>> cox, supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪♪ >> listen to c-span radio with our free mobile app c-span now. get complete access to what's happening in washington wherever you are, with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns and more. plus, analysis of the world of politics with our informative podcasts. c-span now is available at apple store and google play, download it free today. c-span now your front row seat to washington anytime anywhere. >> on this tuesday morning, we take you live now to the u.s. capitol where the senate is about to gavel in. this morning, senators will hold a procedural vote whether

to officially begin debate on nomination of ketanji brown jackson to the u.s. supreme court. live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, listen to our words. hear our solace. you are our rock of safety. we continue to trust to you protect our nation and world.

lord, continue to be our refuge and strength, always ready to hear and answer our prayers. surround our lawmakers with the blessings of your grace and mercy. lead them like a shepherd in their efforts to do your will on earth even as it is done in heaven. enable them to permit justice to roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream. and, lord, save the ukrainian people. we pray in your powerful name. amen.

the president pro tempore: please join me in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the president pro tempore: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. and morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration

of the motion to discharge the gordon nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to discharge julia ruth gordon of maryland to be an assistant secretary of housing and urban development, from the committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. warnock: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the president pro tempore: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, on covid, yesterday afternoon, mr. president, yesterday afternoon i announced that senator romney and i had reached an agreement for a $10 billion covid supplemental appropriations package. it took many rounds of bipartisan talks, many days and nights and weekends of negotiations, but we've shaken hands on a compromise that the senate can and should move forward very soon. i thank senators -- i thank the senators on both sides of the aisle who participated in this and senators burr and blunt and graham were involved with senator romney. senator coons gets a special shout-out because of his fierce determination to work on international -- on getting an

international thing done. senator murray as well as was very helpful in our negotiations. the deal we announced yesterday has the support of speaker pelosi and president biden, who urged congress to work quickly to get a bill to his desk. we're going to work hard to get that done, and i hope my republican colleagues will join us to move forward on this legislation. there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to get this funding passed. the administration needs it right now. and we all know that our country is in great need of replenishing our covid health response funding. putting in the work today to keep our nation prepared against new variants will make it less likely that we get caught off guard by a new variant down the line. so this is really essential to america's well-being. it's essential to getting back to normal. all those who decried we didn't get to normal quickly enough should be supportive of this legislation because the longer we wait, the more difficult it will be when the next variant

hits. this $10 billion covid package will give the federal government and our citizens the tools we need, we depend on to continue our economic recovery, to keep our schools open, keep american families safe. the package we agreed to will provide billions more for vaccines, more testing capability -- capacity, and essential $5 billion for more lifesaving therapeutics, arguably the greatest need right now nor the country. these therapeutics are great drugs. ifbut if we don't have them reay when the new variant hits, it will let the new variant get its tentacles deeper in our society. approving this package is the necessary thing to do.

republicans and democrats alike should work together to make sure we can move this package three the chamber. while this funding is absolutely necessary, it is far from perfect. i am deeply disappointed that some of our republican friends could not agree to include $5 billion for global response efforts. i pushed them hard to include this international funding, as of course did senator coons and senators graham and romney because fighting covid abroad is intrinsically connected to keeping americans healthy at home. it's not just the right thing to do to help struggling nations, though we certainly have an obligation to help. it is also good for our country. so putting money overseas to prevent covid from spreading here is, remember, every variant, all three variants that hit us started overseas and then came here so that is not only humanitarian and the moral and right thing to do, but it's in our own self-interest. i know it sometimes sounds anomalous, sending money

overseas is in our interest. but with covid where this germinates and starts the new variants start overseas and then comes to hurt us is the right thing to do, even if you had no humanitarian interest in doing it, which of course many of us do, have a great deal of humanitarian interest. if we don't help the developing nations a of the world with vaccines and treatment, we leave ourselves seriously at risk for potential new variants. many com -- many com started in south -- omicron, after allstarted in africa. it is my intention for the senate to consider a bipartisan international appropriations package that will include funding to address covid-19 as well as other urgent priorities like aid for ukraine and funding for global food security. i know that many on both sides -- i mentioned the names earlier -- are serious about reaching an agreement on this hirsch.

nevertheless, this week's agreement is carefully negotiated. we bent over backwards when our republican colleagues did not want to accept certain kinds of pay-fors, which we thought were the appropriate and have always been used. but we thought it was so foreign get this done that we -- so important to get this done this we did that. it is a very important step to keep the country healthy and bringing life as close to normal as we can. i want to thank again senator romney for leading the negotiations for the senate republicans and working in good faith to reach agreement. i also want to thank, as i mentioned, coons, murray, blunt, and graham for their help and support to reach this bipartisan agreement and chairman leahy and his staff for their assistance in putting the legislation together. finally, i want to thank the staff of of the c.b.o. so we've taken a mass sift step

closer to getting this important funding done and i thank everyone for their good work to reach this point. now on another happy note, the judge jackson confirmation, last night we took our first steps here on the senate floor towards confirming the historic nomination of ketanji brown jackson to the u.s. supreme court. but virtue of a motion to discharge, judge jackson's nomination was reported out of the judiciary committee -- out of judiciary by a -- was put -- it really wasn't reported out of judiciary -- by a motion to discharge judge jackson's nomination was put on the floor by a bipartisan vote of 53-47. she now comes to the floor for consideration by the whole chamber. every day we move closer to judge jackson's confirmation, the case and likelihood of her confirmation grows stronger and stronger and stronger. and i thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have approached this process with

