Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) is necessarily absent.

I announced that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Hassan), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Hassan), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden), are necessarily absent.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, 3 years ago today, this Capitol served as the background for one of the most notable events in recent American history. On April 7, 2022, our country made a monumental stride forward. The Senate confirmed a once-in-a-generation legal talent, a jurist with outstanding credentials and invaluable lived experience, and the first-ever Black woman and former public defender to serve as a Justice of the Supreme Court: Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Justice Jackson's confirmation shattered the glass ceiling and paved the way for future women of color to follow in her footsteps. Her name will be remembered in history for generations to come.

When the Supreme Court first met in the Capitol Building in February of 1801, there were a million slaves in this Nation of 5 million people--a million slaves in a nation of 5 million people. This very building itself was built with the labor of enslaved people. At the time, neither Black Americans nor women had the right to vote. America's battle to end slavery continued through the Civil War and was followed by decades of efforts to break down lingering racial barriers. Those efforts continue to this day.

And our struggle to enfranchise and empower women did not end with the

passage of the 19th Amendment. It continues to this day, as we strive to give our daughters the same opportunities as our sons.

The confirmation of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court honored the history that came before it. It honored the struggles of the past and the men and women who fought for a future where skin color and gender are no longer a barrier to full participation in American society, voting, or seeking the highest positions in our government.

America's history is defined by our enduring effort to bridge the gap between that ideal and our slow march toward progress. But with each generation, we edge closer to making that ideal a reality. In 1965, we ensured that the Federal Government could rigorously protect the right to vote--a right that protects all other rights, for that matter--with the passage of the Voting Rights Act.

Two years later, after passing that civil rights bill, we confirmed the first Black American to ever serve on the Supreme Court, Justice Thurgood Marshall. And more than 50 years later--50 years--we took another step forward by confirming Justice Jackson, the first Black woman to serve on the Court.

I want to give credit where it is due. This was the initiative of President Joe Biden, who made it clear when he was elected President this was his highest priority when it came to the Supreme Court. President Biden kept his word.

With Justice Jackson's confirmation to the highest Court in the land, we not only made history, but we also carried on the great American tradition, elevating our Nation's best and brightest legal minds to a sacred position of service, a seat she now occupies for life. There is no one more deserving of this high honor and profound responsibility than Justice Jackson. She is one of the best.

She has devoted her life to serving our country, and she has done so at every level of the Federal Judiciary. At every turn, she has upheld the Constitution and faithfully followed the rule of law. She is impartial, thoughtful, and even-handed, evaluating every case from, in her words, a ``neutral posture.''

Since her confirmation, Justice Jackson made her mark on the Court, establishing her status as a sharp and inquisitive questioner of the parties before her. And whether she authors majority opinions or dissents, she always demonstrates a brilliant legal mind.

Just a year into her tenure on the Court, Justice Jackson's first major opinion reaffirmed that Medicaid patients unlawfully denied care or abused by healthcare providers can sue under section 1983. Section 1983 is a law enacted following the Civil War, as part of the Ku Klux Klan Act, which allows lawsuits by individuals whose civil rights have been violated. It is a powerful tool for Americans to seek accountability from local, State, and Federal Government officials. At a time when President Trump and unelected ``co-President'' Elon Musk have vowed to cut Medicaid, it is more crucial than ever that we give those who need this program the legal recourse they need if they are denied care or otherwise abused by a provider.

In instances where Justice Jackson has dissented from the majority, she makes a clear case for why she reached that conclusion. Nearly 2 years ago, the Supreme Court ended the use of affirmative action in college and university admissions. Justice Jackson issued a strong compelling dissent, and she wrote:

[D]eeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in

life.

She continued:

And having so detached itself from this country's actual

past and present experiences, the Court has now been lured

into interfering with the crucial work that . . .

institutions of higher learning are doing to solve America's

real-world problems.

Mr. President, it is one of the great honors of my life to preside over the confirmation hearing of Justice Jackson during my time as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Justice Jackson's story is one of breaking barriers and paving the way for future women of color to follow in her footsteps.

At a time when the President and his administration are challenging the rule of law in our country as never before, Justice Jackson's presence on the highest Court in the land could not be more important.

I am incredibly proud of all she has accomplished so far during her time on the Supreme Court. I know that Justice Jackson will continue to honor all those who came before her and sat on the bench.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from WA (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Alsobrooks), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley), and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on the nominations of Dean John Sauer and Harmeet Dhillon, President Trump's nominees for Solicitor General and Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.

The Solicitor General represents the United States in the highest Court of the land, the Supreme Court. Mr. Sauer's failure to comply with court orders and his refusal to recuse himself from pending Trump matters render him unfit for this role.

The Civil Rights Division--often called the ``crown jewel'' of the Justice Department--enforces landmark laws that prohibit discrimination and protect the right to vote. Ms. Dhillon's record makes it all too clear that she is not the right person to lead this division.

Mr. Sauer's nomination is a danger to the rule of law. At his confirmation hearing, I asked him a very simple question that any first-year law student should be able to answer, let alone a nominee seeking Senate confirmation.

