Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, I came to the floor to request unanimous consent for the Senate to take up and confirm six U.S. attorneys and two U.S. marshal nominations. These nominees are all highly qualified. They have critical law enforcement experience, and they want to serve this country at new levels. They were voted out of the Judiciary Committee, which I chair, by a voice vote. They have the support of their home State Senators. They have the support of other local law enforcement. They deserve to be confirmed. We need them--right now--without further delay. And the obvious question is, Why are they being held up? Why are these dedicated men and women not yet in office, ready to tackle violent crime--which we know is a problem across America? Why aren't they in office to prosecute fraud and terrorism? Why aren't they there to protect families and children across America? One reason--the junior Senator from Arkansas. You see, when I made my unanimous consent request--a request joined by the majority leader and Senators from all the affected States--one Senator objected. Only one Senator refused to allow these individuals' confirmation so that they could continue to serve this Nation and the cause of law enforcement. And that same Senator, the junior Senator from Arkansas, continues to engage in this mindless obstruction, jeopardizing the safety of communities outside of Arkansas for reasons which are still hard to understand. Why is the junior Senator blocking well-qualified individuals from law enforcement? What has he got against law enforcement at this moment in America's history? Well, it doesn't have anything to do with the nominees themselves or their qualifications. We have asked him over and over. He has no complaint about any single one of them. He happened to pick these people out as his political targets. He is concerned about a completely unrelated issue. Let me tell you what it is. In the summer of 2020, Federal law enforcement personnel were dispatched to Portland, OR, to help protect the Federal courthouse. A number of those Federal officers now face lawsuits relating to the events that happened there. The Department of Justice often represents Federal employees who were sued in their individual capacity. Under governing regulations, the Department of Justice goes through a process to determine that such representation would be ``in the interests of the United States.'' And in this matter, the Department of Justice has either represented or paid for the representation of more than 70 law enforcement officials who have been sued. The Department has declined to represent one individual--only one--and continues to review three additional requests for representation. The Senator from Arkansas says he wants to know why, but the Department of Justice has made it clear it can't comment on these four cases. Remember what you first learned when you were elected to the U.S. Senate and somebody came to you and said: I need for you to be my advocate. I need for you to be my champion. You said to them: I would like to do it, but first you have to sign a privacy waiver, a confidentiality waiver. I can't represent you or talk about you unless I have that waiver. The last time we came to the floor, I asked the junior Senator from Arkansas: Have these three who are being under review, for example, these Federal employees, given you a privacy waiver? Can you tell us what the circumstances are that slowed it down? No. So here he is, their champion and advocate, and they don't trust him with a privacy waiver or they would rather their circumstances not become public. They made that decision. It is pretty complicated in a way. The bottom line is, who is paying for this complication and the stalling tactic? Innocent people, six U.S. attorneys, two U.S. marshals--not in the State of Arkansas. The Department of Justice has made it clear it can't comment on these cases ``in light of significant confidentiality interests and applicable privileges.'' The Senator from Arkansas is hearing none of it. For example, DOJ's regulations make it clear that communications about an employee's request for representation are protected by an attorney-client privilege. The Senator from Arkansas wants us to ignore that. The Privacy Act prevents the Department of Justice from disclosing personal records related to employees without their consent. Unless things have changed in the last 2 weeks, the Senator who is advocating for these people has never received that. He has never received those consents. These privileges protect the privacy of the very law enforcement personnel whose interests the junior Senator from Arkansas claims to represent. The Senator claims to be speaking on behalf of his deputy marshals, but he is asking the Justice Department to violate legal privileges and attorney-client privileges that are designed to specifically protect them and other Federal employees. It is important to add that it is standard practice for any Member of Congress to obtain a Privacy Act waiver. We have done it thousands of times in our office--an act that gives a waiver for a constituent, authorizing the office to make inquiries on their behalf. Apparently, the Senator from Arkansas doesn't have that waiver or he would explain to us what the circumstances are. It seems that the people he wants to protect don't trust him with that information or don't want it to become public. The Senator is upset that the Justice Department is following the law and a process required by their own rules and regulations--a process that now affects four individuals. His response is to block the confirmation of every U.S. attorney and every U.S. marshal on the Senate calendar. How can you claim, as he does, to be tough on crime if you are blocking well-qualified law enforcement officials from serving because of a grievance that has nothing to do with them personally? The junior Senator from Arkansas should let these law enforcement officials do their job. Often we hear the complaint: Oh, they want to defund the police. You heard last night, President Biden said we need to fund the police and got a standing ovation from everybody. This is a new approach. Instead of funding the police, this one Senator is going to stop law enforcement from even doing their job. For example, yesterday, I chaired a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. We examined how the Federal Government can help prevent and respond to the surge in carjackings across America over the last 2 years. It was an important bipartisan hearing with witnesses from law enforcement, community groups, and the automobile industry testifying about solutions to a problem that is an urgent issue in many of our communities and testifying to the need for U.S. attorneys to enforce the law in their jurisdictions. The same junior Senator from Arkansas, who is leaving these U.S. attorneys spots vacant