good faith. at the end of the day, it will be our courts and the american people who rely on our courts who will benefit most from having an amazing jurist like judge jackson elevated to the pinnacle of the federal judiciary. here is what happens next. later today i'm going to take the next step for moving afford with judge jackson's nomination -- forward with judge jackson's nomination by filing cloture on her. this will not affect the ultimate result of this confirmation process. once i file cloture, the stage will be set for the senate to close debate on judge jackson's nomination by thursday morning. a vote on final confirmation will then follow. the senate could then vote to confirm judge jackson as justice ketanji brown jackson as soon as possible thursday -- as soon as thursday, as soon as this thursday. i hope we can work together to make that happen. what better way to wrap up this

work period, this productive, largely bipartisan work period, than by confirming this most worthy, most qualified, most historic nominee to the supreme court. yesterday i said something that i think is worth emphasizing all week long. judge jackson's nomination is a joyous and momentous occasion for the senate. she is truly one of the most qualified and accomplished individuals ever considered by this chamber to the supreme court. she will bring a new and much-needed perspective to the court's work while also affirming the rule of law and respect for precedent. as i said yesterday, the confirmation of the nation's first black woman to the highest court in the land will resonate for the rest of our nation's history. untold millions of kids will open textbooks and see pictures of justice jackson and understand in a new way what it means to move towards a more perfect union. it means that all our nation's struggles, for all the steps

forward and steps backward, the long march of our democracy is towards greatest opportunity and representation for all. so when the senate finishes its work this week, justice jackson will be the first of many, the first of many -- her brilliance, her lifetime of hard works, her remarkable story will light a flame of inspiration for the next generation to hopefully chart their own path for serving our democracy and unleash so much talent that has thus far not been utilized. this gives me great hope. that should give all of us great hope. finally, i want to close by thanking my friend and colleague, chairwoman cantwell for holding a hearing in the commerce committee that is of great importance to the american people -- ensuring transparency in petroleum markets. that hearing will occur today. the american people right now find themselves on the losing side of a truly disturbing

trend. on the one hand, the american people are paying more and more at the pump and some of the nation's biggest oil companies are reporting soaring profits, but then using those profits to reward shareholders with stock buybacks. this is infuriating. prices go way up. oil companies make more profit. and what do they use it for? stock buybacks which do nothing to improve the economy, workers, or help the consumer. this is outrageous, and one of of the reasons there is such mistrust of the big oil companies. so, i am glad that the commerce committee is looking into this important issue, and i've urged the f.t.c. to likewise take note. i thank chair cantwell for her work. i expect we'll see additional announcements on this matter very soon. this caucus, this democratic caucus, is going to keep its eye and do whatever we can to help with bringing down the

outrageously high price of oil and the outrageous actions of corporate executives in the oil industry. i yield the floor, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings on the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: the american people are seriously worried about the direction our economy is headed. just between january and march the share of people reporting higher living costs as the most important problem facing our country actually doubled. so did the share of those most worried about the price of gas. consumer price hikes have now set new 40-year records, multiple months in a row. more and more american families are feeling the pinch. and seven in ten say they do not like how president biden is handling it. it was clear from the start that the biden administration's war on affordable energy would

punish american consumers. and even liberal economists warned that flooding our economy with partisan spending could trigger broad inflation. sure enough, american families are now -- have now endured nine straight months of inflation above a 5% annual pace. and the worst effects are being felt in the most vulnerable pockets of our society. one analysis of spending on household staples found that cost cutting is most pro nowbsed among lower-income americans -- pronounced among lower-income americans. as "the washington post" reported, workers like jacqueline rodriguez have seen some of the fastest wage growth of the pandemic era. but those gains are being eroded by the highest inflation in 40 years. it's jowj ratous -- outrageous how much everything has gone up,

rodriguez said. i go to the supermarket to buy chicken, and i have to make a decision on what meat i'm going to cook based on the prices. everything is more expensive. another group who especially remain vulnerable are seniors on fixed incomes. one retired teacher in north carolina recently said it like this, said just surviving day to day has become a big concern of mine, because how in the world, i'm starting to panic, i'm starting to think, how am i going to keep paying for everything? many retirees already face health challenges or other hardships, so there's simply no wiggle room in their budgets. one california man explained that cancer was the reason he had to retire in the first place. now he's, quote, scraping the bottom of the barrel. i do most of my food shopping in marked-down bins and don't buy

much else. one white house official has seemed to endorse the sentiment that inflation is, quote, a high-class problem. a whole lot of low-income americans and retired americans could very readily set him straight on that. last autumn, the administration's top spokeswoman scoffed at what she called the tragedy of the treadmill that's delayed. well, that may be the extent of the pain that inflation and supply chain problems are causing certain affluent people, people like those inside the beltway, having to wait a little extra on luxury purchases, but i can assure the president's team that many americans are hurting a lot worse than they are. the very least, the -- the very least the administration must do is stop digging. no more reckless spending, no join gantic tax -- gigantic tax

increases to damage the economy even further. yet, senate democrats won't give up on yet another reckless spending spree. just last week, the biden administration proposed to smack the country with the largest tax hike in american history. the last thing the american families can afford is more of the same recklessness that got us where we are. now, on a different matter, the constitution makes the president and the senate partners in selecting supreme court justices. as a practical matter, each senator gets to define what advice and consent means to them for much of the 20th century, the senates typically took a different approach. senators tended to give presidents a lot of leeway, as long as nominees checked basic professional and ethical boxes. but then the political left and

