Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senate will vote to confirm Robin Michelle Meriweather to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Born in Detroit, MI, Judge Meriweather received her undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan and her law degree from Yale Law School. Following her graduation from law school, she clerked for Judge Merrick B. Garland on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit between 1998 and 1999. After her clerkship, she joined the law firm of Jenner and Block, LLP, as a litigation associate. There, Judge Meriweather's practice involved complex civil litigation, as well as matters concerning constitutional, statutory, and regulatory claims. In 2007, she joined the civil division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia as an assistant U.S. attorney. Judge Meriweather became deputy chief of that division in 2011 and served in that capacity until 2017. Since January 2017, she has served as a U.S. magistrate judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Throughout her time on the bench, Judge Meriweather has issued more than 1,000 orders and presided over three trials. Judge Meriweather's experience as a magistrate judge coupled with her experience in public and private practice have prepared her to serve honorably on the United States Court of Federal Claims. I am proud to support her nomination and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. DURBIN

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in a few minutes, the Senate is going to vote on the confirmation of Judge Nancy Maldonado to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which the Acting President pro tempore and I know very well. Since the beginning of the Biden administration, the Senate has confirmed 201 highly qualified, independent, evenhanded judges to the Federal bench. They represent the best of our legal system-- demographically and professionally diverse; they respect the rule of law; they adhere to precedent; and they answer only to the Constitution. We should add another to that list today--Judge Maldonado, an accomplished litigator and distinguished jurist, who will be a great asset to the Seventh Circuit. She graduated from Harvard College and Columbia Law School. She clerked for U.S. District Judge Ruben Castillo--a retired judge, my friend, and an esteemed jurist in the Northern District. Following her clerkship, Judge Maldonado spent nearly 20 years at a firm specializing in employment, civil rights, and fraud matters. Throughout her career, she tried several cases to verdict, judgment, or final decision. In addition, she was appointed by the Cook County State's Attorney's Office to serve as a special assistant, tasked with investigating fraud. From 2019 to 2022, she was appointed by the Illinois attorney general to serve as a consent decree monitor in two matters and as a special assistant AG to investigate consumer fraud. You can draw the conclusion from these appointments that she is trusted by her colleagues to be professional. In 2022, the Senate confirmed Judge Maldonado on a bipartisan vote-- supported by the Acting President pro tempore and myself--to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Since her confirmation, she has presided over almost 1,000 cases--that is in a matter of just 2 years--plus has ruled on thousands of motions and has issued approximately 300 substantive decisions. Notably, Judge Maldonado has never been reversed by a reviewing court in that period of time--nearly 1,000 cases. Despite what her critics have to say, her record is one of the best. It shows she carefully resolves cases in a way that ensures that litigants feel they have been treated fairly. Once confirmed, Judge Maldonado will be the first Hispanic judge to ever serve on the Seventh Circuit. History will be made. Judge Maldonado has my strong support and the support of my other home State Senator and good friend, the Acting President pro tempore, Senator Tammy Duckworth. Judge Maldonado, incidentally, received a unanimous--unanimous-- ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association based on her integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament. She has broad support across the legal community, from law enforcement to labor unions representing millions of members. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in confirming this highly qualified nominee.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article that appeared in the Chicago Tribune a year ago on May 3, 2023, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I am a liberal arts lawyer. I am not a doctor, and I am not a researcher. So when I get into these fields, I want to say the words I use very carefully, not to misstate what is clearly the case. But this was an amazing article, which is entitled ``Device uses microbubbles to open blood-brain barrier to treat glioblastoma in humans.'' It is the story of Northwestern Medicine scientist Adam Sonabend: [R]eport results of the first in-human clinical trial using a skull-implantable ultrasound device to open the blood-brain barrier and repeatedly permeate large, critical regions of the human brain. To try to translate this into simple words, the