because he is unhappy with the way he is being treated by the Department of Justice, didn't attend the hearing. And he is blocking votes on Federal law enforcement nominees charged with helping to protect our communities from carjackings and other violent crimes. How can that be anything other than soft on law and order? Before I proceed to my unanimous consent, I want to note the overwhelming support these U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshal nominees have from law enforcement professionals in their States. We are receiving dozens of letters because of this outrageous hold by the Senator from Arkansas--letters that speak not just to the nominees' qualifications but the need to confirm them now. Consider the support for Chief LaDon Reynolds to be the U.S. marshal for the Northern District of Illinois. Senator Duckworth and I have received letters from the director of the Illinois State Police and police chiefs in towns and cities like Park Ridge, Hazel Crest, and Calumet Park. It is unanimous. Chief Reynolds is a man for the job, and he is waiting and waiting and waiting on the junior Senator from Arkansas. The Senate has also received letters of support for several of the other nominees who face this needless blockade. Aaron Ford, the attorney general of Nevada, has written in support for Jason Frierson to be that State's U.S. attorney. Both Senators from Nevada took the floor last time we brought this issue up and supported him. The chiefs of police of Rochester, Duluth, and Saint Paul, MN, have joined the Sheriff of Ramsey County, MN, urging the Senate to quickly confirm Andrew Luger as Minnesota's U.S. attorney and Eddie Frizell to be the State's U.S. marshal. Mark Totten, nominated to be U.S. attorney for the Western District of Michigan, has the support of county prosecutors and sheriffs throughout the State, as well as from Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and the Michigan Association of Police Organizations. And the Sheriff of DeKalb County, GA, urges the Senate to swiftly confirm Ryan Buchanan to be U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. These law enforcement officials want reinforcement. We have the professionals to take over these positions now; one Senator holds them up. They are just a few examples of the broad bipartisan support these nominees enjoy. These State and local law enforcement officials know how eminently qualified the nominees are, and they have told us as much. They know we can't and shouldn't waste another day supporting law enforcement. They know it is time for the Senate to act now. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 660, 661, 662, 663, 739, 740, 741, 742; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla), and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. Right and moral? Is it right and moral to deny law enforcement officials--the Senator is now leaving the floor. Is it right and moral to deny these law enforcement officials an opportunity to serve across the United States? I listened carefully, and I was waiting for him to spell out--the Senator from Arkansas who just walked off the floor--his objection as to the qualifications of these law enforcement officers. He has none. There are none. These men he calls political appointees, the same thing happened under the Trump administration. Over 85 of their U.S. attorneys were approved by voice vote, with no delay. One was held over for 1 week; that was it. And yet he has made a crusade of this to try to stop these individuals from serving in the States where they are desperately needed. The Senator from Arkansas is blocking the confirmation of these individuals and, at the same time, calling the Democrats soft on law and order. Go figure. Don't lecture me on law and order if you are coming to the floor to prevent qualified law enforcement professionals from helping the Justice Department combat violent crime. The reason I come to the floor and will continue to come to the floor is because we have a serious crime problem in my State and in the city of Chicago. I want to have the U.S. marshal there on the job doing everything he is supposed to do to help the local and State law enforcement bring down the violence and the death rate. The Senator from Arkansas just doesn't seem to understand basic law. The Department of Justice has an attorney-client privilege with these individuals as they review their cases. He has been unable to get a waiver so that he can even tell us publicly what the complaint might be by the Department of Justice from the viewpoint of those Federal officials. He can't do it. It is good enough for him, if they are under review, to stop all other U.S. attorneys and marshals across the United States. Is this what America wants to see in Washington, this kind of obstruction? I think not. It doesn't take political courage to harm an innocent person. And what the Senator from Arkansas has done is to harm individuals who simply want to serve America and make it safer. My Republican colleagues frequently claim to be the party of law and order; but in this matter, they are the ones playing politics on law enforcement. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this evening, the Ukrainian Ambassador, Oksana Markarova, will be the honored guest of President Biden in the State of the Union Address. Yesterday, we hosted the Ambassador for a meeting with almost 25 Senate colleagues. It was a meeting I won't soon forget. Her country, Ukraine, is facing a barbaric, unprovoked military assault from Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. The images and the stories are heartbreaking and infuriating--more than 600,000 Ukrainians fleeing to neighboring countries; brutal destruction, leaving people without homes or power during the winter; and Russian shelling of residential neighborhoods. We are witnessing innocent lives callously taken and uprooted. This is a photo from yesterday's Washington Post. It shows a paramedic in Ukraine desperately trying to save this man's young daughter. She had been a victim of Vladimir Putin's shelling in her country of Ukraine. She did not survive. Why is Putin doing this? Because his own petty grievances and warped nostalgia for the dark days of the Soviet Union have taken control. In his twisted mind, an entire innocent nation of 44 million Ukrainians must be attacked and occupied at any cost. There is another reason he is trying to end Ukraine as we know it. He cannot bear to have a free and independent nation on his border because it shows to the people living in Russia the stark contrast of democracy versus despotic rule. This morning, the Human Rights Council in Geneva met. When Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov began his speech, 100 diplomats all rose and walked out in protest of Russia's war on Ukraine. All of NATO and nearly the entire world are united in outrage at Russia's aggression. Mr. Putin