admit it. When Judge Jackson is confirmed to the Supreme Court--and I pray that she will be later this week--it will be in part because she is a thoughtful, dedicated person who has worked as a judge for over 10 years. She has published almost 600 written opinions. She has had 100 cases wherein she has imposed criminal sentences and a dozen-plus cases involving children. What the Senator from Missouri has done is to cherry-pick arguments from one small part of her service on the bench that has been debunked across the board. But let me say it again: Judge Jackson's sentences were appropriate exercises of discretion as a judge in applying the law to the facts in difficult cases. It is interesting to me how the Senator from Missouri has carefully drawn lines to exclude Trump appointees to the bench who have done exactly what this judge has done as well--so-called deviate from the guidelines when it has come to sentencing. In fact, one judge from his State, from the Eastern District of Missouri, whom he has personally endorsed as a good judge--and he may well be--has followed the same practice as this judge. Did he raise that at all in the Senate Judiciary Committee about the Missouri judge who was doing the same thing as Judge Jackson? No, nothing. There is nothing about these judges that is deviating from other- than-accepted practices. When 70 to 80 percent of sentences handed out by judges across America are using the same standard, Judge Jackson is in that mainstream, along with judges whom this Senator from Missouri has endorsed. If this issue needs to be addressed--and I believe it does--we can do so if we do it carefully, and we should do it carefully. Make no mistake, I don't back off from my words. As a father, as a grandfather, as a caring parent, I sincerely consider this to be one of the most serious crimes--the exploitation of children. I can't think of anything worse. The pornography issue certainly is out of control because of the internet and because of those who are making a dollar on it. We should take it very seriously--very seriously. It changes and destroys lives. But let's make sure we do this in the right way. What have we done in the Senate Judiciary Committee? It is great for the chairman to stand on the Senate floor and talk about the issue. Well, what have you done, Senator? Let me tell you what I have done, and I think the Senator from Missouri knows it. We have done what we can to address this issue from many different angles. The committee held a hearing on the FBI's failure to properly investigate allegations against Larry Nassar for assaulting young athletes, Olympic gymnasts included, which enabled the abuse of dozens of additional victims. We called them on the carpet. We put them under oath. We brought the testimony forward. We didn't back away from the issue of child abuse. Following that hearing, I introduced the Eliminating Limits to Justice for Child Sex Abuse Victims Act, with Senator Marsha Blackburn, a Republican from Tennessee. The Senate has now passed this bipartisan legislation, which would enable those survivors of child sex abuse to seek civil damages in Federal court no matter how long it takes the survivor to disclose the facts of the case. The committee has also unanimously reported a bill which the Senator from Missouri knows well, the EARN IT Act, which is legislation he has cosponsored with Democratic Senator Blumenthal that will remove blanket immunity for the tech industry for violations of laws related to online child sexual abuse material. I make no apologies for our approach on this, and there is more work to be done. I want to tell you that I am tempted to leave it just at that but for one part, one thing I am concerned about. Our Federal sentencing guidelines have been advisory, not mandatory, since the Supreme Court's 2005 ruling in the Booker case. This bill now being offered on the floor in a very quick fashion by the Senator from Missouri attempts to create mandatory sentencing guidelines for a single category of offense. It is not clear whether it passes the constitutional test of Booker. It could be a waste of time. We don't need to waste time in a critical area of the law that has been so controversial and has been considered and reviewed over decades. Even so, it is a dangerous slope to go down. Imagine a world wherein every time it was politically advantageous--whether it was a Supreme Court nominee or a headline in the paper--that some Senator could come forward, disagree with a Federal judge in a particular case, and say: Let's pass a mandatory minimum sentencing guideline to take care of the matter. That is no way to approach the law in a fashion that is used for deterrence and punishment. We need to be thoughtful about it. A subject of this seriousness, of this gravity, deserves more than a driveby on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I invite my colleague to do his work on this issue as we all should-- the work that is required, the work that is required by the seriousness of this matter. I object.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, after 27 minutes of debate on the floor of the Senate, the Senator now believes we are prepared to change the law that has been debated for decades. He has put in a bill introduced 7 days ago. It has been 7 days he has had passion for this issue--enough to introduce legislation. If you want to take on a serious issue, take it on seriously, and that means doing the homework on it. Yes, have a hearing. Of course, have a hearing. We want to make sure the people from the Sentencing Commission and others are part of this conversation. It isn't just a matter of throwing charges out against a nominee. If you want to be serious about it, then admit the obvious: In 70 to 80 percent of cases involving child sexual abuse material, Federal judges struggle with the same sentencing that we have set down. In light of Supreme Court decisions, we understand--I ask for order, Mr. President.