Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on another matter, Senator Rob Portman of Ohio and I are cochairs of the bipartisan Senate Ukraine Caucus. Tomorrow, we are hosting a meeting for Senators with members of the Ukrainian Parliament. The Parliament there is known as the Rada. They are coming to Washington to discuss how we can help even more in assisting the valiant people of Ukraine defending against this barbaric invasion by Vladimir Putin. I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join us to send a clear message to Ukraine that we stand united in their efforts. Putin's unprovoked and unconscionable war on Ukraine has revealed what he is really all about. He is a tyrant seething with resentment, driven by delusions of great mother Russia, willing to slaughter innocent men, women, and children to restore a lost Russian Empire. We know from his current ravings and his past actions, Putin's ruthless pursuit of Russia's lost empire didn't begin with this war, and if we don't do something about it, it won't end there either. In 2003, the people of Georgia--another Soviet Republic--waged a Rose Revolution to claim a place among the family of democratic nations. Putin's aggrieved response was to send troops into that country to occupy portions of it--South Ossetia and Abkhazia--to redraw Georgia's national boundaries by force. I traveled to that area in 2012 and saw firsthand what Putin's occupation of that tiny nation meant. In 2014, the people of Ukraine rose up to demand change as well--the Revolution of Dignity, they called it. They succeeded and threw out the deeply corrupt Russian-backed President. They ousted him from Parliament. When they did, he fled to Moscow, his real home. Putin's revenge months later was to send Russian troops to invade and annex the Crimean peninsula and the Donbas regions of eastern Ukraine by force. They have continued to wage that war. I have mentioned many times my concern for this region, and I guess it is attached to the fact that my mother was born in Lithuania and came here as a little girl. Her family fled from the oppression of czarist Russia, which then controlled the Baltic States and far beyond. During World War II, the Baltic States endured brutal Nazi occupation, and after the war, they were held captive behind the Iron Curtain by the USSR. In August 1989, 2 months before the fall of the Berlin Wall, 2 million people in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia physically, literally, joined hands in a peaceful protest. They formed a human chain, declared that they wanted to join Europe and be part of the family of democracies. Two years later, the Baltics threw off Russian occupiers and reclaimed their independence. It was a festive day. I was honored to be a witness to part of it. They worked to achieve the reform fundamental to democracies, to weed out corruption, establish market economies, and encourage the growth of civil society. In 2004, in a historic moment, a live-or-die moment for the Baltics, they became part of NATO. It was the first time--the very first time that NATO had opened its doors to nations that had been part of the Soviet Union. Over the years, the Baltic States strengthened their militaries to prove they would be assets and not liabilities to the alliance. Today, the Baltics provide a home to activists and dissidents from Russia and Belarus and are a beacon of democracy. And I say that with personal pride to have any association with these great nations. In 2008, after Russia had annexed parts of Georgia, the President of Poland visited Georgia's capital of Tbilisi and warned of the threat posed by Russia to the entire region. He said: Today Georgia, tomorrow Ukraine, the day after tomorrow-- the Baltic States and, later, perhaps, time will come for [his] country, Poland. Well, today, Senator Grassley and I are introducing a bill to discourage Russia from extending Putin's war into NATO territory and forcing the alliance to invoke its article 5 collective security commitment. Our bill is called the Baltic Defense and Deterrence Act. It directs the Department of State and the Department of Defense to establish and implement economic and security initiatives to deepen U.S. ties with the Baltic States. Our bill will strengthen our strong partnership. It will enhance the capability of the region's critical allies in NATO's eastern flank to respond to threats, including Russia's misinformation and disinformation, their cyber warfare, and, in Lithuania's case, growing economic pressure. Cosponsors come from both sides of the aisle: Senators Stabenow, King, Feinstein, Blunt, Blumenthal, Baldwin, Duckworth, Booker, and Senator Scott of Florida. Representatives Ruben Gallego and Don Bacon are cosponsoring a bipartisan companion bill in the House. In conclusion, in 1997, Russian President Boris Yeltsin offered the Baltic States unilateral security guarantees if they would give up aspirations to join NATO. They refused. They were determined to become their own sovereign states, their own democracy, and they have succeeded. Kurt Volker, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO and former U.S. Special Representative to Ukraine, has said that, far from being a burden on NATO, the admission of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia has reinvigorated the alliance. In his words, the Baltic States turned out to be ``the best democratic and economic reformers, the ones most committed to build fresh new militaries, and the ones willing to support the U.S. in other fora.'' They have sent troops on costly U.S. missions, and their troops have fought and died alongside NATO forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. By securing America's economic and security partnerships with the Baltics, our bill will help deter Vladimir Putin from extending his barbaric war into NATO territory. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on another matter, Senator Rob Portman of Ohio and I are cochairs of the bipartisan Senate Ukraine Caucus. Tomorrow, we are hosting a meeting for Senators with members of the Ukrainian Parliament. The Parliament there is known as the Rada. They are coming to Washington to discuss how we can help even more in assisting the valiant people of Ukraine defending against this barbaric invasion by Vladimir Putin. I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join us to send a clear message to Ukraine that we stand united in their efforts. Putin's unprovoked and unconscionable war on Ukraine has revealed what he is really all about. He is a tyrant seething with resentment, driven by delusions of great mother Russia, willing to slaughter innocent men, women, and children to restore a lost Russian Empire. We know from his current ravings and his past actions, Putin's ruthless pursuit of Russia's lost empire didn't begin with this war, and if we don't do something about it, it won't end there either. In 2003, the people of Georgia--another Soviet Republic--waged a Rose Revolution to claim a place among the family of democratic nations. Putin's aggrieved response was to send troops into that country to occupy portions of it--South Ossetia and Abkhazia--to redraw Georgia's national boundaries by force. I traveled to that area in 2012 and saw firsthand what Putin's occupation of that tiny nation meant. In 2014, the people of Ukraine rose up to demand change as well--the Revolution of Dignity, they called it. They succeeded and threw out the deeply corrupt Russian-backed President. They ousted him from Parliament. When they did, he fled to Moscow, his real home. Putin's revenge months later was to send Russian troops to invade and annex the Crimean peninsula and the Donbas regions of eastern Ukraine by force. They have continued to wage that war. I have mentioned many times my concern for this region, and I guess it is attached to the fact that my mother was born in Lithuania and came here as a little girl. Her family fled from the oppression of czarist Russia, which then controlled the Baltic States and far beyond. During World War II, the Baltic States endured brutal Nazi occupation, and after the war, they were held captive behind the Iron Curtain by the USSR. In August 1989, 2 months before the fall of the Berlin Wall, 2 million people in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia physically, literally, joined hands in a peaceful protest. They formed a human chain, declared that they wanted to join Europe and be part of the family of democracies. Two years later, the Baltics threw off Russian occupiers and reclaimed their independence. It was a festive day. I was honored to be a witness to part of it. They worked to achieve the reform fundamental to democracies, to weed out corruption, establish market economies, and encourage the growth of civil society. In 2004, in a historic moment, a live-or-die moment for the Baltics, they became part of NATO. It was the first time--the very first time that NATO had opened its doors to nations that had been part of the Soviet Union. Over the years, the Baltic States strengthened their militaries to prove they would be assets and not liabilities to the alliance. Today, the Baltics provide a home to activists and dissidents from Russia and Belarus and are a beacon of democracy. And I say that with personal pride to have any association with these great nations. In 2008, after Russia had annexed parts of Georgia, the President of Poland visited Georgia's capital of Tbilisi and warned of the threat posed by Russia to the entire region. He said: Today Georgia, tomorrow Ukraine, the day after tomorrow-- the Baltic States and, later, perhaps, time will come for [his] country, Poland. Well, today, Senator Grassley and I are introducing a bill to discourage Russia from extending Putin's war into NATO territory and forcing the alliance to invoke its article 5 collective security commitment. Our bill is called the Baltic Defense and Deterrence Act. It directs the Department of State and the Department of Defense to establish and implement economic and security initiatives to deepen U.S. ties with the Baltic States. Our bill will strengthen our strong partnership. It will enhance the capability of the region's critical allies in NATO's eastern flank to respond to threats, including Russia's misinformation and disinformation, their cyber warfare, and, in Lithuania's case, growing economic pressure. Cosponsors come from both sides of the aisle: Senators Stabenow, King, Feinstein, Blunt, Blumenthal, Baldwin, Duckworth, Booker, and Senator Scott of Florida. Representatives Ruben Gallego and Don Bacon are cosponsoring a bipartisan companion bill in the House. In conclusion, in 1997, Russian