should think about the infamy of his legacy. For years, he has poisoned and suppressed his own people. Now he is trying to destroy an entire nation, killing this little girl and who knows how many other innocent people. Mr. Putin will not win this war. And every day, every hour that Russia continues its assault on Ukraine, he is harming his own people and ensuring that he leaves a legacy of shame. What is also remarkable about the meeting yesterday with Ambassador Markarova was the determination and courage she and her fellow Ukrainians are showing against Putin. She explained to us that Ukrainians are peaceful people, but they will fight. They will participate in the negotiations, but they won't surrender. And they will fight until the Russians leave. Quite simply, the Ukrainians might be outmatched by the Russian military, but they will not be defeated by it. Here is one of the many acts of courage and defiance in recent days. In Odessa's historic Brodsky Synagogue, performers sang a moving 19th century version of the ancient Jewish hymn ``Adon Olam''--now a prayer for an end to the invasion. And the world is on Ukraine's side--with rallies of support in all corners of the globe, Japan, Sweden, Finland, Chicago, even in cities across Russia. Countries like ours are providing urgently needed weapons to help Ukraine defend itself against Russian aggression. Poland and other Ukrainian neighbors are helping with hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing in panic and disbelief. Think of it. While we have political factions in the United States who are determined not to let any refugees into our country, Poland and other countries--Moldova, Romania, for example--are opening their doors and accepting the Ukrainian refugees to give them some safety and security. We must continue and increase all of the help that we can send-- military and humanitarian. Let us be crystal clear: Putin will not win this. In the end, the Ukrainian people will prevail. And Putin's legacy and history will be written in the blood of the children and innocents his invasion of Ukraine has spilled. Nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson Mr. President, yesterday, I spoke briefly about President Biden's announcement on Friday of his nomination to the Supreme Court of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Today, I would like to offer some additional thoughts on this nominee. For those who are less than familiar with Judge Jackson, let me tell you a bit about her. Born in Washington, DC, her mom and dad were public school teachers. When she was 3 years old, Judge Jackson and her family moved to Miami, FL, so her father could attend law school. Judge Jackson's father later served as the top attorney for the Dade County School Board, and her mother spent 14 years as a high school principal in Miami. In Judge Jackson's family, education and service were honored. Two of Judge Jackson's uncles were police officers. One became police chief in Miami. Her younger brother also became a police officer and a detective in Baltimore, MD, before going on to serve in the U.S. Army where he was deployed to Iraq. From a young age, Judge Jackson has been recognized as brilliant and thoughtful. In high school, she was the class president and the star of the debate team. It was during a national high school debate championship at Harvard that she fell in love with the university. She would go on to graduate from Harvard College and Harvard Law School. She then embarked on an amazing and storied career. She practiced law, civil and criminal, at several leading law firms and clerked at all three levels of the Federal judiciary, including--and with some irony--for Justice Stephen Breyer, the Justice she hopes to replace. She has also worked as a Federal public defender, served on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, spent 8 years as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. She currently serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which is often considered to be the second most prestigious court in our Nation. She was confirmed to that position just last year through our Senate Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan basis. As I noted yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee has examined her record three times for three different positions and confirmed her on a bipartisan basis for all three positions. She has performed each of these public service roles with distinction. In the coming weeks, the Senate Judiciary Committee will undertake another comprehensive review of her record, her qualifications, and her approach to judicial decision making. As chair of the committee, I am determined to see that this review is careful, fair, and professional. I have great respect for her record, and I will be saying more in the coming days and weeks. For today, I want to focus on three important points: the President's selection process, the historic significance of this nomination, and how Judge Jackson will build upon the honorable legacy of Justice Breyer. President Joe Biden is a leader who respects the Senate. When Justice Breyer announced a month ago that he intended to retire, President Biden pledged ``to fulfill my duty to select a justice not only with the Senate's consent, but with its advice.'' The President kept that promise; and for that, he should be commended. The process for nominating Justice Breyer's successor has been rigorous and bipartisan. It has included the Senate every step of the way. Just days after Justice Breyer's announcement, the President hosted Senator Grassley--the ranking Republican on this committee--and myself in the Oval Office to discuss the nomination. Repeatedly, he said to Senator Grassley and to me, ``If you have someone you think I should consider, please let me know.'' And he was sincere. Over the next several weeks, President Biden sought the advice of many Senators--not just the two of us--including all the members, Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, then he made this decision to nominate Judge Jackson. Every Supreme Court nomination is critically important, but this one has special historic significance. In the United States history, our Supreme Court has had 115 Justices; 108 of those Justices have had one thing in common. They were all White men. Five of those who served on the Court as Justices were women. Only three have been people of color, out of 115. With Judge Jackson's nomination, we have already seen history in the making. If confirmed, she will be the first Black woman ever to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. With this nomination, Judge Jackson and we have the opportunity to bend the arc of history toward justice. In accepting President Biden's nomination last week, she said one of her heroes, another brilliant, trailblazing Black woman, was named Constance Baker Motley. Judge Motley was a