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will say, as far as I am concerned, this is a serious matter that should be taken seriously. You don't become an expert by, 7 days ago, introducing a bill and saying: I have got it. Don't change a word of it. Make it the law of the land. Make it apply to every court in the land. No. We are going to do this seriously. We are going to do it the right way, and we are going to tackle an issue that has been avoided for more than two decades, when you look at the history of it. I find this reprehensible--the pornography, this exploitation of children--and there are no excuses whatsoever, but I am not going to do this in a slipshod, make-a-headline manner. We are going to do it in a manner that is serious, one in which we work with prosecutors, defenders, judges, and the Sentencing Commission, and get it right. It is time to get it right. We wrote this law some 19 years ago, before the internet was as prevalent in society as it is today. Let us be mindful of that as we attack this problem and address it in a fashion that is befitting the Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Europe has seen its share of horrors over the last century: the atrocities of World War I, World War II, as well as the Bosnian war. Ukrainians, in particular, suffered under the rule of Joseph Stalin. During the tragedy known as Holodomor, millions of Ukrainians died of starvation--forced starvation. In the wake of some--but not all--of these atrocities, the world responded by bringing the perpetrators to justice. After World War II, of course, there were the Nuremberg trials; and after the Bosnian war, President Milosevic was charged with crimes against humanity by an international criminal tribunal. Sadly, now, in 2022, we are faced with the question: How will the world react to the crimes that are now being committed in Ukraine? Over the past week, we have witnessed the reality of Vladimir Putin's genocidal rampage on the innocent people of Ukraine, and the scenes of brutality in Bucha are seared in our collective memory. Today, in Bucha, Ukraine, there are mass graves surrounded by bodies hastily shoved into garbage bags, civilian cars crushed like tin cans, and front yards and gardens lined with the dead bodies of innocent Ukrainian people. One survivor, Antonina Pomazanko, aged 76, watched helplessly as Russian soldiers murdered her daughter, Tetiana. Without provocation, the Russian soldiers opened fire on her home, and the bullets ripped through the gates and fence as Tetiana was standing in the yard. She was killed in an instant. On Sunday, the New York Times ran a photo of Mrs. Pomazanko looking over her daughter's dead body. Mrs. Pomazanko had covered it with plastic sheets and wooden boards. It was lying in the same spot where she was killed last month. In the words of Mrs. Pomazanko: There was so much shelling, I did not know what to do. There is nothing that will fill the void of loss and despair that Mrs. Pomazanko and millions of Ukrainians feel at this very moment, but there is more--much, much more--that we, as Americans, must do. The actions of Vladimir Putin harken back to some of Europe's darkest days--the atrocities committed by the Nazis during World War II, the massacres of the former Yugoslavia--days that we must endure and days which we hope we never have to relive. And as I mentioned, after the Allied Forces liberated Europe in 1945, the world responded. It came together at the historic Nuremberg trials. When the trials first convened at the Palace of Justice on November 21, 1945, Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson delivered the opening statement. He said: The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated. ``Civilization cannot tolerate'' and ``cannot survive'' the war crimes we have witnessed in Ukraine going unpunished. President Biden recognized that fact on Monday in his calling for a war crime trial for the horrors in Ukraine. President Lincoln once said to Congress when he proposed an end to slavery: We--even we here--hold the power, and bear the responsibility. It is within the power and the responsibility of this body to deny safe haven in America or anywhere to perpetrators of these heinous crimes. Under existing law, foreign war criminals who come to the United States, incredibly, cannot be prosecuted. They cannot be held liable in a civil action or even be deported for their heinous crimes. Currently, the War Crimes Act only applies if the perpetrator or victim is a U.S. servicemember or a U.S. national. In other words, it would not cover the Russian officials who are responsible for the commission of war crimes in Ukraine nor cover the Russian soldiers who committed those crimes. We also don't have a statute or a law in America making crimes against humanity a violation of U.S. law. This was the primary offense prosecuted in Nuremberg, and it was a critical tool for holding violators accountable. Other grave human rights violations, including genocide and torture, are already crimes under U.S. law that cover any offender found in the United States. This should also be true for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and that is why I will introduce the War Crimes Accountability Act. The War Crimes Accountability Act will ensure the United States has the tools to hold accountable the perpetrators of war crimes and other atrocities. The bill expands the War Crimes Act to cover all war criminals who are in the United States, regardless of where they are from. It fills the gap in our criminal code for prosecuting crimes against humanity so that we can hold perpetrators who come to this country accountable. This is not just a hypothetical idea. Consider one example: After the massacre of thousands of innocent men and boys in the Srebrenica massacre, a war criminal named Marko Boskic made his way to the United States. When law enforcement tracked him down, they could only charge him with visa fraud, not a war crime or crimes against humanity. We must bring war criminals to justice for their horrific crimes, not slap them on the wrist with a visa technicality. The United States must never again provide safe haven for perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Our Nation led the first prosecutions for crimes in the Nuremberg trials. It is time for the United States to lead again. Ultimately, the day will come when Vladimir Putin faces justice, and his name and his regime will be remembered in history alongside the worst of the worst. Until Putin and his sycophants are brought to justice, we cannot waver--we cannot equivocate--in providing Ukraine with all the resources, weapons, and aid they need to triumph over Russia. Quite simply, the United States of America should never be a safe haven for a war criminal. The United States of America should be holding war criminals responsible for their horrible conduct and what they have done to the poor and innocent people in other places, and they should be held liable on criminal and civil bases. That is what this bill would do. It is an effort to move forward with the cause of justice, but I hope it is only the beginning. When nations around the world