blood-brain barrier is something I don't understand. When we take two beers and drink them, we can feel it, so the alcohol has permeated the blood-brain barrier. But in the ordinary course of events, it is, in fact, a barrier for chemicals to enter the brain. Dr. Sonabend is finding a way to get beyond that barrier, and it is for the treatment of what is known as glioblastoma, brain cancer. We know that very well on a personal basis here in the U.S. Senate. We have lost John McCain to glioblastoma; Ted Kennedy to glioblastoma; one of our Democratic cloakroom staffers, Tim Mitchell, to glioblastoma; and Hunter Biden's brother, Beau Biden, died from glioblastoma. Why? I am going to try to say this in simple words, and I hope I don't misstate it. Because when we discover the tumor, the first reaction is surgery to remove the tumor. And so you will see, with each of the people I have just mentioned, that experience take place. The tumor is removed, but unfortunately the chemotherapy that is common to stop cancerous tumors from emerging in the same area can't be used because of the blood-brain barrier. This barrier stops the application of the medicine. So the researchers are finding a way to get beyond that barrier to bring chemotherapy to the brain of those suffering from glioblastoma. We lost the individuals that I mentioned earlier because the followup was so difficult because of this barrier. Now, that is as far as I can go in layman's terms explaining the situation, but the reason I raise that issue is because it is timely.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair execute the order of June 4, 2024, with respect to the Sullivan nomination and that the confirmation vote occur at 11:40 a.m.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the Senator from Massachussetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 198, motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Katherine E. Oler to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yea. I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 199, confirmation of the nomination of Katherine E. Oler to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yea. I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 200, on the motion to concur in the House amendments to S. 870, Fire Grants and Safety Act. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yea.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I want to thank Senator Murray for her leadership on this issue. I thank my colleague Senator Tammy Duckworth. I first met Tammy Duckworth about 12 years ago. She was my guest at a State of the Union Address. She was a patient at Walter Reed Hospital. She was recovering from the wounds which she incurred in a combat helicopter, fighting for the United States of America. What happened to her is unimaginable. A terrorist shot a rocket- propelled grenade into the cockpit of her helicopter, and it landed in her lap. She lost her left leg as a result of it and went through at least a year, maybe more, at Walter Reed Hospital, patching her up, saving her arm, thank goodness, and giving her the kind of guidance she needed to lead a life. When I met her, I knew she was an extraordinary person, an extraordinary American. I didn't know how extraordinary until I called her one day and said: Would you consider running for office? In a moment of weakness, she says, with medication, she answered yes. I watched her elected to the U.S. House of Representatives and to the U.S. Senate. She has become more than just a colleague. She is a friend I dearly love. I believe we are lucky to have her in the Nation and in the U.S. Senate. She made a phone call to me about 8 years ago. I remember it so well. I was driving on Interstate 55 up to Bloomington for a meeting, and it was Tammy that gave me some news. I said: What is up, Tammy? She said: I am going to have a baby. You could have knocked me over with a feather. I couldn't believe it. After all she had been through--losing a leg, going through a year or more at Walter Reed Hospital--she and her husband Brian finally had a dream come true. Through in vitro fertilization, she was going to have a baby girl. It was a miracle. I couldn't believe it. Yet it did happen. We had to change the rules of the Senate so Tammy Duckworth, the first woman Senator to have a child while serving in the Senate, could bring her baby on the floor of the Senate. We have a special rule for that. But it meant so much for her to let her little girl have that experience that we changed the rules. The reason I tell you that story is it could be repeated over and over thousands and thousands of times. In vitro fertilization is the ticket for military servicemembers and veterans like Tammy Duckworth to have the joy of a child. In fact, she has had a second child through IVF. And with that joy, she showed that she cannot only be a great Senator and a great wife, but a terrific mother too. What is at stake here is privacy and freedom--privacy and freedom--as to whether we as Americans are going to respect one another in making these fundamental human decisions. There are politicians in this Chamber as well as in legislatures across the country who want to make that decision for your family. Don't let them take that away from you. That is why this vote is so critically important. What we are guaranteeing is the privacy and freedom of individuals and families who want to choose IVF to start or expand their families. That is just common sense. If you are pro-choice, protect the choice to use IVF to expand your family. If you are pro-life, protect the life that comes out of that process. It becomes such a critical part of your own life. I listened to Senator Hickenlooper. I met Jack. He is worth all the effort and pain they went through. People like Senator Hickenlooper and his wife Robin should have that opportunity, and we should protect it. Let's make sure we do. Vote yes on this proposal. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Butler), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Butler), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, on a picturesque college campus in Milwaukee, WI, the excited whispers of students would make you think a celebrity had just walked by. And, in a way, a celebrity had just walked by--because in the eyes of the Marquette University community, beloved University President Michael Lovell was a figure to admire, learn from, and emulate. He embodied cura personalis--Marquette's guiding principle--meaning ``care for the whole person.'' There is something especially painful about the death of those taken from us too soon. And so it is with a heavy heart that I grieve the loss of Dr. Michael Lovell--celebrated president of Marquette University, distinguished engineer, educator, and scholar. President Lovell passed away last week after a 3-year long battle with sarcoma, a rare form of cancer. His time with us was cut short, but during his 57 years of life, he had a tremendous impact on students, the Milwaukee community, and all those lucky enough to call him a loved one. For the past decade, Dr. Lovell served as the president of Marquette University. Though a man of faith, he was the first president who was a layman, rather than a member of the Catholic clergy. In this role, President Lovell became a fixture of the Marquette community, showing a fierce devotion to the university and the city he called home. Prior to serving as Marquette's president, Dr. Lovell served as the chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and, before that, as the dean of its engineering college. An engineer by trade, President Lovell held not one, not two, but three mechanical engineering degrees, including a doctorate from the University of Pittsburgh. And he was recognized nationally and globally for his exceptional talents. Throughout the course of his career, he received awards from the National Science Foundation, was a fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and National Academy of Inventors, and earned U.S. and global patents. During his tenure as Marquette's president, Dr. Lovell helped create the Near West Side Partners, a nonprofit dedicated to the economic development, safety, and community identity of Milwaukee's seven near west side neighborhoods. Under his leadership, Marquette grew to new heights. Dr. Lovell was instrumental in the construction of a new athletics center, new residence hall, new green spaces, new academic buildings, and countless other projects across Marquette's campus. His stewardship shaped the university, and every student that passes through those new halls will benefit from his dedication to making Marquette a world-class institution. But more impressive than what he accomplished was the relationships he built. Marquette was dear to him. In an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in 2022, he reflected on why he continued to work as he battled cancer. His response was simple: ``When you don't know how much time you have left, you want your days to be impactful and you want to do things that you love.'' And, boy, did President Lovell love that community. He lived by that guiding principle of cura personalis. He showed up for his students--fostering not only their academic potential, but their growth as future leaders who engaged with their communities. Students fondly recall running alongside him for the annual Briggs and Al's Run or him handing out hot cookies and ice cream in the dining halls. And of course, he made regular appearances on the jumbotron at Marquette basketball games. Dr. Lovell made a habit of meeting with and listening to students. He often sat down with small groups of them for lunch to hear about their classes or to discuss the probability of the basketball team making it through March Madness and into the Final Four. And as Milwaukee reckoned with its own history of racial injustice in 2020, Dr. Lovell held townhalls and met directly with students of color to better understand their experiences on campus. Because of those listening sessions and student advocacy, President Lovell partnered with the Black student council to establish new scholarships for students of color, improve the diversity of counselors on campus, and strengthen the core curriculum to require additional education on racial injustice. And this commitment to the well-being of students reached beyond campus. In the wake of the horrific January 6 insurrection, Dr. Lovell heard that a 2018 Marquette alumnus was