champion of civil rights and women's rights, a key attorney on Thurgood Marshall's side when the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund argued Brown v. Board of Education and other cases which finally ended legal segregation in America. Judge Motley was the first Black woman to ever argue before the Supreme Court. She went on to be the first Black woman appointed to the Federal judiciary, serving as a U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York. Judge Motley didn't know it, but on her 48th birthday, a little baby girl was born in Washington, DC. She would grow up to be one of the finest legal minds of her generation, and she would be the first Black woman to be nominated to serve on the Supreme Court. Upon accepting that nomination last week, Judge Jackson said: ``Today, I proudly stand on Judge Motley's shoulders, sharing not only her birthday, but also her steadfast and courageous commitment to equal justice under law.'' And then she added: ``If I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, I can only hope that my life and career, my love of this country and the Constitution, and my commitment to upholding the rule of law and the sacred principles upon which this great nation was founded will inspire future generations.'' I want to conclude my remarks by acknowledging the extraordinary legacy of Justice Stephen Breyer. It is a legacy upon which I believe Justice Jackson will build if she is confirmed. In his time on the Court, Justice Breyer has been defined by his rigorous intellect, his thoughtful, pragmatic approach to judicial decision making, his collegiality and consensus building, and his devotion to the core principles on which America is founded--freedom, liberty, and equality. By all these measures and more, Judge Jackson is a natural successor to the Justice she once clerked for. She has proven her intellectual mettle--from the debate team in high school in Miami, to Harvard Law where she served as supervising editor of the Harvard Law Review, to clerkships on the District of Massachusetts, the First Circuit, and the Supreme Court, and to an extraordinary record of excellence on the Federal bench. It goes without saying that if you are going to be the first of anything in America, you have got to be the best. You have got to bring remarkable achievements to your aspiration to make history. Judge Jackson does that. She is a jurist who understands the importance of pragmatism and real-world experience. She will draw on her broad range of experience on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, as a Federal public defender, as a litigator in civil lawsuits in private practice. Judge Jackson has also demonstrated the premium she places on collegiality and consensus- building, especially with those who may not share her views. That may be unusual, but it sure is important in these days. Judge Thomas Griffith, a conservative jurist appointed to the DC Circuit by President George W. Bush, wrote in support of Judge Jackson's nomination to the DC Circuit, and he has written again in support of her nomination to the Supreme Court. Judge Griffith wrote: ``Judge Jackson and I occasionally differed on the best outcome of a given case . . . . However, I have always respected her careful approach, extraordinary judicial understanding, and collegial manner, three indispensable traits for success on the Supreme Court. He added: ``Judge Jackson has a demonstrated record of excellence, and I believe, based on her work as a trial judge when I served on the Court of Appeals, she'll adjudicate based on the facts and the law and not as a partisan.'' Finally, like Justice Breyer, Judge Jackson has shown her dedication to the Nation's founding principles, on and off the bench. She has a deep faith in the power and promise of our Constitution and an unwavering belief that we must protect and preserve those ideals that set our Nation apart from so many others. Last Friday, when President Biden nominated Judge Jackson, the Senate Judiciary Committee, we sent the traditional questionnaire that is sent to nominees and candidates. It was returned to us last night promptly. It was lengthy and comprehensive. We have seen much of it before, earlier last year when Judge Jackson was aspiring to be on the DC Circuit. And it is a great starting point for any Senator or any member of the staff who wants to understand Judge Jackson. She has published over 500--in fact, 573--written opinions. Her background and thoughts on important issues will be no mystery or surprise for those who want to take the time to look at those cases. It has been less than a year since she was approved here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, but we are starting this process anew with her visitations with Senator McConnell, Senator Schumer tomorrow, as well as myself and Senator Grassley. Senators who wish to meet with her personally and talk about her positions on any issues or other relevant topics are welcome to do so. Senator Grassley this morning in the Judiciary Committee encouraged his colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle to take advantage of the opportunity if they wish. We want to make sure that this is an orderly, respectful, collegial, and professional process. My dearest hope is at the end of the day, she will receive bipartisan support for this nomination. It would be a great day for the Senate, as well as for the Supreme Court if that happened. But she needs to earn it. And to do it, she will be making the rounds in the Senate with individual Members making her case and then appearing before our committee at a later date, which we will announce this week. I want to thank my colleagues for taking this as seriously as they should. It is rare in our Senate career that we are allowed to bring up the issue of advise and consent to the highest Court in the land--a lifetime appointment, a critically important appointment for the history of the United States and the history of that great Court. I want to make sure that on the Senate Judiciary Committee, we are respectful and bipartisan in every aspect of that effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

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