senate democrats initiated a series of major changes. in the late 1980's, democrats thrust the senate into a more aggressive posture toward nominations, with an unprecedented scorched earth smear campaign that took aim at nominees' judicial philosophy. "the washington post" editorial board said back at the time that the formerly conventional view that presidents would get great deference had now fallen into disrepute. they worried that a highly politicized future for confirmation tbroadings -- proceedings might lie ahead following democrats' actions. well, just a few years later, personal attacks on then judge thomas made the previous hysteria over judge bork seem like lofty debate by comparison. and one year after that, in 19 1992, then senator biden proclaimed that if another

vacancy occurred during the end of president bush 41's term, the judiciary should not hold any hearings before the presidential election. well, that situation didn't arise that year. once president clinton took office, republicans did not try to match democrats' behavior simply out of spite. is we tried, actually, to de-escalate. just ginsburg and breyer both won lopsided votes with opposition in single digits. that was during a time when republicans were in the majority but the very next time the democrats lost the white house, the precedent-breaking tactics came roaring back. during bush 43, that's democrats and the democratic leader took the incredibly rare tactic of filibustering judicial nominations and made it routine. the press at the time described

the sea change. they said it was important for the senate to change the ground rules and there was no obligation to confirm someone just because they are scholary orer yu died. -- or erudite. democrats decided that pure legal qualifications were no longer enough. they wanted judicial philosophy on the table. so, 20 years ago, several of the same senate democrats who are now trumpeting the historic nature of judge jackson's nomination use these tactics to delay or block nominees, including an african american woman and an hispanic man. both, of course, nominated by a republican president. in one case, democrats suggested their opposition was specifically -- listen to this -- specifically the nominee's hispanic heritage would actually make him a rising star.

half, half of senate democrat voted against chief justice roberts, the best apellate advocate of his generation. all but four democrats voted against justice alito, who had the most judicial experience of any nominee in almost a century. there was no question about the basic legal qualifications of either, but democrats opposed both. but our colleagues recoiled at the taste of their own medicine and broke the rules to escape it. they preferred to detonate the nuclear option for the first time ever rather than let president obama's nominees face the same treatment they had just invented, invented for president bush's. democrats did not then change the rule for supreme court because there was no vacancy. but the late democratic leader harry reid said publicly he'd do

the same thing for the supreme court with no hesitation. by 2016, democrats had spent 30 years radically changing the confirmation process, and now they had nuked the senate's rules. obviously, this pushed republicans into a more assertive posture ourselves. so, when an election-year vacancy did arise, we applied the biden-schumer standard and did not fill it. then when democrats filibustered a stellar nom nominee for the next year, we extended the reid standard to the supreme court. in 2016 and 2017, republicans only took steps that democrats had publicky declared they'd take themselves. yet our colleagues spent the next four year, four years, trying to escalate even further. justice gorsuch, impeccably qualified, received the first successful partisan filibuster

of the supreme court nominee in american history. justice kavanaugh got an astonishing and disgraceful spectacle. and justice barrett received baseless delegitimizing attacks on her integrity. now, mr. president, this history is no the reason why i if oppose judge jackson. this is not about finger-pointing or partisan spite. i voted for a number of president bush's -- president biden's nominees when i can support them, and just yesterday, moments after the judiciary committee deadlocked on judge jackson, they approved another judicial nominee by a unanimous vote. my point is simply this -- senate democrats could not have less standing to pretent, pretend that a vigorous examination of a nominee's judicial philosophy is somehow off limits. my democratic friends across the

aisle have no standing whatsoever to argue that senators should simply glance, just glance at judge jackson's resume and wave her on through. our colleagues intentionally brought the senate to a more assertive place. they intentionally began a vigorous debate about what sort of jurisprudence actually honors the rule of law. this is the debate democrats wanted. now it is the debate democrats have. and that's what i will discuss tomorrow. why judge jackson's apparent judicial philosophy is not well suited to our highest court. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question occurs on the motion to discharge. the yeas and nays have been previously ordered. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

the vice president: on this vote the yeas are 50, the nays are 50. the senate being equally divided, the vice president votes in the affirmative and the motion is agreed to. the nomination is discharged and will be placed on the calendar.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will resume legislation -- legislative session. majority leader? mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 860. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. mr. schumer: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 53. the nays are 47. and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, supreme court of the united states, ketanji brown jackson of the district of columbia to be an associate justice. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i proudly and happily send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 860, ketanji brown jackson of the district of columbia to be an associate

justice of the supreme court of the united states signed by 20 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, later this week, perhaps in a day or two, the senate will vote on the nomination of judge ketanji brown jackson to serve as a member of the united states supreme court. last week i laid out my -- the reasons for my opposition to this nomination and yesterday i voted against her nomination in the judiciary committee. but i want to make clear that my vote against judge jackson is

not a rebuke of her legal knowledge, her experience, or her character. judge jackson is obviously very smart. she has vast practical experience, which i think is very useful. she's likable and she's very clearly passionate about her work. the senate's constitutional duty to provide advice and consent, though, requires us to look beyond judge jackson's resume and personality to understand her judicial philosophy and the lens through which she views her role as a judge. certainly the senate must evaluate whether judge jackson will act fairly and impartially. we've also got to make a judgment whether she will leave her personal beliefs and policy preferences at the door and whether she will respect the bounds of her role as a judge or