When I asked him whether an elected official should be allowed to defy a Federal court order, Mr. Sauer said, ``Generally, if there's a direct court order that binds a federal or state official, they should follow it.''

I was appalled that someone seeking to become the ``Tenth Justice,'' as the Solicitor General is commonly known, would take such a position.

As my colleague Senator Kennedy warned Mr. Sauer and another Justice Department nominee who also refused to commit to following court orders ``Don't ever, ever, take the position that you're not going to follow the order of a federal court. Ever.''

But that is not my only concern with Mr. Sauer. Both he and Ms. Dhillon are part of the growing list of the President's personal lawyers who have been nominated for senior DOJ roles.

Ms. Dhillon and her law firm have represented the President as an individual and his campaigns on numerous occasions, pocketing more than $8 million in legal fees.

And Mr. Sauer recently filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the President, urging the Court to stay the effective date of the law that bans TikTok.

During his hearing, Mr. Sauer repeatedly refused to commit to recusing himself from matters connected to his representation of President Trump, including a current case appealing the $364 million judgment entered against the President in New York.

Instead, Mr. Sauer only offered to consult with ``the appropriate Department of Justice ethics officials.'' This gives me little reassurance since the administration recently forced out the Justice Department's senior apolitical career ethics officials.

And Ms. Dhillon's loyalty to the President goes beyond a typical attorney-client relationship. She has repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of the 2020 Presidential election.

In November 2020, she tweeted, ``STOP THE STEAL!'' and encouraged her followers to donate to President Trump's so-called election defense fund.

During her hearing, Ms. Dhillon doubled down on her election denialism, repeating her dubious claims about supposed irregularities and so-called ``voter integrity.'' And she refused to admit that President Biden won the 2020 election.

Ms. Dhillon also has a long history of seeking to restrict civil rights, which is deeply concerning. She has criticized key provisions of the Voting Rights Act and supported laws that make it harder to vote.

And she has an extensive history of hostility toward the LGBTQ+ community, especially transgender Americans.

It is the duty of the head of the Civil Rights Division to protect the civil rights of every American. I cannot and will not support a nominee whose record suggests she is more likely to attack civil rights than defend them.

And it is the Solicitor General's duty to represent the U.S. Government before the Supreme Court. I do not believe Mr. Sauer will put the American people's interests above President Trump's.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing these nominees.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, anyone here remember how Donald Trump promised to end Russia's war on Ukraine in 1 day if he was elected? That is right: 1 day. Well, we are 73 days into his term, with Russia still raining death and destruction upon the people of Ukraine. Instead of ending the war, Donald Trump has alienated and bullied our allies around the world--our allies.

He insulted and blackmailed Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, who has led Ukrainians fighting bravely for more than 3 years, and 46,000 Ukrainians have died in defense of their country. He has decimated low- cost soft power by gutting USAID and Voice of America, giving away our influence and leadership to China and Russia--a move the head of Russian state TV called--get this quote--``an awesome decision by Trump! We couldn't shut them down, unfortunately, but America did so itself.''

By turning our backs on the rest of the world, Donald Trump is undermining the promise of America as a beacon of democracy, freedom, and human rights. All the while, Russian President Putin is laughing at us, watching with glee as America destroys its own leadership and credibility--something he could only have dreamed of in his former KGB days.

If you don't believe me, read New York Times columnist Tom Friedman. His recent column's title tells the story: ``I Don't Believe a Single Word Trump and Putin Say About Ukraine.''

Washington Post columnist Max Boot wrote ``Putin is playing Trump and Witkoff like a Stradivarius,'' asking dismayingly what the rest of us are pondering as well: ``Does Trump seriously believe Putin is negotiating in good faith to end the war in Ukraine?''

Or listen to the senior Republican Senator from Kentucky. Here is what he said:

Unless we change course, the outcome we're heading for

today is one we can least afford: a headline that reads

``Russia wins, America loses''. . . . An illusory peace that

shreds America's credibility, leaves Ukraine under threat,

weakens our alliances, and emboldens our enemies.

I agree.

Consider the last few months of negotiations between Trump and Putin that led almost nowhere and emboldened Russia. The supposed cease-fire was supposed to narrowly limit Russian attacks, and here we have them bombing hospitals.

A supposed deal to stop fighting in the Black Sea was a giveaway to the Russians that undermined the Ukrainians.

Or consider President Trump's special peace envoy Steve Witkoff, a real estate tycoon from New York who is in competition with Neville Chamberlain for the world's most naive appeaser. Witkoff recently told another Putin apologist, Tucker Carlson, that he liked Putin and didn't regard him as a bad guy.

The same Witkoff groveled over Putin's obviously manipulative portrait gift to Trump, and he said those forced at gunpoint in occupied eastern Ukraine to vote in a sham referendum actually really wanted to be part of Russia. He is buying the Kremlin talking points and the long list in total.

But as the President negotiates away Ukraine's freedom and America's credibility, Congress has an obligation and a constitutional responsibility to act. So I am glad this week that dozens of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle introduced legislation to make it clear to Russia that broad sanctions will be imposed if Russia does not negotiate in good faith and end this war soon. We owe Ukraine, and we certainly owe our own country nothing less.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) are necessarily absent.