adopt similar laws to the ones which I am proposing, we will make it clear that there are no safe havens left for war criminals. They will pay a price wherever they end up, and that is the way it should be if there is going to be justice. ``Slava Ukraini.'' I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it was just a short time ago in the Senate Judiciary Committee that we voted to advance the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve as the next Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court. In the coming days, Judge Jackson's nomination will come before the full Senate. We are on track to confirm her this week. Judge Jackson is an outstanding nominee. She has earned support across the political and ideological spectrums, and her qualifications are second to none. Most importantly, Judge Jackson's record on the bench is one of evenhandedness, impartiality, and independence. Despite this, not a single Republican on the Judiciary Committee would vote in favor of her nomination. I am disappointed--not surprised, but disappointed. As a result, Judge Jackson will be the first Supreme Court nominee in the modern era to require a discharge from the Judiciary Committee. It is unfortunate, in one respect, given that she is more prepared to serve on the High Court than, perhaps, any nominee in living memory, even by the standards of our Republican colleagues. During the Trump administration, Senate Republicans laid out what they viewed as being the standards for supporting a Supreme Court nominee. In their own words, a nominee to the High Court should be confirmed if they meet three criteria. Let's take a look at those criteria. First, Republicans have argued that you must have mainstream, bipartisan support for a nominee. For instance, in speaking out about then-Judge Gorsuch, the senior Senator from Texas said that Gorsuch was ``a mainstream nominee unanimously supported by Democrats in the past.'' Well, lucky for them, Judge Jackson is well within that judicial mainstream, and she has the receipts to show it. Judge Jackson is supported by multiple Federal judges appointed by Republican Presidents, including Judge Thomas Griffith, Judge Michael Luttig, and Judge Bruce Selya. She is supported by dozens of conservative lawyers, including former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, former Deputy Attorney General Donald Ayer, and former Solicitor General Charles Fried. She has broad support from law enforcement organizations and former prosecutors. They keep saying: Oh, she is soft on crime. She has the endorsement of the largest police organization in America--the Fraternal Order of Police--and the International Association of Chiefs of Police and 87 former assistant U.S. attorneys who have prosecuted a range of criminal offenses here in the District of Columbia. Soft on crime? The prosecutors don't think so. And, like Judge Gorsuch, Judge Jackson has been unanimously supported by Senate Republicans, especially since she was confirmed unanimously by the Senate not once but twice to be a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission and a district court judge. In short, Judge Jackson has had mainstream, bipartisan support right here in the Senate over and over again. The second standard laid out by Republicans during the Trump administration was that a Supreme Court nominee must have exceptional legal credentials. We went for 4 straight days. She faced 24 hours of questioning--24 hours of question after question after question, written questions, oral questions--over and over. How many questioned her qualifications to be on the Supreme Court? None. Not one. In 2018, for instance, the Republican leader called then-Judge Kavanaugh an ``absolute all-star,'' specifically mentioning he was a Yale undergrad, Yale Law, and had impeccable credentials. Judge Jackson passes that same test. She clerked at every level of the Federal judiciary. I can tell you, as a lawyer, that to be a clerk for any judge has great honor and distinction. To be a clerk on all three levels of the Federal court, including the Supreme Court, is extraordinary. It just hardly ever occurs. It did for Judge Jackson. She served as a Federal public defender, a staff attorney, a commissioner on the Sentencing Commission, and as a lawyer in private practice. Her resume is absolutely star-studded in terms of legal experience. For almost a decade, she served on the Federal bench, handling some 1,100 matters, issuing 600 written opinions. Do you want to know what she thinks about an issue? how she thinks about an issue? Just read the written opinions on every type of legal issue imaginable that came before her. Altogether, Judge Jackson meets, if not exceeds, the qualifications of previous nominees, and the Senate Republicans have enthusiastically supported them. They should support her. The third and final standard Republicans have articulated for supporting a Supreme Court nominee is they must have a judicial record and a reputation of evenhandedness. In 2020, for instance, the Republican leader highlighted then-Judge Amy Coney Barrett's ``openminded judicial temperament,'' Amy Coney Barrett. Well, by the very same metric, Judge Jackson easily passes muster. Her record on the bench is clearly one of impartiality and independence. She has ruled for and against the Presidents of both political parties. She has ruled for prosecutors and ruled for criminal defendants. She has ruled for employers and employees. In her nearly 10 years on the bench, Judge Jackson has displayed no political or ideological favoritism. Some people on the far left are upset that she isn't more of an advocate for their point of view. She takes a balanced approach to it. She has never allowed her personal views to influence any outcome, and she has been a model of judicial restraint. She has been guided by precedent, by fidelity to the rule of law, and by an unyielding belief that the Constitution must work for all Americans. I was listening when Senator McConnell came to the floor and announced that he would not vote for her. The No. 1 reason: She wouldn't take a position on packing the Court--packing the Court. That is a question of changing the composition of the Supreme Court, the number of Supreme Court Justices. There has only been one elected official in recent memory who has changed the composition of the Court--Senator McConnell. You will remember, with the Scalia vacancy, he kept it vacant for more than 8 months and denied President Obama the opportunity to fill it. What about the issue of the future composition of the