President Boris Yeltsin offered the Baltic States unilateral security guarantees if they would give up aspirations to join NATO. They refused. They were determined to become their own sovereign states, their own democracy, and they have succeeded. Kurt Volker, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO and former U.S. Special Representative to Ukraine, has said that, far from being a burden on NATO, the admission of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia has reinvigorated the alliance. In his words, the Baltic States turned out to be ``the best democratic and economic reformers, the ones most committed to build fresh new militaries, and the ones willing to support the U.S. in other fora.'' They have sent troops on costly U.S. missions, and their troops have fought and died alongside NATO forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. By securing America's economic and security partnerships with the Baltics, our bill will help deter Vladimir Putin from extending his barbaric war into NATO territory. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I chair, held its hearing on the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve as Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. It was an opportunity to learn a lot about her: her qualifications, her experience, her approach to cases, her judicial temperament, and her temperament before the committee. She proved to the public what many of us suspected and some knew: She is, without a doubt, ready to serve on the Supreme Court. I have spoken before about Judge Jackson's background and qualifications, but some of it bears repeating because this is the critical week before we consider her nomination next week on the floor of the Senate. She is the daughter of two school teachers, public school teachers. Judge Jackson discovered her passion for the law at the age of 4. See, her dad decided to give up teaching. He had another profession in mind; he was going to become a lawyer. And so he would sit at the kitchen table with his law books all stacked up, and Judge Jackson, at the age of 4, would gather her coloring books and sit next to her daddy. She was going to study too. She believes that might have been the first time that she thought seriously about becoming a lawyer. After graduating from public high school in Miami--she had distinguished herself as president of the student body and as the lead on the high school speech and debate team. She competed nationally successfully and visited the campus of Harvard University. She loved it. She decided that she was going to apply to go to school there. When she went back to her high school in Florida, she sat down with her counselor to talk about that option. The counselor discouraged her; she was aiming too high. But she did it anyway, and she was accepted and then went on to Harvard Law School. She has clerked at every level of the Federal judiciary. If you are not a lawyer, that may not mean much; but if you are a lawyer, it is a big deal. To think that she started off at the lowest Federal district court level clerking for a judge, then was accepted to move up a level to the circuit judge position to serve as a clerk as well, and then to finally grab the gold ring of being a Supreme Court clerk to none other than Justice Stephen Breyer whose vacancy she is hoping to fill. She worked in private practice as a lawyer, and she proved that she was a consensus builder all the way along. On the bench, she served as a district court judge and now circuit court in the DC Circuit. It is no surprise that she has won the admiration and friendship of so many people throughout her career. In fact, she has come before the same Senate Judiciary Committee on three separate occasions with her background carefully reviewed and emerged with the approval of the committee with bipartisan support. In fact, when you look at it, if you watched last week's hearing before the Judiciary Committee, no one questioned her qualifications, her knowledge, her experience. She really has a platinum resume when it comes to that. On the final day of the hearing, the committee heard from Anne Williams. Anne Williams is well-known to the Presiding Officer as well as to myself. She served as a district court judge in the Northern District of Illinois and then as a circuit judge on the Seventh Circuit. I believe she was the first African-American woman to do so. She is retired at this point, but she has volunteered with the American Bar Association to do the careful review of Judge Jackson to make certain that we know every comment that has been made by professionals who have been familiar with her work experience. Judge Williams is an anomaly politically. Those who are looking for evidence as to whether she is Democrat or Republican, she was initially appointed to the district court by President Reagan and then to the circuit court by President Clinton--a bipartisan nominee all the way. She came to report to the committee that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who had been reviewed with careful personal interviews of 250 separate individuals in her legal career, had emerged unanimously well-qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Judge Williams said that in interviewing these lawyers and judges, they asked the hard questions--the ones that you can ask in