attempt to establish new judge-made law. this last point is absolutely critical in my view. the founders wisely established a system of checks and balances to make sure that no person or institution wields absolute power. the legislative branch, of course, makes law. the executive branch enforces the law and the judicial branch interprets the law. we've each got our responsibilities under the constitution. and while that certainly a simplification of each of the three branches, it does illustrate that there are separate lanes or roles for each branch in our constitutional republic. and we talked about that during judge jackson's confirmation hearing. the judge says she understands the importance of staying in her

lane. she used that phrase many times during the confirmation hearing. she said she would not try to do congress's job making laws. but over the years, and i think this is a blind spot for judge jackson and frankly many on the bench, particularly at the highest levels, over the years we've come to see a pattern of judges who have the concept of judge-made law. in other words, it's not derived by a statute by the congress, it's not derived by the text of the constitution itself, but rather it's made as a policy judgment without any explicit reference in the constitution itself. now, that, i believe, is judicial policy making or legislateling from -- legislating from the bench.

the supreme court over the years has developed various legal dock tribes like subs -- doctrines, which is basically a doctrine under which judges create new rights that are not laid out in the constitution. it shouldn't matter if a person ultimately agrees or disagrees with this new right. if you like the result, well, you're liable to overlook the process by which the judge has reached a decision, but if you disagreed with it, then clearly it's a problem to have judges under elected, unaccountable to the voters making policy from the bench no matter what it's called. it's deeply concerning i think and it should be to all americans to have nine elected

and ultimately judges that make policies that affect 330 million or so people. they have no say. they can't vote them out of office. they can't hold them accountable. the purpose of this is so judges can make hard decisions but they have to be tethered to the constitution and the law, not made up out of whole cloth. no judge is authorized under our form of government to rewrite the constitution to their liking or impose a policy for the entire country simply because it alliance with their -- aligns with their personal belief or their policy preferences. as our founders wrote in the declaration of independence, governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. when judges find unenumerated

and invisible rights in the constitution and issue a judgment holding in essence that all state and federal laws that contradict with their new judge-made law is invalid and unconstitutional, there's no opportunity for anybody to consent to that outcome like you would if you were a member of the senate or a member of the house, people could lobby us, they could call us on the phone, they can send us e-mails, use social media to try to influence our decision. they could recruit somebody to run against us in the next election. they could vote us out of office if they didn't like the outcome. but none of that would apply to life-tenured unaccountable federal judges making judge-made law at the highest levels.

no consent of the governed, no legitimacy which comes from consent. abraham lincoln made clear that it's the concept of consent that is the foundation for our form of government. he said famously no man is good enough to govern another man without that man's consent. of course he used that in the context of slavery, and he was right, but it has broader application as well. as i said, when it comes to the executive and legislative branches, it's easy to see how consent and the legitimacy that flows from that comes into play. voters cast their ballot for senators, for members of the house, for the president. once a person is offered, voters do what is described as a

performance evaluation, the next time that person is on the ballot, voters determine if that person should remain in office or be replaced by someone new. but, again, that's not true of the judicial branch which highlights and demonstrates why the judicial branch is different, why it shouldn't be a policy medicare, -- policymaker, why judges should not have judge-made law that's not in the constitution itself. it's important that our courts remain independent and be able to make those hard calls, but even people like judge breyer, who judge jackson will succeed on the supreme court, has written books worried about the politicalization of the judiciary, and i think that's one reason why our judicial confirmation hearings can get so contentious. witness brett kavanaugh's --

brett kavanaugh's confirmation hearing which was a low point for the senate judiciary committee and for the senate as a whole. but people wouldn't get so exercised over nominations if people were calling balls and strikes like an umpire at a baseball game. judges should be umpires, judges should not be players. so justices on the supreme court are not held accountable at the ballot box and they aren't evaluated every few years for their job performance, they're not named by the -- nominated by the president and confirmed for a lifetime performance. when judges engage in blatant policy making, it takes away the power of we the people to decide for ourselves and hold our government accountable. it speaks to that statement in the declaration of independence that says government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, but that's totally

missing when it comes to judge-made law and identifying new rights that are nowhere mentioned in the constitution. again, i understand when you like the outcome as a policy matter, you're not liable to complain too many. but we should recognize this over the course of our history as a source of abuse by judges at different times in our history and we've seen the horrible outcomes of things like plessy versus ferguson where the supreme court, without reference to the constitution itself, using this doctrine of substantive due process said that separate but equal was the answer for the conflict between the rights of african american school children and the rest of the population. they said it's okay. you can satisfy the constitution if you give them separate but equal educations. well, of course, that's a

shameful outcome and we would all join together in repudiating that kind of outcome and thankfully, too many years later, brown versus the board of education, established that the separate but equal doctrine was overruled, and that's as it should be. but the point i'm trying to make here is whether it's the court's decisions on abortion or the right to marry same-sex partner or separate but equal or even things like the dred scott decision, which held that african american fugitive slaves were chattel property or in the famous lockner case where the new deal justices struck down an attempt by the government to regulate the working hours of bakers in new york. all of this was in the

substantive due process doctrine as a way to cover up and hide the fact that it was judges making the law and not the policymakers who run for office. i'm also afraid that judge jackson did not always adhere to her own admonition that judges should stay in their lane. in the case, make the road new york versus mcaleenan, the the -- there was expedited removal of those who enter our country illegally. the immigration and nationality act gives the homeland security secretary sole discretion to provide expedited removal proceedings. judge jackson, who presided over the case challenging that rule, ignored the law. she went beyond the unambiguous