Court? Is that a requirement for someone to be supported by the Senator from Kentucky? Obviously not. Amy Coney Barrett wouldn't answer the question. She wouldn't give an opinion. She, like Judge Jackson, said: That is a matter of policy. That is for Congress to decide--and it is. Judge Jackson easily passed the three tests the Senate Republicans established for supporting a Supreme Court nominee, and she passed the tests with flying colors. She is, simply put, one of the Nation's brightest legal minds. She has outstanding credentials, an unimpeachable character, and an unwavering dedication to the rule of law. She is smart, and it shows. Judge Jackson also has the temperament. I can't tell you how many times during the course of the 24 hours of questioning she faced last week in the Senate Judiciary Committee that I thought: That is it. I am going to look up at that table, and she is going to stand up and say, ``Enough. My family, we are going home. We have had it.'' She never did--cool under attack, calm under pressure, solid as a pillar. She has the acumen, the skill--the kind of attributes we demand from a Supreme Court nominee--and she has devoted her life to serving her country, always working to uphold and honor the Constitution. She is dedicated to protecting judicial independence, advancing freedom and liberty, and to making the Court, its work, and its decisions accessible to all Americans. She told that story of when she was up for the circuit court--that her opinions were long, she said, because she wanted everyone to understand her thinking from start to finish--no mystery here--and that she wanted the people appearing before her to understand what just happened in that courtroom. Why did they win? Why did they lose? What were the issues that were at stake? What did she think about? She takes the time to explain it because she believes in the law, and she wants all of us to understand and believe it as well. I am going to proudly cast my vote to discharge Judge Jackson from the Judiciary Committee. Later this week, I am going to proudly cast my vote to confirm Judge Jackson as the first Black woman to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. Let's not hurry to leave for an Easter recess--and I am as anxious as everyone to be with our families--and overlook the obvious. This is a seminal moment in American history. We are breaking down a wall that has been standing for too long. There have been 115 Supreme Court Justices in our history, and 108 look like me: a White guy. The others are representing women, representing Latinas, and others. They are, of course, very important in history. This is too. Judge Jackson is going to be an important part of America, and she is going to inspire a lot of people, particularly young women, to aspire to greatness. She was discouraged, if you will remember her testimony. She went up to Harvard and toured it during a national debate team appearance. She liked it so much that she went back to her high school counselor in Florida and said: I think I want to apply to Harvard. The counselor said: Listen, honey. Don't do that. You are going to be so disappointed. Let's think about some other choices for you. She did it anyway. She was accepted and went up there, knees shaking, wondering if she could cut it. She not only cut it; she set records in terms of achievement, particularly for a person with her background. Her dad worked as a schoolteacher, went to law school, and convinced her that law was the future for her as well. She has told so many wonderful stories about her family. This is an exceptional woman. She has lived an extraordinary life. She has a beautiful family. She has written a record we can all be proud of. Let's discharge this nomination from the Judiciary Committee and bring it to the floor this week. Let's make history--the right kind of history for America. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to print the following letter in the Congressional Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to print the following letter in the Congressional Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. It tells a story, and the story is very clear. We have a situation in this country where we have not upgraded the child pornography and sexual misconduct statutes in years. Across the board, 70 to 80 percent of sentences by Federal judges take the same position as Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. These so-called deviations from the guidelines have become commonplace. As I said, the overwhelming majority of Federal judges are doing this. Well, is there a problem? There is. But the problem is that we have not upgraded the statute. We bear responsibility for this. The decision was made before the Supreme Court that these guidelines would not be mandatory. It was a decision joined by Antonin Scalia--the originalist, the conservative. It put the burden back on Congress, and we have not picked up that responsibility. So you say to yourself: Well, if she were so soft on crime, it surely would have shown up in other places. Well, let me tell you what happened. The American Bar Association did a review of her career as a prosecutor, as a defender, on the bench. They interviewed 250 individuals--judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, other counsel who worked with her. And I asked, pointblank, Judge Ann Williams, who led this investigation by the ABA: Did you hear from anyone who said she was soft on crime; that she somehow was not in the norm when it came to sentencing? None. Not one. Two hundred fifty people interviewed, and not one came up with it. All we have heard against her has come out of the mouths of three or four people on the committee, and that is it because there is no record for it. Well, how did the American Bar Association grade her when it was all said and done? Unanimously ``well qualified.'' Unanimously ``well qualified.'' It doesn't sound like the same person just described, does it, because it isn't. What you have heard on the floor here is a mischaracterization of her record, and I am sorry to say it is unfair. And I wish it hadn't been part of the record today. What about Guantanamo? Well, I have some serious differences with the Senator from South Carolina about Guantanamo. Hundreds of detainees have been sent to Guantanamo since the War on Terror began. Many of them should have been there, but hundreds and hundreds of them have been released by Presidents, Republican and Democratic. We are now down to 39 detainees. We are spending over $10 million for each one of them each year