confidence and in private--and the answers were all the same. Judge Jackson has a career that has distinguished her as outstanding, excellent, superior, superb, the list of accolades went on and on. The ABA found that Judge Jackson has a sterling reputation for thoughtfulness and collegiality and exceptional competence. I also asked Judge Williams, serving as the spokesperson for the ABA, to comment on the allegations that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is somehow soft on crime. It is a common mantra coming from the other side of the aisle. And I said, in the course of asking 250 different judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and all the people who worked with and around her, Was there any evidence that she was soft on crime? No. None. None. That is amazing when you think that is the No. 1 talking point against her from the Republican side of the aisle. ``None whatsoever'' is exactly what Judge Williams said. Another ABA witness, Jean Veta, said that the ABA ``heard consistently from not only defense counsel, but [from] prosecutors'' of how unbiased Judge Jackson was throughout her career. And just as impressive as her qualifications was her performance and candor before the Senate Judiciary Committee. If you ask her a question about stare decisis, she will start responding by defining it in plain English, just to make sure everybody at home, lawyer or nonlawyer, can follow along. She expresses her thinking with surgeon-like precision, which I am sure her husband, Dr. Patrick Johnson, who is an actual surgeon at Georgetown University Hospital, deeply admires. Clarity and impartiality, that is Judge Jackson. During the hearing, several of my colleagues asked her to describe her judicial philosophy. Pick a label: Are you an originalist; are you a textualist; are you a liberal; are you a conservative? Previous Supreme Court nominees like Chief Justice Roberts have said that they do not have an ``overarching judicial philosophy'' that they bring to a case. That was a good enough answer for many Republicans if it was given by Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Amy Coney Barrett, but they have complained now that she just won't come up and admit to a label. She did us one better. She gave a thorough, step-by-step explanation of how she decided a case--every case--and she has some 580 separate written opinions. You don't need an electron microscope to find this judge's judicial philosophy. She has written it down and published it over and over and over again. She established her independence, she says, by ``clearing [her] mind of any preconceived notions'' when she gets a case, sets aside her personal views, evaluates the facts, listens to the arguments, and then she interprets and applies the law, keeping in mind the limits of judicial authority. What I have just described is what she told the committee, and it is exactly what we look for and should look for in every judge. I can't recall ever hearing a nominee give such a clear and thorough explanation of their approach to deciding a case. And Judge Jackson's evenhanded record on so many different issues--criminal law, labor relations, executive power--shows that it works. Finally, the Judiciary Committee hearing allowed the public to observe Judge Jackson's incredible judicial temperament. We spend a lot of time as Senators with the authority under the Constitution to advise and consent, interviewing nominees for courts, trying to determine just what kind of a judge they will be. What will their temperament be? Will they be all swollen and big-headed over this black robe and lifetime appointment, or will they remember the real-life experiences that many people in their courtroom have lived through? Well, I can tell you, Judge Jackson's temperament has shown through. Frankly, she was tested time and time again. You see, I might just go out on a limb and tell you: There are some Senators that don't show a very good temperament themselves under these circumstances. And they tested her over and over and over again with baseless, wild charges, some of which were just offensive on their face. I listened to those, and I would look up and think, if she stands up at this point and says, ``That's enough. I am taking my family, and I'm going home,'' nobody would have faulted her for it--some of the questioning was just that bad--but she didn't. My Republican colleagues promised a fair and respectful hearing. The majority of them, starting with Senator Grassley, did just that; and I commended them for it today in the committee. They set an example of a minority party with a Supreme Court nominee and how the questioning should come down. Unfortunately, others, however, on that side of the table did not. But in the face of the constant badgering and interruptions, offensive insinuations by a select few Republicans, Judge Jackson never lost her composure--never. She was patient, calm, and dignified. Many times, the questions were so mean-spirited. And I thought, there sits her husband and her daughter listening to these charges on how she is soft on crime and doesn't care about the plight of children. And when you think about that, what they must think of to hear those things said about the doctor's wife and the kid's mother. It is just hard to take. She was patient and kind. She didn't lose her temper at one time. Some of my colleagues attended the committee's hearing intent on tearing her down. It didn't work. Instead, she showed America that she can rise to any challenge as a Justice on the Supreme Court. And despite some of my colleagues' behavior in the committee hearings, last week was an inspiration for so many people across this country. I invited law students from Howard University and my alma mater Georgetown Law to come over and sit through the hearing. We invited interns from the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. They wanted to be there at this history-making moment. They watched her prove that through hard work, a commitment to the law, and in the words of Senator Booker, her grit and grace, she has earned a seat on the highest Court in the land. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a look at this woman and what she will bring to the Court. It is time, America, after all these years, never having had an African-American woman serve on the Court. It has got to be a challenge to find somebody who is ready to take on the job and take on the challenge. She can meet that challenge and will successfully. She is the best and deserves our support. Remembering Madeleine Albright On another topic, Madam President, last week, America and the world lost another trailblazing woman and defender of justice and democracy-- and a friend. Madeleine Korbel Albright came to the United States at age 11 as a refugee. Her family had been driven out of their native Czechoslovakia twice by murderous regimes, in 1938 by the Nazis and 10 years later by the communists. Those searing childhood upheavals helped to produce in this young woman a lifelong vigilance against dictators and a fierce commitment to democracy. Her father had been a diplomat who received political asylum in America. Like nearly all immigrants and refugees who come to this country fleeing the tyranny of autocracy, he was keenly aware that this was a land of freedom. He told his daughter many times, ``Americans don't know how fragile their democracy is--and how resilient it is.'' She also knew persistent autocracy. It can rise at any age in any nation. We see it today in the leadership of Russia. That is why we must protect the rule of law, the most potent defense against dictators. In 1997, she made history. She became America's first woman Secretary of State under President Clinton, previously serving as our Nation's Ambassador to the United Nations. She was a hardline critic of tyrants and despots who advocated the policy of assertive multilateralism, and she called the United States ``the indispensable nation.'' She believed that the best hope for a free and peaceful world lay in America, exercising leadership and working with the family of Democratic nations to protect democracy, just as we are today in Ukraine. She was deeply committed to NATO. As Secretary of State, she supported NATO expansion to include Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic--three nations that lived under the boot heel of Soviet oppression. Today, all three nations are providing a haven for Ukrainian civilians, mostly women and children, who are fleeing Putin's unprovoked and barbaric war on that young democracy. Madeleine Albright understood that any democracy could fall victim to the siren song of autocracy if its citizens were not vigilant. After her historic career in public service, she was chair of an organization called the National Democratic Institute, helping young democracies build independent court systems and a vibrant civil society. She spoke to me about this important work and understood that for democracies to endure, they must offer more than promises. In one of her last interviews, Madeleine Albright offered a warning that we in this Senate should be wise to remember. She said: What is important is that democracy has to deliver. People want to vote and eat. And therefore it is very important for democracies, and certainly for the world's oldest, to understand the rule of law--because corruption is the cancer of democracy . . . The people need to be the beneficiaries of [democracy]. Likely because of her family's own experience with fleeing tyranny, Madeleine Albright was quicker than many at recognizing dictators when she saw them. She first met Vladimir Putin in the year 2000, 1 year after his meteoric rise from a mid-level, mediocre KGB apparatchik to President of the Russian Federation. She recorded her first impressions of Vladimir Putin over 20 years ago. She wrote: Putin is small and pale, so cold as to be almost reptilian. She went on to note presciently that Putin was ``embarrassed about what happened to his country and determined to restore its greatness.'' The violence and destruction that Vladimir Putin is willing to wage in pursuit of this delusion to make Russia great again is now horrifyingly obvious to the entire world. Let me say at the outset: I have no quarrel with the people of Russia. They are good people and have a great history. There were chapters in there that were oppressive and terrible to their neighbors and the countries that suffered under Stalin and the reach of the Soviet Union. But at their heart, I believe the Russians are good people. Sadly, I cannot say the same about their leader. The brutal assault on Ukraine is now in its second month. Yesterday, at the water