among the U.S. Capitol Police officers protecting lawmakers that day. He personally reached out to that former student, offering gratitude for his service and the full support of the university. It was a small gesture, but one that demonstrated just how much Dr. Lovell cared for Marquette's students, past and present. Marquette University may not be in Illinois, but it is significant to me. My son is a proud Marquette graduate, as are many of my incredible staff members in Washington, DC, and across Illinois. And it was President Lovell's innovative and empathetic leadership that helped make Marquette so special for so many. In the words of Milwaukee Bucks Head Coach Doc Rivers, who played for Marquette in the 1980s, President Lovell was a ``gentle giant.'' I join my staff, my son, and the whole Marquette community in mourning the loss of President Lovell. While Dr. Lovell's legacy will live on in all the lives he touched, it does not make this loss any easier. He was deeply kind, an exceptional listener, and unyieldingly optimistic in the face of a formidable diagnosis. President Lovell lived the last years of his life to the fullest. And, in part, it was his deep religious convictions that allowed him to remain strong during such trying health challenges. I admire his faith and resilience. Loretta and I join his wife Amy and his four children--Marissa, Matt, Anna, and Kevin--in grieving this tremendous loss. We send our love to all of you. Though he has passed, Dr. Lovell's embodiment of cura personalis carries on--and we are all better for it.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam 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 text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Butler), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from California (Ms. Butler), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Butler), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise today in the Senate to pass the DEFIANCE Act, a bipartisan bill that provides a remedy for victims of nonconsensual sexual exploitation deepfakes. I want to thank the Senate cosponsors of this legislation. They include my ranking Republican Member, Senator Lindsey Graham, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, as well as Senators Klobuchar, Hawley, King, and Lee. This bill is truly bipartisan. I have been proud to partner with New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who introduced this legislation in the House of Representatives with four Republican and four Democratic cosponsors. As you can see, in both the Senate and the House, this is a bipartisan measure. When I describe it, you will understand. Sadly, Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, herself, is a victim of what is known as explicit deepfakes. I commend her for her work and courage to create tools for victims in the fight against this despicable conduct. The spread of these deplorable deepfakes is like a fire burning out of control. What used to take extraordinary technological expertise and a lot of time can now be done with the push of a button. Countless apps can swap someone's face onto another person's body or can digitally remove someone's clothing. These apps are often advertised as harmless entertainment. But when explicit images are produced and shared without the consent of the person depicted, the harm is very real. The exploitation of young children, the exploitation of women is really the price that is being paid for this. Imagine losing control over your own likeness and identity. Imagine how powerless victims feel when they cannot remove the illicit content, cannot prevent it from being reproduced, cannot prevent new images from being created. The negative consequences to the victims can be profound. Victims may draw into silence themselves by withdrawing from online spaces and public discourse as a protective measure. They may endure threats to their employment, education, or reputation; or suffer additional criminal activity, such as extortion and stalking. Some experience depression, anxiety, and fear of being in public. And in the worst-case scenario, victims are driven to suicide. Representative Ocasio-Cortez recently described her own reaction to being depicted in sexual deepfakes without her consent. She said: ``There's a shock to seeing images of yourself that someone could think are real.'' She described how it resurfaced trauma and haunts her thoughts. Once deepfakes are seen, they cannot be unseen. As she put it, ``deepfakes are . . . a way of digitizing violent humiliation against other people.'' Prominent women are often the target of nonconsensual sexually explicit deepfakes--singers, actors, politicians alike. You cannot escape the conclusion that these images are intended to diminish and shame women. But, sadly, the victims can be anyone. There are many distressing reports this year of middle schools and high schools struggling to respond to the spread of sexually explicit deepfakes of students. In March of this year, at least 22 students at the Richmond-Burton High School, in McHenry County, in my home State of Illinois, learned they were depicted in deepfakes circulating online. One of the images was a doctored version of a photo of two female students