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 text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to begin my remarks by joining Senator McConnell in expressing my condolences to our friend and colleague Senator Dianne Feinstein on the passing of her husband and partner Richard Blum. Dick Blum was a trailblazer in the Senate family, one of the first men to join the Senate Spouses club. He was proud of Senator Feinstein's historic career in public service. He was a success at business and invested his wealth in easing human suffering--from the streets of San Francisco to some of the poorest corners of the globe. He founded the American Himalayan Foundation to assist the people of the Himalayas. He also founded the Blum Center for Developing Economies at UC Berkeley to help teach students about microlending, social enterprise, and other ways for poor people in developing nations to lift themselves from poverty. A story in today's Los Angeles Times contained an anecdote that captured well Dick's good humor and generous spirit. He said that in all the conversations he had over the years with Buddhist friends in the Himalayas, no one had ever convinced him of the likelihood of reincarnation. Maybe that is why he worked so hard to achieve so much good in this one lifetime he was given. He did more to ease human suffering than others might do in a dozen lifetime opportunities. To Senator Dianne Feinstein, their beloved daughters and grandchildren, and all who knew and loved him, Loretta and I offer our condolences. Dick Blum's friendship was a gift, and his memory will be a blessing. Nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson Madam President, on another note, there was a historic announcement last Friday when President Joe Biden announced Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as his choice to serve as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. I am going to speak about her nomination at length tomorrow, but a few words now. She is an extraordinary person. To become the first African-American woman nominated to serve on the Supreme Court, you have to be the best--and she has proven throughout her life that she is. She was a clerk to the retiring Justice Stephen Breyer, whose seat she now aspires to. She worked in the practice of law in so many different aspects and then on three different occasions came before this U.S. Senate for approval, advise and consent. On all three occasions, she emerged with bipartisan support, and we certainly hope to see that revisited again. She has authored some 500 different opinions, so there will be no mystery about her jurisprudence or her judicial philosophy. She has also been a person who has come before our committee as recently as last year when she was approved by the committee in June to serve on the DC Circuit Court. I think she is an exceptional choice, and I want to make sure that the hearing that is given to her is respectful, fair, and professional. I have reached out to Senator Grassley, my friend and the ranking member on the committee, to work toward that goal, and I hope all members of the committee will join us. Ukraine Madam President, on a separate topic, I just returned from the Munich Security Conference and a visit to our NATO allies in Poland and Lithuania. On the latter part of that trip, I was joined by Senator Chris Coons of Delaware and Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire. Many here in this Chamber have heard me talk about my connection with my mother's birth in Lithuania and the fact that I have cared about that country in a special way ever since I have served in Congress. Life was bleak and oppressive for the Lithuanian people and all the others in Eastern Europe living under the boot heel of the Russian czar. Countries such as Poland, which saw such devastation during World War II, found themselves suffering decades of communist dictatorship following the war. So it was no surprise that when the Soviet Union finally collapsed, these nations were determined to join the community of democracies and NATO. In fact, the Baltic States of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia helped lead this historic path to freedom. I remember so many aspects of it. In the shivering cold winter of 1991, millions of people joined hands to form a human chain, connecting all three nations in the Baltic area. They called for change. Then in January 1991, the Soviets sent their tanks into Lithuania and Latvia and other places. The net result was deadly. Those Soviet tanks killed 13 innocent people, and hundreds were injured in Lithuania. What were they asking for? Freedom. A chance to vote for their own future. Well, soon, the Baltic States stepped out even further and courageously declared independence from the Soviet Union. They wanted to reclaim their freedom. I remember visiting Lithuania in those days, seeing sandbags stacked up outside the Parliament, which they called the Seimas, and schoolkids who were taking a break from class to come pray the Rosary in front of those barricades, light a couple candles--basically to be there for their country at that moment of testing. If this sounds familiar with what we are hearing in Ukraine today, it is. Those earlier days of independence had many brave souls coming forward with nothing but determination. Their small ``arsenal of freedom,'' as they called it, which they brought me in the backdoor to show me, consisted of a broom closet with about 8 or 10 rifles in it. They were ready to stare down the Soviets if necessary. I was so honored on this trip recently to visit with one of the champions of the restoration of freedom and Lithuania's Vytautas Landsbergis. Dr. Landsbergis is a music professor and was a leader of their revolution back to freedom in Lithuania. At 95 years of age, he remains a fierce champion of democracy, as he was in those early days confronting the Soviets. I also met with former Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus, who left Lithuania for Chicago as a teenager and returned decades later to serve two terms as President and shepherd his nation, Lithuania, into the European Union and NATO. I visited military bases in both Poland and Lithuania, where I met U.S. troops supporting the NATO mission to protect the young democracies from Russian aggression. Among the servicemembers were several from my State of Illinois--from Latham, IL, which is near Decatur; Montgomery, IL, near Aurora; and Kankakee. They came and told stories of their service in the Regular Army and how they were now working in Lithuania to prepare their armies for any possible battles in the future. It has been a wonderful, strong relationship. In Poland, when you mention you are from Illinois, virtually every military officer says they have been our friends for a long time, and they have been because for over 20 years, the Illinois National Guard has been a direct contact with the Polish military forces, modernizing them and preparing them for any challenges that might come. Eastern European allies know the Russian threat far better than we do. Look at these maps of Russian troop movements in and around Ukraine and the borders of our NATO allies. As you can see here, Russia, Kyiv, Kharkiv, Mariupol, they are in the news virtually on a constant basis. You can see those troop movements, hundreds of thousands of troops that are moving from the Russian front into Ukraine these days. With the Russian troops now flooding into Belarus in the area of the far corner here, they are essentially taking over that country too. Nations on the other side--Poland