at Guantanamo Bay. And when it comes to the resolution of who was responsible for 9/11, the families have come and testified before us. They have waited over 20 years, and they still don't have an answer. They understand that the approach at Guantanamo Bay is not leading to justice, and it is not answering the basic factual questions. So what is her situation? Why would she dare to call the Republican President of the United States a war criminal? What was she thinking? Well, it sounds like a terrible charge until you read the facts. The facts were she presented a brief, and the brief referred to a body of law known as the Alien Tort Statute. And the person she was representing in this brief was arguing that he was tortured and mistreated at Guantanamo Bay. So he filed a claim under the Alien Tort Statute. When you do that, you sue the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense. They were the named defendants. That included President Bush. What the Senator from South Carolina failed to disclose was that, as that case was winding its way through, the administration changed, and if there was an allegation of a war crime against President Bush, it was the same allegation that was made when the administration changed and the name of the defendant changed to Barack Obama. To argue that this was a personal charge against the President of the United States as a war criminal is a gross exaggeration and unfair on its face. The named defendants were required under the Alien Tort Statute for the allegations that were made. That wasn't her decision; that was the decision of Congress to write the specifics of the Alien Tort Statute. The third point I want to make is immigration. Yes, we have challenges in immigration. I think we all know it. But to blame her and say that she is somehow responsible for the invasion--you saw the crowd of people coming across the border--is really unfair. What happened was there was a lawsuit filed challenging a Trump decision on policy, and she was asked to rule on it. And she ruled in one direction. The appeal was taken, and she was reversed at the circuit court. Now, according to the Senator who just made the presentation, evidence she is in the pocket of the radical left when it comes to immigration, evidence that George Soros somehow is controlling her decisions, is preposterous. The fact of the matter is, if you look at almost 600 decisions handed down by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, you will find a small, small percentage that were actually reversed. And if you are looking for a second case to build the theory that she is on the radical left, I don't even think you found the first one. She has a balanced approach. She has ruled for and against Democratic and Republican Presidents. She has shown the kind of balance we expect on the Supreme Court. I would say this notion that somehow Joe Biden has chosen someone who is radical is a shame. She is not. She is as solid as they come, and her testimony and her appearance before the committee proved that over and over again. I also want to say I have nothing against the South Carolina judge who was in the finals but wasn't chosen by the President. In fact, President Biden has asked that she be promoted from the Federal district court to the Federal circuit court, and I would like to get that done as quickly as we can. I think Judge Childs is well deserving of that opportunity. She certainly is a good jurist. But the choice by President Biden was clear, and it was the right choice. These charges that somehow she is soft on crime because she is an African-American woman and she was a public defender belie the actually record of this woman. We should all be judged on our records. This notion that we are asked to identify ourselves by labels--we know that story, the 100 of us who sit on this side of the Capitol in the Senate Chamber. We are attached to labels which we embrace and some we don't embrace, but most people who are fair will say: I am not going to judge you by your label; I am going to judge you by your record. If you judge Ketanji Brown Jackson by her record--written opinions, the fact that this was the fourth time she appeared before the Judiciary Committee and had been approved the three previous times, serving on the Sentencing Commission and so many other things--you know that it is an outstanding and stellar record, but you know it almost has to be. If you want to be the first, you have to be the best. She is the best. Despite some of the things that have been thrown at her today and in other places, the American people came out of that hearing and felt better and stronger about her nomination than before the hearing began. It is evidence of the strengths that she brings to this nomination and the value that she will bring to the Supreme Court. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the presentation by my colleague and friend, Senator Graham of South Carolina. I wanted to come to the floor to make it clear that he didn't tell you the whole story. In fact, in some ways, he didn't even get close. Who is this judge, Ketanji Brown Jackson? How could she even be considered for the Supreme Court if she is the preferred pick of the radical left? Well, let's take a look at her background: an extraordinary story of a daughter of two public school teachers; the daughter of a father who decided he was going to go to law school, basically stopped working full time. Her mother supported the family. She was a little girl at the time. She remembers it well because there would be law books stacked on the kitchen table. She would come in as a little girl and bring her coloring books to sit next to her daddy while he was studying for law school. He went on to become a lawyer. Family members were policemen. One of her uncles turned out to be the chief of police in Miami. She grew up in a very ambitious, determined, orderly family, and she certainly had respect for her family ties to law enforcement. She was on the debate team in high school. One of the trips took her from Florida up to the campus of Harvard University. She was dazzled, believed that this just might be the answer to her dreams. She came back to her high school and sat down with her high school counselor, who said to this young Black woman: Honey, you are shooting too high. I don't want your heart to be broken. Think about other schools. Don't think about that Harvard University school. Luckily, she ignored that advice, applied, and was accepted. She told the story before the hearing about being on the campus at Cambridge, not sure