text to deliver a political win to people who brought the lawsuit. she barred the department of homeland security from using expedited removal proceedings to deter illegal immigration. she stopped immigration policies that had clear authority to implement according to the black letter law. unsurprisingly that decision was appealed and ultimately overturned by the d.c. court of appeals. but this is an example of not staying in your lane and not deferring to congress the authority to make the laws of the land when the congress has been unambiguously clear. so ultimately i believe that demonstrates a willingness to engage in judicial activism and achieve a result notwithstanding

the facts and the black letter law in the case and to disregard the law in favor of a political win for one of the parties. but this is just exactly what i started off talking about. this is the opposite of consent of the gofned when judges -- governed when judges ignore the laws passed by congress even when congressional intent is clear. unfortunately that wasn't the only example of activism in judge jackson's decisions. we heard a lot about this, and i think it was an entirely appropriate subject for questions and answers. judge jackson's an accomplished and seasoned lawyer and judge and she knows how to answer hard questions. during sentencing hearings, judge jackson has said she disagrees with certain sentencing enhancements for policy reasons. that's the word she used, for policy reasons, and she chose to

disregard its application. that's not staying in your lane. she also used a compassionate release motion to retroactively slash a dangerous drug dealer's criminal sentence because she didn't like that the government brought a mandatory minimum drug charge even though the government had every right to do so under the applicable law. the promise of equal justice under law requires judges to follow the law regardless of their own personal feelings about the policies. justice scalia famously said if a judge hasn't at one time or another in his or her career rendered a judgment that conflicts with their own personal preferences, then they are probably not doing their job right. it's absolutely critical for our supreme court justice to not only acknowledge but to respect the limited but important role that judges play in our

constitutional republic. they shouldn't allow politics or policy preferences to impact their decisions from the bench, and they can't use their power to invalidate the will of the american people based on invisible rights that aren't actually included in the constitution itself. in 1953 judge robert jackson observed that the supreme court is not final because -- infallible but it's infallible only because it's final. in other words, the recourse that we the people have when judges overstep their bounds when it comes to constitutional interpretation is to amend the constitution itself, something that's only happened 27 times in our nation's history. and it's a steep hill to climb to be sure. but it's important for the legitimacy of the supreme court itself for the judges to be seen as staying in their lane and

interpreting the law, not making it up as they go along. i'm reminded of another quote about the scope of the judiciary's duties and powers. in 1820 thomas jefferson wrote to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is al very dangerous doctrine, indeed. and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. once again our founders, our founding fathers had the wisdom to establish three branches of government that share power toll avoid any single person or institution from wielding absolute power. and to ensure that we maintain the proper balance of power, justices need to stay in their lane and interpret the law, not make the law, particularly when the voters have denied consent

from them for doing so. so to summarize, mr. president, to ensure we maintain the proper balance of power under our constitution, judges must only interpret the law and they can't allow activism to bleed into their decisions. and they can't ignore black letter law. and they can't use doctrines like substantive due process to hide the fact that they're making up new rights that aren't contained anywhere in the written constitution itself. as i said before, i fear if confirmed, judge jackson will attempt to use her vast legal skills to deliver specific results and stay -- and get outside of her lane by making judge-made laws that are not supported by the text of the constitution itself. as i said in the judiciary committee and i'll say again, when the time comes to vote on judge jackson's nomination here on the senate floor, i will once

again vote no for the reasons i just stated.

mr. hawley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. hawley: i rise do to urge the senate for take action to crack down on child pornography offenders and to protect our children. this is a growing crisis and it is one that is near to the ■hear of every parent in america. i can attest to that as a father of three small children myself. i've got a 9-year-old, 57-year-old, and a -- 7-year-old, and a 16-month-old baby at home. but i can also attest to it as a former prosecutor. as the attorney general, one of the first think i started was an antitraffic task force because what i saw with the human trafficking including unfortunately child sex trafficking is an exploding epidemic. in my state and around our

country. children are exploited, children are trafficked, and those who work in this area, those who prosecute in this area, law enforcement who work day in and day out will tell you that the explosion of child pornography is helping to drive this exploding epidemic of child sexual exploitation and child sex trafficking. the problem is that child porn itself is exploding. a "new york times" investigative report found that in 2018 there were 45 million images of children being sexually exploited available on the internet, 45 million. just a few years before it had been three million. in 201845. then -- 2018, 456789 the national center for missing & exploited children found that number had grown to 85 million, 85 million images on the internet of children being brutally sexually exploited. and as every prosecutor and

every law enforcement advocate and every law enforcement agent who works in this area will tell you, that explosion of this material which, by the way, is harmful in and of itself, is exploit at a timive in and of itself is driving a crisis of child exploitation and child sex trafficking in this country. now, the nomination of judge ketanji brown jackson to the security has helped bring this issue front and are in. -- front and center. her record of leniency to child sex offenders have been much the center of her hearings and has startled the public. a recent rasmussen survey found following her hearings, 56% of all respondents said they were troubled by her record on child sex offenders. that included 64% of independents. and they're right to be troubled. her record is indeed startling. in every case involving child pornography where she had

discretion, she sentenced below the federal sentencing guidelines, below the prosecutor's recommendations and below the national afternoons. we now know the national average for possession of child pornography, the national sentence imposed on average is 68 months. judge jackson's average, 29.3 months. the national average sentence for distribution of child pornography, 135 months. judge jackson's average 71.9 months. it's true of her criminal sentencing across the board. the national average of all criminal sentences imposed in the united states, 45 months. judge jackson's average 29.9 months. this is a record of leniency in the words of the republican leader, leans yens -- leniency to the extreme on child sex offenders and criminals in general but, but, but we're told and have been told on weeks on end, it's not really her fault.