tower in downtown Chicago, we had a rally for Ukrainians. It was cold. This time of year, it is cold in Chicago. It was probably 30 degrees, and the wind was blowing. But what a crowd showed up-- several hundred people--many bearing Ukrainian flags and, of course, proud of their Ukrainian heritage, but from so many other places as well. Groups of people were there who were Indian Americans who wanted to show support. I was proud that the Baltic Americans--Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians--once again were there in force. I was also proud that the Polish people came, because they have a special kinship to Ukraine at this moment in history. Poland is accepting more refugees from Ukraine than any other nation and is making great personal sacrifice to do it. As the Polish Ambassador told us 2 weeks ago, when people get off that train for the first stop in Poland, finally, they are on safe soil, out of Ukraine. They don't look for people--soldiers and police-- to guide them. What they find is that people are in their cars, waiting, with the doors open, to bring them in even if they are total strangers. The Polish Ambassador said: You don't see any refugee camps in Poland. No. People are going into the homes of other Polish families and are being welcomed into those homes. He said: The reason we are feeling this way about our neighbors is that, when it happened to us many years ago, no one would take us in. We remember those days. What a reminder to us in the United States. You know, when the President said last week that he wants to accept 100,000 refugees from Ukraine, I applauded it, as did others, but just for a point of reference, a nation of 5 million, known as Ireland, has also agreed to accept 100,000 refugees. So the United States is showing some charity, but we can do more. We shouldn't limit it just to refugees from Ukraine. There are refugees from wars and calamities around the world who also need an opportunity to be in a safe place. The United States has enjoyed that reputation for almost 80 years, and we did it after World War II. We should return to those days. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees calculates that 10 million Ukrainians--almost a fourth of the population--have been driven from their homes and displaced--1 out of 4. Another 3.5 million Ukrainians have fled to neighboring nations, especially to Poland. The city of Warsaw alone is admitting 1,000 Ukrainian children to its schools every day--1,000 Ukrainian kids a day into Poland. Joe Biden, our President, understands the same truth that Madeleine Albright saw--that the struggle between dictatorships and democracy did not end with the defeat of Nazism or the fall of the Berlin Wall. It continues in this century, and Ukraine is now the new frontline in this old battle. Critics of the President's will no doubt fixate on one unscripted line of his speech in Poland. I say to those critics: Who among you has not uttered the same thought? Who doubts for one second this world would be more secure without the likes of such a tyrant? The Russian people have to make that decision, and if they are given the truth, I am sure they will make the right decision. That is why Vladimir Putin is trying to control the media. The Russian people will decide for themselves whether Putin stays or goes. The duty of democracy is to make sure that people have the final word as to their own destinies within their own borders. President Biden is leading a historic effort of the NATO alliance on behalf of the people of Ukraine. I salute him for his leadership. I yield the floor. Recognition of the Majority Leader

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last fall, Robert Juliano passed away at the age of 80 after a lifetime of fighting on behalf of the restaurant workers of America. For decades, he shaped and shepherded nearly every piece of legislation that helped restaurant workers in the United States. Along the way, he made extraordinary friendships with Members of congress of both parties, Capitol Police, congressional staff, and many of the people who make things work around here. Bob was to some Bobby, others Cool Bobby J, and even Uncle Bobby, but most of all, I, like so many others, called him our friend. In April, his union that represents 300,000 hotel, restaurant, and other service workers across the United States--known as UNITE HERE--will gather to celebrate the man who, even with so many powerful friends, never stopped thinking of himself as ``a kid from Taylor Street in Chicago.'' Bob was born in the City of Big Shoulders--Chicago--on the West Side, to Emil and Mary Salvaria Juliano. He attended Saint Ignatius College Preparatory, on Roosevelt Road, and Loyola University in Chicago. Both are Catholic Jesuit institutions that taught him the importance of service to one's community. As a young man, he got his start as an elevator operator, eventually working his way up to become the personnel manager of the legendary Palmer House Hilton Hotel in downtown Chicago. Through his work at the Palmer House, Bob met labor leaders and union members. This included Edward Hanley, the leader in Chicago of HERE, which later became UNITE HERE, representing the workers of the Palmer House. In 1973, Hanley became the International President of HERE. It was around this time that Bob met then-Mayor