that it was the right decision, looking around, seeing a much different world than the one she grew up in, a much different group of people than she was used to socializing with. She must have shown it in her face because as she was walking across the campus one day, an African-American woman saw her, looked at her, and said: Persevere. Persevere. Just that simple word captured everything for her, and she did. She persevered and completed her education at Harvard and went on to Harvard Law School. She was an outstanding student at the law school, so much so that she became a clerk to the Federal district court. She did such a good job, she was promoted to become a Federal circuit court clerk and then--the ultimate prize for any graduating law student in America--clerk to a Justice of the Supreme Court--Ketanji Brown Jackson--and what an irony that she worked for Justice Stephen Breyer, whose retirement has created the vacancy which she seeks. Along the way, she staffed the Sentencing Commission. She worked in the Public Defender's Office. She became a Federal district court judge, cleared by this committee, the Judiciary Committee. This was her fourth time before the committee. Each time she appeared, there was bipartisan support, including the Senator who just spoke against her. Then, ultimately, the opportunity of a lifetime to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. For the hearing itself, first, I want to commend my Republican colleague Chuck Grassley. As chairman of the committee, a Democrat couldn't be any luckier than to have sitting in the chair next to you Chuck Grassley. He is a gentleman. He is a strong, faithful Republican, but he is a gentleman. We were determined to make this hearing for this judicial nomination to the Supreme Court different than some that had gone before. I want to commend the Republicans on the committee. There are 11 of them. The majority of those Republicans asked tough, probing questions, as they should. They never got personal. They never raised their voices. They were respectful throughout, the majority of them. I am sorry to say that in a few instances, there were exceptions on that side of the aisle. But I think the hearing, by and large, was a good hearing despite a few differences, which I will note in a minute. At the end of the day, you could not help but leave that hearing and think you had just seen, you had just witnessed a moment in history-- not just the first African American to aspire to serve on the Supreme Court but also a pillar of strength during her hearing. They threw it at her in every direction. I can't tell you how many people have come up to me everywhere I have gone since that hearing and said the same thing: How did you sit through that? How could you put up with that? And I thought, and I said to them: Think about her sitting in front of her husband and her daughters and some of the things that were said about her, things said again this morning on the Senate floor. She came out a pillar of strength, grace and dignity under pressure. I looked up at that table several times and thought, Judge, if you stood up at this moment and said ``Enough. I am taking my family, and we are out of here,'' I would understand. But she never did. She never wavered. She was solid as a rock, and that is why it is my honor to support her and believe that she is going to make history. Some of the things they said were outrageous. This case they want to make about her sentencing guidelines when it comes to sex crimes involving children and child pornography--what did she say about it? She said they were horrible and despicable crimes. But she didn't just say it before the committee when she was under assault. Listen to what she said in one of her cases, United States v. Hillie, a case involving sexual misconduct toward children. The true nature of these offenses, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said, lies in how they affected the children who you tormented for nearly a decade when you lived on and off with their mother. That is a substantial portion of their childhood. These two children carried a burden no child should have to shoulder--the burden of protecting themselves from a man charged with their care but who instead exploited them. Then she went on to say: This family has been torn apart-- she said to the defendant-- by your criminal actions. You saw it on the faces of those women. You heard it in their voices. And the impact of your acts on those very real victims who are still struggling to recover to this day makes your crimes among the most serious criminal offenses that this Court has ever sentenced. Does that sound like she is soft on crime? Does that sound like she didn't remember she is a mother of daughters who cared for the impact those criminals had on the children and the family? Not in any way whatsoever. You would draw a much different conclusion if you just listened to the arguments being made recently here on the floor, and it would be an unfair conclusion. The bottom line, as far as I am concerned, is this: What they have left out in the presentation is critical to the very truth of their allegations. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is in the mainstream of sentencing when it comes to these cases. Seventy to eighty percent of Federal judges divert from the guidelines as she has in some cases. And, let me add, her accusers have been voting for Federal judges proposed by President Trump right and left who do exactly the same thing she does. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a New York Times article of March 25, 2022, entitled ``Jackson's Critics Backed Judges With Like Rulings.''