we were told by the white house and senate democrats that it's not her fault because those federal sentencing guidelines that she in every case where she could went below, those guidelines aren't binding thanks to a decision of the supreme court by justice breyer, justice stephens, those guidelines are only advisory. we were told repeatedly if we wanted to get tougher sentences for child porn offenders, we're going to have to change the law. in fact, i see my friend senator durbin here today, the chairman of the judiciary committee, he said to me multiple times during the committee. march 22 he said to me, i hope we will all agree that we want to do everything in our power to lessen the incidence of pornography and exploitation of children. i want to tell you congress doesn't have clean hands. we haven't touched this now for 15, 16, or 17 years. senator durbin went on, we've created a situation because of our inattention and unwillingness to tackle and extremely controversial area in

congress and left it to the judges. i think we have to accept some responsibility. and he went on, i don't know if you, meaning me, have sponsored a bill to change this. i'll be looking for it if we're going to tackle it, we should. i agree with that, a hundred percent. i agree we should tackle it. this is the time to tackle it and i'm here to do that today. i'm proud to sponsor and introduce legislation along with my fellow senators mike lee and thom tillis and rick scott and ted cruz to get tough on child porn offenders. now let's be clear. when congress wrote the child pornography federal sentencing guidelines and it is congress that wrote them substantially way back in 2003, when congress wrote them, they wanted them to be binding. congress meant for these gietd lines to -- guidelines to bind federal judges. the supreme court struck that part of the guidelines down. now it's time to put it back into place. my bill would create a new mandatory, mandatory minimum sentence of five years for every

child porn offender who possesses pornography, five years. if you do this crime, you ought to go to jail. it would make the guidelines binding for any and all facts that are found by a jury or found by a judge in a trial. restore the law to what congress intended back in 2003. take away discretion from judges to be soft on crime and get tough on child sex offenders. that's what this bill would do. now, i've called this bill the protect act of 2022 because it's modeled on the protect act of 2003 when congress wrote these guidelines. and i just note for the record that i believe every senator voted for it back in 2003, including the chairman of the judiciary committee, senator durbin, and every member of the judiciary committee, republican and democrat, who was serving at the time. that act back in 2003 toughened penalties for child porn offenders, made the guidelines

mandatory and explicitly took away discretion from judges to sentence below the guidelines. i think it was a pretty good law and i think now is the time to act. our children are at risk. the epidemic of sexual assault, sexual exploitation and victimization is real. and let's be clear on what child pornography is. it is an industry, an industry that feeds on the exploitation of the most vulnerable members of our society that feeds on the spectator sport of child abuse and child victimization. if you have a lot of images of child pornography, you ought to go to jail for a long time. if you possess child pornography, you ought to go to jail for at least five years and it's time to tell every judge in america to get tough on child porn. that's what this bill would do. i just urge the senate now to take this opportunity to act. so as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of s. 3951 and the

senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i further ask 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. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: reserving the right to object. i have to ask myself why now. why does the junior senator from missouri bring this bill to the floor of the united states senate today? when you think back, this matter has been considered. originally the guidelines were considered in 1984. the question of child pornography came back to us in 2003. in 2005 there was a supreme court case about applying the guidelines on sentencing to these types of cases, the case known as booker. we know that in 2005 that decision was handed down. we know in 2012 the sentencing

commission said to congress and to the world you need to do something here. these guidelines that you promulgated don't reflect the reality of today. we know as well that the guidelines were written, some were written in an era when the materials we're talking about were physical materials and we now live in a world of internet and access to not just tens and hundreds but thousands of images, if that is your decision. and all of these things have happened and we come here today, today. i don't know exactly how many years the senator from missouri has been? the senate, but to my knowledge this is his first bill on this subject that he has presented in the last few weeks president and i wonder why. why now? are there valid questions about sentencing guidelines? certainly. there's no question about it. i said as much and he quoted me.

the sentencing commission told us over a decade ago in 2012 you've got a problem here. the world has changed and the law doesn't reflect it. but this is the first time to my knowledge that the senator from missouri or any republican senator has tried to enact legislation on this subject. why now? well, i know why. he said as much. it's because we are now considering the nomination of judge ketanji brown jackson to the supreme court. and this senator has suggested over the course of the last two weeks in hearings before the senate judiciary committee that somehow this judge, this judge aspiring to the supreme court, is out of the mainstream when it comes to sentencing in child pornography cases. it's no coincidence that the senator from missouri comes to the floor today while judge

jackson's nomination is pending on the senate calendar and has been discharged from our committee by a bipartisan vote of the senate last night. it's no coincidence that he is raising this issue within hours or days before her confirmation vote. it's one more very transparent attempt to link judge ketanji brown jackson's confirmation with this highly emotional issue of federal sentencing when it comes to child pornography or child exploitation. there are some political groups -- at least one well-known political group -- that manufactures theories about child pornography and pedophilia and the like and even inspires deadly reactions to them, and they're cheering this on. i've seen their reaction already this morning in the newspaper. they're watching this and hoping that someone can keep this issue alive on the floor of the united states senate for them.