Richard J. Daley through then-Chicago Alderman Vito Marzullo. These were the days when Mayor Daley was a true political force. Mayor Daley immediately learned a lesson we all have in the decades since. You could not help but like Bob. The mayor called then-House Majority Leader Tip O'Neill and endorsed Bob going to Washington, DC. With the support of Daley and O'Neill, one of then-President Hanley's first acts was to name Bob as HERE's first full-time legislative representative. He had no lobbying experience, but Daley told him, ``Go to Washington. Everything's going to be fine. You're in your mother's arms.'' It was the beginning of four decades of Bob's work on nearly every major piece of labor legislation. He was proud to help guide the passage of the Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 that ensured coal miners had access to the same health plan as Federal employees. Bob received numerous honors throughout his life, and he was especially proud of his honoree status with the Sons of Italy Foundation. Bob was one of a kind; he was friends with such different people as Senators Bob Dole, Ted Kennedy, Orrin Hatch, Sam Brownback, and myself. We disagreed on a lot, but we could always agree on Bob. What made Bob special was that he knew everyone--everyone from the chiefs of staff, to the front desk assistants, to the food service workers, the Capitol Police, and everyone in between. Bob cared about them, and he was known to talk their ear off for an hour from time to time. From his days at the Palmer House to his days in the Capitol, his hospitality was a feature of who he was. Bob directly connected with people. He never learned how to use a computer, but he was successful because of how he treated people. The late Cardinal Joseph Bernadin of Chicago called Bob his lobbyist. All kidding aside, Bob's love of people is a great representation of faith. Bringing people from all walks of life together with kindness is something we all should work toward. I will miss the kid from Taylor Street in Chicago. They do not make them like Bob anymore, and we are lesser for it. Robert E. Juliano is survived by his son, Robert E. Juliano, Jr.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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, I was disappointed but not surprised that Senator McConnell came to the floor and announced that he would not support the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson, by President Biden, to fill the vacancy of Stephen Breyer on the U.S. Supreme Court. Just this morning, or early afternoon, we wrapped up the 4-day process in the Senate Judiciary Committee to consider her nomination, and that is why some of the statements which the Senator made in justifying his opposition, I believe, need to be addressed. I will be brief in doing so, but I wanted to make a record of it quickly. It seems that he is concerned, as many Republicans are, with the notion of packing of the Court. The notion behind that is that the Democrats are inspired to appoint some number of new Justices to that Court--maybe four--and, thereby, tip the balance back toward the Democratic side. The question, obviously, before us is, Where does that idea come from? I will be honest with you, even as chairman of the committee, I don't know. I suppose there are some academics and theorists and researchers who believe that is well worthy of conversation, but let's be honest about this issue which seems to consume the Republicans in the Senate. There is only one U.S. Senator who has had a direct impact on the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court in modern memory. Who was that Senator? It was Senator Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, because he decided to keep the Court at eight Justices for almost a year after the death of Antonin Scalia. He refused to give President Obama his constitutional and legal option of filling the vacancy from the Scalia departure on the Court, and for a year, Mitch McConnell, for his own political purposes, kept the Court's composition at eight. So, when it comes to moving the numbers of Justices, he has retired the trophy in modern times because he was the one who did it. When he starts speculating about the possibility of, ``Well, maybe they will add one, two, three, or four more Justices if the Democrats get an opportunity,'' I happen to know--and the Presiding Officer does as well--that nothing is going to happen in changing the composition of the Court unless it passes the U.S. Senate, which, under current rules, requires 60 votes. There are currently 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans. So the likelihood of ``packing the Court'' is very unlikely in the near future unless some decision is made by the electorate that dramatically changes that. In the meantime, we are in a situation wherein we have a vacancy on the Court which we are trying to fill with a very competent person, and this notion of packing the Court being the No. 1 issue in deciding is beyond me. There is no sinister conspiracy that I am even aware of that suggests that this is an agenda item for the Democrats. Of course, we would like to see the Court be more sympathetic to our point of view, but there is no grand plan for this to happen. Incidentally, the Constitution of the United States--I usually keep a copy in my desk