taken at the school prom. The perpetrator digitally removed their clothes to make it appear they were unclothed. The prom is supposed to be a joyous rite of passage for teenagers, a happy memory they keep for the rest of their lives. Now that memory has been stolen from these two young women. Sadly, we are seeing an explosion of images like these. One researcher found that the number of nonconsensual pornographic deepfake videos available online has increased ninefold in the last 5 years. Such videos have been viewed almost 4 billion times--4 billion times. Monthly traffic to the top 20 deepfake sites increased by 285 percent from July 2020 to July 2023, and search engines directed 25.2 million visits to the top five most popular deepfake sites in July 2023 alone. Tragically, under the law now, the victims have no legal remedy. Time and again, victims are told nothing can be done to help them because existing laws simply do not apply to deepfakes. This is not just a gap in the law. It is an omission that shows a blatant disregard for the trauma to children, women, and girls who are victimized by this crime. But this DEFIANCE Act will change that. It will give the victims a day in court. Once this bill is signed into law, victims finally will have the ability to hold civilly liable those who produce, disclose, solicit, or possess sexually explicit deepfakes while knowingly or recklessly disregarding that the person depicted did not consent to the conduct. I am proud to have collaborated with survivor advocates on this bill. Their lived experience and leadership have shaped this bill. This bill was carefully crafted to comply with the First Amendment. As the Center for Democracy and Technology wrote in their letter endorsing the bill, it is constitutional because it addresses ``a uniquely compelling problem with a narrowly-tailored solution.'' In addition to the CDT, the DEFIANCE Act is supported by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, the Sexual Violence Prevention Association, the National Women's Law Center, My Image My Choice, PACT, Rights4Girls, and many others. Congress has waited too long to act. Can you imagine, in your own family, if it was your wife, your daughter, your niece, or some young woman that you love who was exploited this way, who had to see these images and try to erase them from their minds, who realize that they have no power now under the law, no power to protect themselves? They are helplessly exploited and their lives have been changed for the worse. We waited far too long to act. This is a bipartisan measure in both the House and the Senate. It is past time to give victims of nonconsensual sexual exploitation and explicit deepfakes the tools they need to fight back. Madam President, notwithstanding rule XXII, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 3696, the Disrupt Explicit Forged Images And Non-Consensual Edits Act of 2024, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask consent that the Durbin-Grassley substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I am disappointed, seriously disappointed. When we talk about these young women and young children being exploited and have bipartisan legislation before both the House and Senate to deal with it, it is important that it be characterized properly. First, there is no liability under this proposed law for tech platforms, despite what the Senator from Wyoming said. And, secondly, the idea that the people would suffer with civil liability here, when they didn't know what was going on--listen to the language of this bill: The victims have the ability to hold civilly liable those who produce, disclose, solicit, possess sexually explicit deepfakes while knowingly--while knowingly--or recklessly disregarding that the person depicted did not consent to the conduct. The two major issues raised by the Senator from Wyoming are both addressed in this bipartisan measure. There are people who will shake their heads and say: Can't the Senate even address this issue of the sexual exploitation of children and young girls and attempts to ruin their lives? Can't they even agree on a bipartisan basis to come up with an answer? We did. We have a bill that does it, and it has been stopped. We are not going to stop our efforts, Madam President. This is a cause worth fighting for, and we are going to really appeal to those across America who believe as we do. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from California (Ms. Butler), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, for more than a year, the Supreme Court has been embroiled in an ethical crisis of its own design. Story after story about ethical misconduct by sitting Supreme Court Justices has led the news for months. For decades, however, Justice Clarence Thomas has accepted lavish gifts and luxury trips from a gaggle of fawning billionaires. The total dollar value of these gifts is in the millions--one Supreme Court Justice, millions of dollars' worth of gifts. Justice Alito, as well, went on a luxury fishing trip that should have cost him over $100,000, but it didn't cost him a dime because the trip was funded by a billionaire and organized by rightwing kingpin Leonard Leo. Well, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito failed to disclose gifts they accepted in clear violation of financial disclosure requirements under Federal law. But it isn't only the shameless conduct that cast a dark shadow over the Court. Time and again, these Justices' actions have cast doubt on their impartiality on cases before the Court. Last summer, Justice Alito sat for an interview conducted in part by an attorney with a case before the Court. In that interview, Justice Alito went so far as to publicly state that Congress has no authority to regulate the Supreme Court. By doing so, he made it clear that he had already reached a conclusion about the constitutionality of legislation that Congress was considering on the issue--legislation that is before this body today and that could someday come before the Court. More recently, we learned that flags that were associated with the January 6 insurrection and the far right were displayed outside Justice Alito's home. This happened even as the Court considered cases related to the 2020 Presidential election and the insurrectionist attack on the U.S. Capitol. Justice Thomas also continues to hear cases related to the January 6 attacks despite his wife's involvement with efforts to overturn the 2020 election. For years, Justice Thomas served as a fundraising draw at the Koch political network's annual summits. This is the same network that bankrolled another case currently before the Court. Federal law requires the disqualification of a Supreme Court Justice in any proceeding in which the Justice's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, and the Supreme Court's own code of conduct reiterates that Justices should disqualify themselves in cases where there is reasonable doubt about their impartiality. But despite serious questions about the impartiality of Justice Alito and Justice Thomas in numerous cases, they have refused to recuse themselves from these cases. The ethics crisis at the Supreme Court, the highest Court in the land, is unacceptable, it is unsustainable, and it is unworthy of the highest Court in the land. Our faith in the character and impartiality of our judges is essential to the functioning of our legal system and our constitutional form of government, but that faith requires judges--especially Supreme Court Justices--to conduct themselves in a way that inspires public confidence. The Justices should serve as models for every other judge in America. Instead, they are serving as prime examples for why a binding code of conduct is desperately needed for the Supreme Court. The ethics crisis at the Court stems in large part from the fact that the nine Justices on the Court are the only Federal officials not bound by an enforceable code of conduct--the only Federal officials not bound by an enforceable code of conduct. More than 12 years ago, I first asked Chief Justice Roberts to adopt a binding code of conduct for all Supreme Court Justices. In November of last year, for the first time in its 235-year history, the Supreme Court adopted an ineffective code of conduct for its Justices. The new code does not reform the Court's ethics rules in any meaningful way, and it does not include an enforcement mechanism to address violations of the code. As the Court conceded in a statement accompanying the code of conduct's release, the code ``largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct.'' In other words, this so-called new code did not raise the ethical standards to which the Justices would be held; it simply tried to paper over the failed practices of the past. The Court can address these issues itself. The Court could have issued a stronger code of conduct in the first place. It could revise its own code of conduct today. But Chief Justice Roberts repeatedly refuses to use his authority and power to implement a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court, and until he does, Congress will continue our legislative efforts. Last year, the Judiciary Committee, which I chair, reported to the Senate floor the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act. The bill, which was led by Senator Whitehouse, who is on the floor, and which I am cosponsoring, would require the Supreme Court to adopt an enforceable code of conduct and add new recusal and transparency requirements that would be binding on the Justices. It would be a real code of conduct. Importantly, this legislation's ethical and recusal requirements would apply equally to every Justice on the Supreme Court regardless of the party of the President who appointed them. This should not be a partisan issue. An enforceable code of conduct would be a good thing for the Court and for our country. It is essential to ensuring that the American people have confidence in the ethical conduct of the Supreme Court, and it is essential to restoring the Court's reputation. The highest Court in the land should not and cannot have the lowest ethical standards. That is why I support this legislation and why I urge my colleagues to join me. Madam President, notwithstanding rule XXII and as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 199, S. 359, the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2023. I further ask that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.