the senator from missouri has even gone so far as to make the outrageous claim in this woman, judge jackson, the mother of two wonderful girls, who i had a chance to meet, a mother who comes to this issue not only as a judge but as the daughter and niece of law enforcement officials who have been part of her family, in the words of the senator from missouri, that this woman, quote, endangers woman, close quote. endangers children. i'll yield when i'm finished. one former conservative prosecutor called senator hawley's charges, quote, meritless to the point of demagoguery. i've read so many reviews of the senator's chance against this judicial nominee. not one of them gives him any credence. they basically say what you are dealing with here is a

complicated area of the law, controversial area of the law, and to try to ascribe to this one nominee these motives, these outcomes is baseless and meritless. consider this -- how can this judicial nominee possibly have the endorsement of the largest law enforcement organization in america, the fraternal order of police, the endorsement of the international association of the chiefs of police and many other law enforcement groups? how could she possibly have all that and be as wrong on a critical issue as the senator from has asserted? how is it possible that the american bar association took a look at all of her contacts as a judge, as a lawyer, as a law student, came up with 250 individuals who knew her personally, appeared in court with and against her, judged her

and her individual capacity as a lawyer, how can the american bar association inches view these those -- interview those 20250 and find no evidence of the charges that have been made by the senator from missouri? how is it possible that they would review all of this and miss such a glaring fact? they didn't. they told us under oath that they asked point-blank, is her sentencing standard soft on crime, different than other judges? the answer was no. no. and the net result of it was, the american bar association found this nominee, who the senator from missouri charges with these outrageous claims, they found her to be unanimously well-qualified. unanimously well-qualified. and yet the senator from missouri believes that he's discovered something that the whole world has missed. unfortunately, he's wrong. and he doesn't admit it.

when judge jackson is confirmed to the supreme court -- and i pray that she will be later this week -- it will be in part because she is a thoughtful, dedicated person who has worked as a judge for over ten years. she has published almost 600 written opinions. she has had 100 cases where she has imposed criminal sentences and a dozen or plus cases involving children. what the senator from missouri has done is cherry-pick arguments from one small part of her service on the bench that has been debunked across the board. but let me say it again. judge jackson's sentences were appropriate exercises of discretion as a judge applying the law to the facts in difficult cases. and it's interesting to me how the senator from missouri has carefully drawn lines to exclude trump appointees to the bench who've done exactly what this judge has done as well. so-called deviate from the

guidelines when it came to sentencing. in fact, one judge from his state, from the eastern district of missouri, whom he has personally endorsed as a good judge and may well be, has followed the same practice as this judge. did he raise that at all in the senate judiciary committee about the missouri judge who was doing the same thing as judge jackson? no. nothing. there is nothing about these judges that is deviating from other than accepted practices. when 70% to 80% of the judges across america are using the same standard, judge jackson is in that mainstream along with judges that this the senator from missouri has endorsed. if this issue needed to be addressed -- and i believe it does -- we can do so if we do it carefully and we should do it carefully. make no mistake -- i don't back off from my words. as a father, a grandfather, as a

caring parent, i sincerely consider this to be one of the most serious crimes, the exploitation of children. i can't think of anything worse. and the pornography issue certainly is out of control because of the internet and because of those who are making a dollar on it. we should take it very seriously. very seriously. it changes and destroys lives. but let's make sure we do this in the right way. what have we done in the senate judiciary committee? it's great for the chairman to stand on the senate floor and talk about the issue. well, what have you done, senator? let me tell you what i've done. i think the senator from missouri knows it. we've done what we can from many different angles. the committee held a hearing on the f.b.i.'s ail fewer to proper investigate larry n.a.s.er for assaulting young athletes, olympic gymnasts included, which enabled the abuse of dozens of additional victims. we called them on the carpet, put them under oath, brought the testimony forward.

we didn't backway from the issue. following that hearing, i introduced the eliminating limits to justice for child sex abuse victims act with senator marsha blackburn from tennessee. the senate has now passed this bipartisan legislation which would enable survivors of child sex abuse to seek civil damages in federal court no matter how long it's taken the survivor to disclose the facts of the case. and the committee has unanimously reported a bill which the senator from mama knows well -- the earned act, legislation he has cosponsored with senator blumenthal that will remove wrangle immunity to the tech industry. i have no apologies for our approach on this. there's more work to be done. but i want to tell you, i'm tempted to leave it just at that but for one part, one thing i'm concerned about -- our federal sentencing guidelines have been advisory, not mandatory, since the supreme court's 2005 ruling in the

booker case. in bill now being offered on the floor in a very quick fashion by the senator from missouri, this bill attempts to create mandatory sentencing guidelines for a single category of offense. it's not clear whether it passes the constitutional test of booker. it could be a waste of time. we don't need to waste time in a critical area of the law that has been so controversial and has been considered and reviewed over decades. even so is it's a dangerous slope to go down. imagine a world where every time it was politically advantageous, whether there was a supreme court nominee or a headline in the paper, that some senator could come forward, disagree with a federal judge on a particular case and say, let's pass a mandatory minimum sentencing guideline to take care of the matter. that is no way to approach the law in a fashion that is used for deterrence and punishment. we need to be thoughtful about

it. the subject of this seriousness, this gravity deserves more than a drive-by on the floor of the united states senate. i invite my colleague to do his work on this issue as we all should, the work that is required, the work that is required by the seriousness of this matter. and i object. mr. hawley: mr. president? the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. hawley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. hawley: the senator says why now? why act now? because it is a crisis now. because there are 85 million images of children be exploited on the internet now. because child exploitation is exploding in this country now. and today the senator lace bare on this floor -- lays bare on this floor the bait-and-switch that he and his colleagues have employed. , oh, judge jackson, it is not her fault. you should act in the law to change the law. when we come to do what this congress did in 2003, to do it now in 2022, a measure that senator durbin supported in