here--does not mandate the number of Supreme Court Justices. We have had various numbers over the years, and we arrived at the number of nine in 1869. I believe that was the year. So it has been a tradition on the Court since that time. The answer by Ketanji Brown Jackson--a Federal judge, a DC Circuit judge--was the obvious answer when asked about whether she wanted to pack the Court. She said: Senator, that is not my job. I would be a judge. You are a legislator, and you would have the power, if you wished, to change the composition of the Court. I, as a judge, don't have that authority. So to make that the No. 1 reason you can't support her nomination is less than compelling. The second thing he raised was one we heard over and over again. Judge Jackson, what is your philosophy? Tell us your philosophy when it comes to the Court. What is your judicial philosophy? We want to make sure we know. Well, there are different schools of thought when it comes to the Constitution. Antonin Scalia was a so-called originalist, and Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh is a textualist, I believe, and there may be many other schools of thought. The bottom line is, she has said: I have published 578 written opinions. If you want to know what I think about the law, here is my body of work--take a look at it--on almost every topic under the Sun. So, if you want to know how she rules and what she thinks, she can represent whatever she wishes, but her words already speak for themselves. She has been very open and has provided 12,000 pages from her time on the Sentencing Commission that also reflect her views on very important topics. There is also the old saw. We knew it was coming. The Republicans are testing their messages for the November election, and I will bet you have heard some of them. One of them is that Democrats are soft on crime. They said that about Judge Jackson, but they have got a problem. Judge Jackson has been endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and NOBLE, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, in addition to other law enforcement leaders. She has a history in her family of brothers and other members, uncles, who have been in law enforcement, risking their lives for the safety of their communities over and over. One of her uncles is the chief of police of Miami, FL. This woman is no stranger to law enforcement. It is part of her family; it is part of what she grew up in. To argue that she is ``soft on crime'' ignores the obvious. She has got it in her blood. She is going to be fair, I am sure, when she is on the Supreme Court, but she has no prejudice against police groups. It is part of her family history. There is also the question about giving light sentences. We spent more time on this than one can imagine. Three or four Republican Senators were dwelling on her sentencing in a handful of cases and wouldn't let go of it, day after day for 2 straight days. They refused to acknowledge--and the reality is--that her choice of sentencing guidelines was within the same limits and boundaries of 70 percent of current Federal judges; in some regions, 80 percent. She was not out of the mainstream; she was directly in the mainstream when it came to sentencing. You would think the opposite was true. When you look at these facts and realize that here is our opportunity to put the first African-American woman on the U.S. Supreme Court and that these are the best arguments they could come up with against her, it really troubles me. I sincerely hope--I really hope and not just because I want to make sure she is on the Court--that we will have bipartisan support for her nomination. If this turns out to be a strictly partisan vote with this historic opportunity, it will be sad, sad for our country and sad as a commentary on where the parties are today. I am hoping--I am still hoping--that several Republicans and, I hope, many more will step forward and support her nomination. I am disappointed in Senator McConnell's decision, but I am not surprised.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session and that the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works be discharged from further consideration of PN1696, Chris Saunders, of Vermont, to be Federal Cochairperson of the Northern Border Regional Commission, and that the Senate consider the following nominations en bloc: PN1696 and Calendar Nos. 793, 731, 462, 760, 788, 812, 813 and all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Coast Guard and Foreign Service; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I understand that there are two bills at the desk, and I ask for their first reading.

Mr. DURBIN. I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 557, submitted earlier today.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that the preamble be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3 p.m. on Monday, March 28; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; and that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of Calendar No. 282, H.R. 4521, the America COMPETES Act.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate proceed to executive session and vote on confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 685, the nomination of Anne Traum, under the previous order.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.