Christopher Murphy

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that the Kaine amendment to the preamble be agreed to; that the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 592, submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 593, submitted earlier today.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4070, which was introduced earlier today.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Tester substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the bill, as amended.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 304, S. 2687.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. I know of no further debate on the resolution, as amended.

Mr. MURPHY. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment to the resolution be agreed to.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment to the preamble be agreed to; the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 323, S. Res. 503.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 3823, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. MURPHY

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

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaty transmitted to the Senate on April 7, 2022, by the President of the United States: the extradition treaty with the Republic of Albania, Treaty Document No. 117-2. I further ask that the treaty be considered as having been read the first time; that it be referred with accompanying papers to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The message of the President is as follows: To the Senate of the United States: With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the Extradition Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Albania (the ``Treaty''), signed at Tirana on December 22, 2020. I also transmit, for the information of the Senate, the report of the Department of State with respect to the Treaty. The Treaty would replace the extradition treaty between the United States and Albania, signed at Tirana on March 1, 1933. The Treaty follows generally the form and content of other extradition treaties recently concluded by the United States. It would replace an outmoded list of extraditable offenses with a modern ``dual criminality'' approach, which would enable extradition for such offenses as money laundering, cyber-related crimes, and other newer offenses not appearing on the list. The Treaty also contains a modernized ``political offense'' clause and provides that extradition shall not be refused based on the nationality of the person sought. Finally, the Treaty incorporates a series of procedural improvements to streamline and expedite the extradition process. I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to the Treaty, and give its advice and consent to ratification. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. The White House, April 7, 2022.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the upcoming adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate, the President pro tempore and the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 317, S. 3785.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay before the Senate the message to accompany S. 658. The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 658) entitled ``An Act to authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to work with cybersecurity consortia for training, and for other purposes.'', do pass with an amendment. Motion to Concur

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, the process of confirming a Supreme Court Justice is supposed to be lengthy, thoughtful, rigorous. I am grateful to the Presiding Officer and Chairman Durbin for doing it right with Judge Brown Jackson. Judge Jackson has answered hours of questions about her judicial philosophy, why she made certain decisions, why she represented certain clients, how her background has shaped her world view. Nearly every detail of her professional and personal life has been and will continue to be interrogated publicly as she goes through the final stages of this process. But a strange thing is going to happen when Judge Jackson finally takes her seat on the Supreme Court. She will, after all of this review and scrutiny, become effectively immune from ethics standards. Why is that? Because every Federal judge--circuit judges, district judges, court of international trade judges, court of Federal claims judges, bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges--every Federal judge is bound by a code of ethics in order to safeguard the judiciary's neutrality and transparency--all Federal judges, except for nine: the Supreme Court. It is not because the Supreme Court is so highly regarded by the American people. In fact, the opposite is true. Trust in the institution's reputation is in rapid decline right now. According to a recent C-SPAN poll, only 30 percent--about 37 percent, actually--of likely voters believe that the Supreme Court acts in a ``serious and constitutionally sound manner.'' In a democracy that prides itself on a fair and independent judiciary, that is unacceptable. It is worrying, but it is not surprising. Recent revelations surrounding Justice Thomas and his wife's involvement in the events of January 6 have finally brought attention that those standards we try to uphold during the confirmation process quickly disappear upon confirmation. Now, this isn't some new phenomenon. We have seen Justices--both liberal and conservative--promote political fundraisers, speak at partisan events, fail to recuse themselves from cases with pretty clear conflicts of interest. And if the past is prologue--the recent incident that has gained a lot of attention regarding Justice Thomas's family-- it won't be the last. Now, I first introduced a bill that would require the Supreme Court to adopt a code of ethics 10 years ago. And I have reintroduced a version of that bill in every Congress since. The majority of Americans agrees with me: There is absolutely no reason why the Supreme Court shouldn't be subject to a code of conduct just like every other Federal judge. But the Court disagrees. John Roberts said in 2011 when he was asked about this: The Court has no reason to adopt a code of conduct as its definitive source of ethical guidance. Well, it has a reason now. And to be clear, I am not talking about a code of conduct that is written by Congress. Instead, my legislation would require the Judicial Conference to create a binding code of conduct that applies to all Federal judges and Justices, including those on the Supreme Court. It is a simple step that would improve transparency, enforce accountability, and restore some lost faith in the institution. And, frankly, because of that diminishing faith, it is in the Court's interest to do everything possible to try to help rebuild public confidence. During Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation process, Justice Kagan put it best. She said: The Court's strength as an institution of American governance depends on people believing [it has] a certain kind of legitimacy, on people believing it is not simply an extension of politics, that its decision-making has a kind of integrity to it. If people don't believe that, they have no reason to accept what the Court does. Justice Kagan said it well. And right now, that belief is teetering dangerously close to the edge. The spouse of a Supreme Court Justice was involved in an effort to organize a coup and overthrow of a democratically elected President of the United States. That is extraordinary. That is not normal. It should not be treated as just another flavor of legitimate political action, and the fact that there is no clear binding code of conduct that addresses this kind of behavior and no clear standards of recusal for Supreme Court Justices that the American people can see and trust is just unacceptable. I think that my Democratic and Republican colleagues can agree on this, the American people deserve to know that our Supreme Court Justices are being held to the highest standards whether they be Justices appointed by Democratic Presidents or Justices appointed by Republican Presidents. It is not enough for us to just trust the Court any longer to self-enforce a secret internal code of ethics. The highest Court in the land cannot be exempt from the standards that we hold every other Federal judge to. I am glad that this piece of legislation has gained additional cosponsors just over the course of the last week. I hope that it eventually becomes a bipartisan piece of legislation, and I would urge my colleagues to join me in holding the Court to account. Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar Mr. President, finally, I know votes are pending, but I am also coming to the floor to request, as I will in a moment, unanimous consent for the nomination and approval of Javier Ramirez to be Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. I would guess that not a lot of my colleagues know much about the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, and that is because we normally don't have to have a debate over the confirmation of its Director on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The Agency is an independent one that has been in place since 1947. Its mission is to preserve and promote labor management peace and cooperation by providing mediation and conflict resolution services to industry, government agencies, and communities. The FMCS has 10 regional offices, more than 60 field offices. Its headquarters are here in Washington, DC. It does the basic blocking and tackling of keeping our economy running. It is charged with trying to avoid conflict between labor and management so that we don't have strikes, so that we don't have work stoppages, so that our economy runs as smoothly as possible. It is a pretty noncontroversial Agency, and the individual who has been selected to run it is equally noncontroversial. He is a career public servant. Javier Ramirez began at the FMCS in 2005. He is currently the director of Agency initiatives there. To me, this would be a no- brainer, that we could come together and decide as a body that we are going to make sure that we have someone running an Agency that is pretty vital to the smooth flow of our economy and the mediation of disputes between labor and management. And so I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 665, Javier Ramirez, of Illinois, to be Federal Mediation and Conciliation Director; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. MURPHY. I know colleagues are eager to get this vote going, but 20 seconds in response. This place is grinding to a halt. And it is absolutely extraordinary the number of noncontroversial nominees who are now required to move through full votes, cloture motions on the floor. U.S. Attorneys who never, ever had to come before this floor for votes and debate now do. This is an exercise in fundamentally breaking the Senate. This place only works with UC. We cannot run every single nominee through regular order or we would be here 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I am grateful for my colleague's comments. I hope that we will be able to confirm Mr. Ramirez. But this is the kind of work that the Senate used to be able to do through UC, and it is unfortunate that we continue to have this breakdown in process. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURPHY

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

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, Senator Sasse.