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we have some rare good news on the public health front. COVID cases are down at the lowest level since July. Crucially, hospitalizations and deaths are also down dramatically, more than 70 percent lower than they were in January during the Omicron wave. Compared to just a few months ago, our Nation is experiencing far less suffering and death, thank goodness. But despite the progress we have made, COVID continues to be a threat. Every day, 800 American families lose a loved one to COVID--800 a day--and catch new infections, which present an opportunity for the virus to mutate. We are at a turning point in this fight against COVID. Now, we need to strengthen our healthcare system. We need to stay a step ahead of this deadly virus. That is especially true since the subvariant of Omicron--BA.2, as it is known--has become dominant in America. Remember the frenzy last holiday season when we were running from pharmacy to pharmacy trying to find rapid tests for our families or waiting in the freezing cold for hours on end to get a PCR test? Why would we ever want to be caught flatfooted again? We need to sustain our public health funding so that our hospitals and healthcare professionals have the equipment and tools they need to keep us safe. The one thing dramatically worse than returning to the dark days of COVID-19 and the deadly variants would be to return unprepared. If we want to keep our masks off--and I do--if we want to keep our kids in school--and I do--and our businesses open, we need to make smart investments in America's capacity to confront future strains of these variants. We can't continue this cycle of neglect and panic. These pendulum swings harm our health system and contribute to unnecessary costs and suffering. Congress must come together on a bipartisan basis. And shouldn't we all agree on this: that we move as a nation in the same direction? That means providing funding to purchase new booster doses, including those which the FDA authorized this week for adults over the age of 50. I got mine yesterday morning. If we don't purchase these vaccines now ahead of time, then we will be sleepwalking into the next deadly wave. We also need to ensure that as soon as the FDA authorizes a vaccine for kids under the age of 5, parents can get their kids protected as soon as possible. Funding also is needed for oral antivirals and other therapeutics to treat patients who contract a serious case of COVID. These treatments will keep our hospitals from being overwhelmed. And we need funding to maintain the testing infrastructure we have built up over the last several months, like President Biden's successful program to put up to 1 billion--billion--rapid tests right at the doors of every American who wants one. The fact is, Congress should have already provided funding for these lifesaving resources, but we still haven't done it. This lack of funding has already hit my home State of Illinois. Last week, shipments of monoclonal antibody treatments to our State were scaled back 35 percent to preserve the supply. Also last week, thanks to a lack of funds, the Department of Health and Human Services announced they would no longer pay hospitals and health clinics for testing they have provided to 30 million uninsured Americans. Several free community-based testing sites and pharmacies in Illinois are now closing up. The money is running dry. At one community health center in Illinois, one-third of the patients are uninsured. That clinic has received more than $150,000 to test, treat, and vaccinate the patients--money well spent not just to protect these patients but every Illinoisan. If Congress doesn't provide new funding, that health center may be forced to close for good. All of us want to keep the masks off for good and move past this coronavirus, but to think we can just wish away COVID forever would be naive, irresponsible, and fiscally unwise. I urge my Republican colleagues to join in a bipartisan effort to provide new funding for our COVID preparation response efforts. Let's be ready for whatever this virus might bring.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that prior to the vote at 11:45, I be permitted to speak for 15 minutes and Senator Sherrod Brown be permitted to speak for 2 minutes.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee was busy. We met for over 30 hours to consider the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. During the meeting of the committee, hundreds of questions were posed to Judge Jackson. She spoke thoughtfully and at length about her years in public service, and, most importantly, she really imparted to the committee--and to America that has watched--what she thought about this great Nation, her pride in being an American, the opportunities which were given to her, and opportunities which she used to make this a better place for many. I was one of the millions who came away from last week's hearing deeply impressed with Judge Jackson. It proved to me during the course of her testimony that the words over the steps of the Supreme Court, ``Equal Justice Under Law,'' are a personal challenge and an invitation to a person just like Judge Jackson. But it appears some of our Republican colleagues are more reluctant to support her at this moment. She is still making the rounds. Over 50 Senators have received personal visits, and even more will during the course of this week. They have reservations, and I have spoken to some of them and listened to their statements. They say that they don't have any question about her qualifications or experience. Well, thank goodness. She has a stellar resume. Anyone who is a lawyer in this Nation would look at her with envy to think what she has achieved against the odds in her life. Unfortunately, some of the members of the committee misrepresented her record on several issues. I would like to try to set it straight at this moment. There seems to be this passion amongst some Republicans to get this nominee to state in a word or two her judicial philosophy. I find that interesting. If a person came up to one of my colleagues and said, ``What is your political philosophy?'' there are a number of things a person might say. They might say, for example, ``I am a fiscal conservative.'' You might then ask, ``Well, then why did you vote for the Trump tax cuts that gave tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and added almost $2 trillion to the national debt? And if you are a fiscal conservative, why is it that you only preach for a balanced budget amendment when there is a Democrat in the White House and never when there is a Republican?'' Basically what you are saying is, ``I can hear you and your declaration, but I want to know what you have done.'' When it comes to Judge Jackson, those who seek her judicial philosophy and want a simple label one way or the other just haven't done their homework. She has almost 600 published opinions. This woman, this jurist, has not held back in explaining, in case after case, how she views the law. It is there for the reading. Every Member of the Senate and the public has access to that information to get the true measure of a judicial philosophy. What she said over and over again at the hearing was, I believe in judicial restraint. I think that is exactly what we need in a judge, personally. That is exactly what you will find when you review the hundreds of opinions she has written to date. Then there is this litmus test