you can see on that map--Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia understand that the threat today is very real for them. They share a 60-mile border that connects the Russian territory of Kaliningrad with Belarus. And the Suwalki gap is one that they are very concerned about keeping peaceful. It is a real threat, and they worry that the Russians are going to take this opportunity in Ukraine to extend their forces into Poland and into Lithuania and into Latvia. Poland in particular is already generously hosting hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees pouring across the border. It is an inspiration to me to see this country of Poland reach out to accept these Ukrainian refugees. The United States has to step into this picture with humanitarian assistance for Poland and all the other countries, Moldova, Romania, and others taking in Ukrainian refugees. We have to help them feed, clothe, and shelter these people during this period of invasion by the Russians. Russia is unleashing a brutal war of choice against a free nation that wants to choose its own path, the path of democracy, and the result is sickening. This shows what is going on in the subways in Ukrainian cities. People are bringing their children to escape the bombing that Putin is initiating above. We have many millions of people in that country in peril, and some are taking their kids and trying to escape to a safe place like Poland. There has been terrible destruction that has gone on there as well. We have seen it on television right in the--this lady was in front of her own home at the time a rocket attacked it on February 25. This is a picture which I saw in this morning's Washington Post. It is a most touching scene. You can barely see this father down here, covered in blood, bringing his daughter to this paramedic. The paramedic really tried to perform CPR on this little girl who was injured in the shelling by Putin and his troops. Unfortunately, she did not survive. That is the reality of what Vladimir Putin is doing today. The American people know it, and the strength and courage of the people in Ukraine resisting these advances is an example to the world. We are seeing demonstrations of support across all of the world, the people of Ukraine. The Eiffel Tower, Empire State Building--I have to move some of these charts around. This one was especially impressive, the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. Look at the crowds supporting the people of Ukraine. It isn't lost on us because we have a wonderful Ukrainian community in Chicago. Here they are at the church on Chicago Avenue just this last weekend, and they have been coming back on a regular basis. I was there on Friday. I spoke to many of these same people about the situation which they are facing in Ukraine. They would come up to me afterwards and say they have been on the telephone with members of their family who are frightened for their lives, didn't know if they could survive this aggression by Vladimir Putin. When you think about what he has done, sadly, he has failed on so many fronts. How could he get so many things so wrong? He has unified NATO and support for NATO in a way which was unimaginable just a few years ago. NATO stands unified now in defense of Ukraine and in confronting the aggression of Vladimir Putin. He has also unified the European Union. Countries like Sweden and Switzerland, which famously have been neutral in most of these conflicts, are now openly supporting the European Union's efforts to put pressure on Vladimir Putin--sanctions that will stop him from this aggression in Ukraine. He has certainly, in the process, destroyed the reputation of his country as a reliable partner in the future. The Germans had entered into an agreement for a gas pipeline. Many of us questioned it from the start, but that was their decision--Nord Stream 2, drawing natural gas from Russia into Germany. Well, that pipeline is closed down now. Chancellor Scholz has announced he is looking for other services, such as LNG, to replace the gas resources which were supposed to be sent in from Russia for a long time to come. It is going to lead to our energy independence in Europe--independence certainly from the unpredictable and unimaginable Vladimir Putin. I remember not so many years ago--30 years, as a matter of fact--when countries like the Baltics and Poland were finally given an opportunity for freedom. There were extraordinary examples of courage in each of those countries. I was lucky to be there to witness some of it. But what we are seeing now today in Ukraine is exceptional. The military experts thought they would last a matter of hours. Now, it is days, and maybe it is weeks. I hope it is months and even longer because they have the courage to stand up. Ordinary citizens who are showing up at recruiting offices for homeland defense are being given Kalashnikovs and other weapons sent out to stop the Russians. You can see that they are inspiring the world, as they should. It is a reminder to all of us that Vladimir Putin and his brand of aggression has been seen so many times in history. Someone like him or Lukashenka in Belarus think they are so powerful that they are above accountability, but that is not the case. We have got to make certain, as we go forward, that we stand with the people of Ukraine; that they know we are their friends; that we aspire to the same values. And I want to thank President Biden for his leadership. I am going to be calling on him with many others. The first thing that I am going to do is send a letter, which will be headed out this evening, signed by colleagues on both sides of the aisle. What we are asking the President to do--and it is within his authority--is to grant temporary protected status to Ukrainians now on visas in the United States. Some of them are tourists; some of them are students; and some are on work visas, but oftentimes, those visas expire, and they are supposed to return home to their own countries at the moment of expiration. If there are circumstances in those home countries, the President has the authority to give temporary protected status to allow them to stay in the United States. The Senators who are joining me in this letter will ask President Biden to extend temporary protected status to the people of Ukraine who are on visas in the United States and are present in our country. That, to me, is a way to give him them some peace of mind. We certainly wouldn't want them to return to that war scene that we have seen over and over broadcast on television. And there is more to do, whether it is humanitarian assistance in countries like Poland or where it is lethal aid to help the insurgents in Ukraine defend their country, the United States needs to be there.