2003, he says, oh, no, we don't need to act now. it's rushed. it's too hurried. let do it later, let's think about it longer. then we hear recited the bizarre claims that somehow child pornography is a conspiracy theory. this is something that senate democrats, including the chairman, have repeated over and over and over, led by the white house, the idea that child exploitation is a conspiracy theory? i invite you to look any parent in america in the eye and tell them that the exploitation of children is a conspiracy theory or any law enforcement agent or any prosecutor or anyone who is working on the exploitation to combat the exploitation of children in this country. no, it is a crisis. and it's real. and the fact that the senate hasn't acted until now is, i think, shameful for the senate. but why wait another day? now, i look forward, if the senator is serious -- he does

hold the gavel on the judiciary committee. we could mark this bill up, take action. i'd invite him to cosponsor this bill. he voted for it in 20203. let's have -- 2003. let's have hearings if we can't debate it today. let's have hearings, let's mark it it up. let's take it seriously. i'll wait. i suspect i'll be waiting for an awfully long time. here's the bottom line. i am not willing to tell the parents of my state that i sat by and did nothing. i am not willing to dismiss child exploitation as just some conspiracy theory. i am not willing to abandon the victims of this crime. -- to their own devices and say, good luck to you. no, i'm not willing to do that. and nor am i willing to excuse judge jackson's record of leniency that does need to be corrected. she should not have had the discretion to sentence leniently in the extreme as she did, nor should any judge in america, in nigh view.

-- in my view. so what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. we should fix it for everybody across the board. we can begin by acting as we did in 2003. so i'm disappointed, but i can't say that i'm surprised. -- that this measure has been objected to today. all i can say is i pledge to my constituents, i pledge to the parents of my state and, yes, to the victims of my state that i will continue to come to this floor, that i will continue to seek passage of this act until we get action from this senate to protect children and to punish child pornographers. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: the senator believes we're now prepared to change the through that has been debated for decades. he put in the a law that's been.

if you want to take on a serious issue, take it on seriously. that means doing the homework on this. yes, have a hearing. of course have a hearing. we want to make sure the people from the sentencing commission and others are part of this conversation. it isn't just a matter of throwing charges out against a nominee. and if you want to be serious about it admit the obvious. 70% to 80% of judges struggle with the same sentencing that we have set down. in light of supreme court decisions -- i ask for order, mr. president. the presiding officer: there was no response to begin with to the senator. so let's move forward. mr. durbin: so i would say, mr. president, that as far as i'm concerned, this is a serious matter that should be taken seriously. you don't become an expert by seven days ago introducing a bill, i've got it. -- i've got it.

don't change a word of this. we're going to do this the right way. and we're going to tackle and issue that's been avoided for more than two decades. i find this reprehensible. no excuses whatsoever. i'm not going to do this in a slipshod, make a headline matter, but in a manner that is serious, working with prosecutors, defenders, justice, sentencing commission and get it right. it's time to get it right. we wrote this law some 19 years ago, before the internet was as prevalent in society as it is today. let us be mindful of that as we attack this problem and address it in a fashion that is befitting the senate and the senate judiciary committee. i yield the floor. mr. hawley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. hawley: mr. president, the senator from illinois says that congress hasn't acted in two decades. that's true. i haven't been here for two decades. he has. there is no excuse to not take

action now. there is no excuse to not act on this problem when we know what the solution is. so listen, if the senator is saying today, if he's committing today to holding hearings and marking up a bill to toughen the child pornography laws, to make mandatory the sentencing guidelines, that's fantastic. i'll take him at his word. i look forward to seeing those hearings noticed and to seeing that markup noticed, and i hope it will be fortcoming. i'm here to make a predicts, we'll be waiting a very long time. let's not forget what his father and the sentencing commission, stacked with members of his party, have been recommending. it's not been to make child pornography sentences tougher. they wanted to make them weaker. what the sentencing commission has recommended with its liberal members for years now is to make them weaker. that's what judge jackson has advocate. she also wants to change the guidelines, to make them weaker. i think that's exactly the wrong move, and that's why the senator was here to block this effort

today. he doesn't want to see tougher sentences. he doesn't want to talk about this issue. he wants to sweep it under the rug. i'm here to say i won't let that happen. i'll be here as long as it takes. i'll be agitating for this in the senator judiciary committee as long as it takes until we get justice for the victims of child pornography and child exploitation. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate previous order, the senate a confirmation vote on the nominee is expected by the end of this week. as always you can follow live coverage of the senate right here on c-span2. >> with increased gas prices the

house energy and commerce committee hears testimony from six oil company executives about their business practices in the fossil fuel industry tool. watch live wednesday at 10:30 a.m. eastern on on c-span3, e at c-span.org or watch full coverage on c-span now, our free video app. >> there are a lot of places to get political information but only at c-span2 you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if that happens here or here, or here, or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> joining us now gabe roth