question that meant so much to Senator McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, that he led off his opposition to Judge Jackson on the issue. And the issue, quite simply, is whether or not Judge Jackson is willing to say what her position is on increasing the number of Justices serving on the Supreme Court-- interesting question. Most Americans think it has been nine for all time, but that is not true. I believe it was in 1869 that that number was established. Before then, it was a fewer number of Justices. It hasn't been changed since. There is speculation among some political quarters that people are thinking about changing it in the future. So when it came to Senator McConnell's opposition to Judge Jackson because she said it is a policy matter to be decided by Congress, not to be decided by the Court, as to the composition and number on the Supreme Court, Senator McConnell went on to say that that disqualified her; that was the leading disqualification. Well, you might ask Senator McConnell: How did the previous nominee, Amy Coney Barrett--you went to great lengths in maintaining a vacancy on the Court so that a Republican judge could fill the vacancy--how did she answer this probing threshold question when it came to the future composition of the Supreme Court? She said virtually exactly what Judge Jackson said: It is a matter for Congress to decide, not for the courts. That was an acceptable answer with Amy Coney Barrett, but for Senator McConnell, it is an unacceptable answer when it comes to Judge Jackson. The other questions that were raised were about her legal representation. Those of us who have practiced law understand that you don't necessarily agree with the legal position of every client who walks in the office, and sometimes you have no choice. If the court appoints you as a defender or as an attorney to represent someone who is an indigent client, you often have a client before you--not necessarily a savory character--who might have some questionable background. Your job is to be a zealous advocate for that client but never to lie to the court, stick with the truth, do your best, and represent them in the course of litigation. That is what Judge Jackson has done in her private practice and her years working for the Federal public defender. Most attorneys get it. Most of them understand that the client you are representing is not necessarily espousing your point of view, nor, really, boasting a lifestyle that you admire, but you have a professional obligation to do your best as a lawyer to represent them before the court of law. Some of them were opposed to Judge Jackson because she represented detainees at Guantanamo Bay. That is curious because these same lawmakers once claimed that judicial nominees should not be held accountable for the views and actions of their clients. It was the junior Senator from Missouri who not that long ago argued that litigators ``do not necessarily share the views of the people [they represent]'' but must ``represent them effectively and fairly.'' He was right then, and he ought to remember it now. Consider the words of the junior Senator from Texas, who told us in September of 2019: Saying that the views of your clients or the positions of your clients are necessarily your own personal views is no more accurate than saying a criminal defense lawyer who represents capital defendants is advancing the cause of murder. That is the quote from the junior Senator from Texas. Finally, some of our Republican colleagues have accused Judge Jackson of being soft on crime. We had an interesting panel the last day when we considered the judge, and on that panel was a gentleman who is the president of the Black law enforcement organization known as NOBLE. I asked him point blank: We know the Fraternal Order of Police has endorsed Judge Jackson's aspiration to the Court. We know that the International Association of Chiefs of Police also endorsed her. You, NOBLE, representing Black law enforcement agents across the Nation, have endorsed her. Would you or any of these organizations have even considered the endorsement if you thought she was soft on crime or wanted to defund the police? He was unequivocal. No, he wouldn't have considered her. But her critics ignore that reality. I want to make it clear that any Senator considering her nomination has the right to make their own choice in this process. They can also look beyond the fact that she comes from a law enforcement family to her actual decisionmaking and sentencing. But to claim, as a few have-- only a few--that somehow Judge Jackson was soft when it came to child predators or endangering children is just inaccurate and, frankly, insulting. Look at the facts. Judge Jackson is well within the judicial mainstream of 70 to 80 percent of sentences by Federal judges when it comes to child pornography offenders--not out of the mainstream, in it--and she has put many behind bars for decades. Her approach to these cases is comparable to that of many of President Trump's nominees on the bench today. Independent fact checkers have exposed these baseless attacks for what they are. I can't say it any better than the conservative Federal prosecutor who wrote in a conservative magazine, the National Review, that this line of attack against Judge Jackson is ``meritless to the point of demagoguery.'' Let's be clear. None--absolutely none--of the attacks that have been leveled against Judge Jackson stand up to scrutiny. I assume that is why only a few of my Republican colleagues have spoken out in support of them. So I want to thank the majority of Republican Judiciary Committee members who treated last week's hearing with dignity and respect. They posed challenging, probing questions to Judge Jackson, and that was their responsibility to do so. Judge Jackson's forthright responses showed the American public why she deserves this historic opportunity. She is a brilliant jurist, evenhanded, with a model temperament. There were so many moments--for those who followed the hearing, they know what I am speaking of--when I looked up and saw her sitting at the table, thinking that she could stand up at this very moment and say ``Enough. My family and I are leaving.'' But she didn't. She had the strength and the grace and the dignity and determination to weather even that political firestorm. I am honored to support Judge Jackson. I look forward to our Judiciary Committee vote on her nomination next Monday. (The remarks of Mr. Durbin pertaining to the introduction of S. 3950 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.