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, 49 years ago, the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Roe v. Wade. By an overwhelming, 7-2 vote, the Justices declared that a woman's choice to have an abortion is a constitutionally protected right. For nearly five decades, the Supreme Court's holding in Roe v. Wade has ensured that millions of Americans can access their essential, reproductive healthcare rights. But today, Roe v. Wade is hanging by a thin thread. A majority of the current conservative Court appears poised to overturn Roe at the first opportunity. It is up to Congress to safeguard the protections guaranteed under Roe v. Wade by passing the Women's Health Protection Act, also known as WHPA. For decades, abortion opponents have waged a relentless assault on women's right to choose. And for decades, the Supreme Court--even with conservative majorities--has protected the core principles of Roe. But the tides are turning rapidly. In December, the Justices heard oral arguments in the case of a Mississippi law banning nearly all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Because the Mississippi law is clearly unconstitutional under Roe and its progeny, it was blocked by lower courts. But this Supreme Court, with its far-right majority, granted review anyway. And in their questioning, several conservative Justices seemed ready to overturn Roe. This threat to women's health and freedom is unprecedented. In the words of U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of the Federal Government: ``The Court has never revoked a right that is so fundamental to so many Americans and so central to their ability to participate fully and equally in society.'' Even without the threat from the Supreme Court, the right of women to control their reproductive health and lives is under attack. Last year, lawmakers in 47 States introduced more than 560 laws imposing new restrictions on reproductive rights. In the face of this unprecedented assault on reproductive rights, Congress must step up and pass WHPA. WHPA would protect the right to access reproductive healthcare, free from medically unnecessary restrictions, no matter where you live. I commend Senator Blumenthal--the lead sponsor--and all of my colleagues who support this important and necessary measure, and I hope we will have bipartisan support in passing it. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to 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. Madam President, most people would be stumped by the question I am about to ask, and that is, when it comes to the commission of crime, what is the largest criminal investigation in the history of the United States? The answer is January 6, 2021. Over 725 individuals have been charged with a Federal crime as a result of that insurrectionist mob that descended on the Capitol. The reason I raise that is that we are going through regular-- sometimes daily, sometimes weekly--lectures from Republicans about who is soft on crime, who is really on the side of the American people when it comes to defending their homes and their families. I listen to this debate on a regular basis as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Every single nominee who comes from the Biden White House is subject to being challenged as to whether they are going to defund the police or whether they are soft on crime. Yet I have to say that it is hard to explain that these same Republicans asking these pointed questions to nominees are nowhere to be found when it comes to discussing January 6, 2021. In fact, many of them were cheerleaders and apologists for the very demonstrators who came into this United States Capitol. To think that a national political party like the Republican Party of the United States of America branded this insurrectionist mob and their attack on the Capitol as ``legitimate political discourse''--that was the official statement, the unanimous statement of the Republican Party. Now, a few Republican Senators have dissented. Thank you. But why haven't more? Why won't they step up and say a crime is a crime? If over 700 people descended on this Capitol and are being charged with a crime, they should have to pay the price, whatever it happens to be, because this just wasn't some idle political exercise. At the end of the day, we had 6 people dead as a result of that insurrectionist mob, including law enforcement officers, and 140 law enforcement officers attacked during the course of that day. We all saw the videos. There are plenty of them. Imagine, if you will, the so-called innocent, legitimate political discourse travelers to Washington just happened to bring bear spray with them so they could spray police in the face with a poisonous compound that could, in fact, harm them and did. Does that sound like a group of political tourists to you? It doesn't to me. These are violent individuals who are being called to task for having assaulted this Capitol, broken down the windows and the doors, came in here aping along these desks in the Chamber, forcing the Vice President of the United States and Senators who were there that day--and I was one of them--to exit by the backdoor for their lives. And here we have this ``We are not soft on crime'' message from Republicans who are making excuses, not to mention the former President, Donald Trump, who said that given the opportunity, he would pardon these demonstrators. It is no surprise in light of what he has done in the past. But being lectured to regularly by the Republicans about who respects law enforcement and who is soft on crime--most of them cannot answer the basic question of what they would do when it comes to the January 6 demonstrators, and the answer they give is totally insufficient. Madam President, you know personally, because you were here on the floor yesterday, that isn't all of it. I listen to all this talk about prosecutors doing their job, and I can't help but think what we went through yesterday on the floor of the U.S. Senate when the junior Senator from Arkansas, a Republican Senator, stood here and vainly tried to defend what he is doing. Do you know what he is doing? You do personally. He is stopping the appointment of U.S. attorneys, Federal prosecutors, in State after State, and he is stopping the appointment of U.S. marshals who keep those courtrooms safe and the judges safe and transport prisoners and seek out fugitives. He is personally stopping them from being appointed in the ordinary course of business in the U.S. Senate. You have to ask yourself why. There must be a problem with their qualifications. No. There is not a single question being asked about the qualifications of these individuals. Mr. Frierson in the State of Nevada, a person whom you and Senator Cortez Masto described on the floor yesterday who would be the U.S. attorney there, clearly is well qualified for that position. The same is true in Illinois. Our choice, Senator Duckworth's and my choice for the U.S. marshal to serve in the Northern District of Illinois, is an individual with 30 years--30 years--of law enforcement experience, a chief of police in one of the larger suburbs in the city of Chicago. Do we need the U.S. Marshal's Office to be reinvigorated and dedicated to its purpose? Of course we do. It wasn't that many years ago when the family of one of our highly respected Federal judges was literally murdered in their home by a deranged individual who didn't care for the way he was treated by that judge. It is a very real question of personal safety. Yet one Republican Senator from Arkansas is stopping the appointments of these U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals to execute the laws of the land. Don't tell me you respect law enforcement, and don't tell me you want to fight crime and then turn around and tie the hands of the Department of Justice, keeping U.S. attorneys off the job and U.S. marshals away from their responsibilities. That is the reality. If we are going to get serious about fighting crime--and I believe we should--it is all hands on deck. Every Federal law enforcement official should be doing their part. They cannot do their part when the junior Senator from Arkansas stops us from even approving their appointments to these positions. These appointments remain vacant, and we pay a price for it. When we receive lectures from the minority leader or from others on the floor about respect for law and law enforcement, I would say he ought to start with his own caucus. He ought to call in the junior Senator from Arkansas and say: Enough. You are stepping on our message. We are trying to show that we are for law and order, and you are stopping the appointment of U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals who are dedicated to that purpose and risk their lives to do so. That is not consistent with good law enforcement or sound law and order as far as I am concerned. (Mr. BOOKER assumed the Chair.) Let me conclude by saying that the nominees who come before the Senate for these judicial positions are a wide variety of individuals with amazing backgrounds--incredible backgrounds--and who are consistently rated unanimously ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. It is true that some of them used to sit at the other table in the criminal courtrooms, not at the prosecutor's table, but there is nothing wrong with some balance on the court, making sure that we have all points of view considered and certainly, above all, the law considered. We hear, from time to time, compelling anecdotes, such as the one given by the minority leader related to Louisville, KY. I am not familiar with the details. But if we are serious about making America safer, we need to pull together on a bipartisan basis. We need to approve President Biden's budget, which provides more resources for law enforcement but also more resources for violence intervention. The Presiding Officer knows personally, as mayor of a large city in New Jersey, that we can't arrest our way out of the crime problem in America. Certainly, we should pursue law enforcement measures and responses when necessary and apply the law without question, but it takes more than that. If we are going to reach into the communities around America and try to stop this violence before it occurs, then we have to look at other approaches. I am happy to report that last week we announced the introduction of the Violence Against Women Act. This is a measure which, for 3 years, we have been trying to find common ground. We did it. We finally did it. I want to salute Senator Feinstein as the lead Democratic sponsor. I was happy to join her. I also want to salute Senators Lisa Murkowski and Joni Ernst, from Alaska and Iowa, respectively. They have done such extraordinary work in putting together a bill. You say to yourself: How does this fit in with violence against women, the question of crime in America? Well, I can tell you--the Presiding Officer knows this personally, and it is worth repeating--that I went to the juvenile facility in Cook County years ago and said: Who are these teenagers who came to the Earth in the usual way and then turned to gangs and guns and killing wantonly? What happened to these kids along the way? Well, there are plenty of reasons and issues related to mental health, but one of the things that was compelling was the observation that over 90 percent of them had been victims of trauma. Trauma comes in many forms, not just physical trauma but to witness trauma on another person or to be a victim yourself, to have a home where there is no support, no encouragement, and no values being taught. Those kids are the ones who end up, many times, in these predicaments. What can we do about it? Well, we can probably arrest them after the crime has been committed, but that really doesn't solve the problem. We have got to do what we can to intervene in their lives at a stage when they can be saved. I don't believe that everyone can be saved, but I do fundamentally believe in redemption and in our responsibility to engage in it. That is why this Violence Against Women Act is so important. If we can reach into a home where physical or mental abuse has taken place of a spouse or the children and give that person, first, a caring heart-- someone who will listen and hear them out--and then advise them on what to do to keep themselves safe and keep their kids safe and what to do in relation to law enforcement, that is a positive move toward taking violence out of that family and out of America. So I hope that when we talk about this whole issue of a safer America, which we all aspire to, we do it in a balanced way; that we talk about effective prosecution by members of law enforcement who are playing by the rules and that we also realize it takes more than that. We need an investment in the communities to make a difference. President Biden knows that. He included it in this year's budget and will again in next year's budget. We ought to be standing up and supporting that as well. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Rosen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) and the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Rosen) are necessarily absent.

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. Madam President, in the interest of allowing the Senators who are wishing to speak an appropriate amount of time and within the confines of our upcoming vote, I ask unanimous consent that there be 40 minutes, equally divided, between the majority and minority; that the majority side be recognized in the order of Senators Rosen, Cortez Masto, Duckworth, and Brown.

Mr. DURBIN. The FIRST STEP Act--the Democrats did the FIRST STEP Act, the Republicans were in the majority. It was a bill sponsored by Senators Grassley, Durbin, Lee, and many others. Who signed it into law? Donald Trump signed it into law, this so-called Democratic measure.

Mr. DURBIN. I yield back.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.