Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have good news. This week, the U.S. Senate is going to consider five highly qualified Federal district court nominees. Before briefly speaking on their records, I want to make a few broad observations. First, each of these nominations was recommended by the White House, by their home State Senators, or, in the case of the D.C. District Court, by District of Columbia Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton. I want to commend my colleagues--they did their job. They continued to identify and recommend nominees who have the experience and the temperament needed to serve on the Federal bench. Second, these nominees represent an important cross-section of professional diversity. They have served as public defenders. They have also been prosecutors, civil rights attorneys, municipal lawyers, and even sitting judges. Third, all five of these nominees received bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee. How about that, bipartisan support in the committee. That is a testament to their abilities, qualifications, and character. I thank my Republican colleagues who made that possible. Finally, these nominees understand the limited role a judge plays in our judicial system. They have to be guided by evenhandedness, impartiality, and fidelity to the rule of law. We have seen that in their records. These records have been scrupulously reviewed by staff on both sides--Democrat, Republican, in addition to the White House, obviously. We have seen it in their testimony before the Judiciary Committee, and we have seen it in the broad support they had from the legal communities where they live. Let me tell you a bit about each of them. First is Jia Cobb, nominated to the District Court for the District of Columbia. Ms. Cobb has more than 15 years of experience as a trial litigator. She has tried more than 30 cases to verdict in both civil and criminal cases. This depth of experience is one of the reasons she was rated unanimously--unanimously--``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. For nearly a decade, she has represented people seeking to uphold their rights when it comes to the Nation's housing, disability, and employment discrimination laws. Critically, Ms. Cobb understands the distinction between being an advocate and a judge. As a judge on the District of D.C., she has promised to rule based on the law and facts of the cases before her. Next is Judge Karen Williams, nominated to the District of New Jersey. Like Ms. Cobb, Judge Williams was unanimously rated ``well qualified'' by the ABA. That is a testament to her integrity, temperament, and experience, which includes 12 years as a Federal magistrate judge and another two decades as a practicing litigator. She has the strong support of both Senators from New Jersey, Menendez and Booker, and many throughout the New Jersey legal community. We will also be voting this week on the nomination of Patricia Giles to the Eastern District of Virginia. Ms. Giles has a deep understanding of the district which she has been nominated to serve. As a Federal prosecutor, she tried more than 20 cases to verdict, and prosecutors and defense counsel alike have praised her fairness and her tenacity. Ms. Giles also received a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association and has the strong support of her Senators, Warner and Kaine. The Senate will consider Judge Michael Nachmanoff, nominated to the Eastern District of Virginia. He has served as a Federal magistrate judge since 2015, following an accomplished career as the district's appointed Federal defender. Judge Nachmanoff also received a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating from the ABA. He has the strong support of both Virginia Senators. Like Ms. Giles, Judge Nachmanoff received praise from prosecutors and defense attorneys alike. It is a testament to his integrity and evenhandedness. Finally, the Senate is going to consider Sarala Nagala, nominated to the District of Connecticut bench. Ms. Nagala is an accomplished Federal prosecutor. She has devoted her career to very serious cases involving human trafficking, child exploitation, identity theft, hate crimes, and fraud. Like each of the nominees, she received a unanimous rating of ``well qualified'' from the ABA and has strong support from Senators Blumenthal and Murphy. I ask all my colleagues to join me in supporting these five extremely high-qualified nominees. With their record, experience, and evenhanded approach, they will be ready on day one to serve in the critically important role of district court judge. Finally, let me say that for many of these people, this decision to move forward and ask for appointment to the Federal judiciary carries with it status and admiration from many people--most people--but it also may mean some personal sacrifices. They are now going to be officially in public life, and that brings with it, as we all know, some burdens. They are willing to accept that and their families are willing to accept it as they continue to serve as Federal judges. I hope my colleagues will join me in approving them. I hope it is done this week in a timely manner. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it is possible--it is just possible-- that the Republican Senator from Kentucky, who is the minority leader on the floor, has been sitting in on the revenue negotiations for the reconciliation. But it is possible--I don't rule that out--it is possible that we didn't know it, but he was actually sitting for breakfast in Wilmington, DE, with Schumer, Manchin, and other leaders as they were hammering out the revenue and tax portions, but I doubt it. I doubt that the Senator from Kentucky has really been in the inner workings and decision process of what is going to be in the revenue package when it comes to the reconciliation bill. I couldn't tell you. Maybe the Presiding Officer knows more than I do; but it is a matter of negotiation, and it is ongoing, and it has not been agreed to. Yet when you hear the Senator from Kentucky come to the floor, he is announcing what is going to be in the package as if he knows. I don't think he does. There are a couple of things that we do know for sure. We know what the Republican vision of tax policy in America is because they have shown it to us over and over again. When Donald Trump was elected President, the Republican Senators had a chance to do their reconciliation package, and they devoted it to changing the Tax Code. And to no one's surprise, they came through with their time-honored approach: cut taxes on the wealthiest people in America and the poor and middle-class people will be happy as clams. Well, they did it and did it again and added to the deficit in the process. In fact, under their Republican President, Donald Trump, we had the largest increase--36 percent--in the debt than under any President in history. So when they come talking to us about tax policy, they favor the rich; and the impact on the deficit, they don't pay any attention to it when they have a President of their own party. I think we know that the facts speak for themselves. Here is what we do know as well: One of the provisions in the American Rescue Plan under President Biden really specifically went after helping working families and lower-income families. And it bears remembering and repeating that not a single Republican was willing to vote for that package in either the Senate or the House. They all voted against it. One of the things included in it was a tax break for families with kids. How about that? A tax break for families with kids instead of a tax break for the multimillionaires and billionaires which were part of the Republican package 4 years ago. So it basically came down to kids under the age of 6, parents received $300 a month in a tax break; and those between 6 and 17--I think these figures are correct--received $250 a month. That money flowing to these families with children was the largest tax cut--it really dwarfed anything that the Republicans ever did to help working families. And we are trying to keep it on the books. I am, and I think you are too, and all of us are. Do you know why? Because we have too darn many families struggling in America, and they are in poverty. And we talk a lot about it, and we say: ``Isn't it a darn shame in a great country like this? That you can't afford food for your children, you can't afford a roof over your head, you are facing eviction, you can't afford the basics to send them to school, you can't afford new clothes and a new pair of shoes.'' We say, Isn't it a darn shame. But now we have done something about it in the American Rescue Plan without a single Republican vote, not one. So our tax policy helps lower-income families, particularly those with children, and if we can do it--I think we can--we can engineer that tax cut to make it permanent to help families. I just heard President Biden--he was in New Jersey speaking about infrastructure and Build Back Better, the reconciliation plan. He said that in the State of New Jersey, this child tax credit, which we enacted without a single Republican vote helping us, has reduced child poverty in that State by 36 percent. I will bet you it has done the same thing in my State if it has done it in New Jersey. So we are getting practical results that help working families. If we have our way in reconciliation, we are going to give the largest tax cut in the history of this country to middle-income and working families, exactly the opposite of what the Senator from Kentucky just said: ``Oh, it'll be the biggest tax increase in history.'' Well, there will be a tax increase, I hope, for those who can afford to pay it, and that means the same people who got a benefit 4 years ago from the Trump Republican tax policy. A lady named Lydia in my home State of Illinois described what this means to her. She wrote to my office, and she said: ``With the child tax credit, I'll be able to buy my kids their school supplies, clothes, things they need to go back to school,'' and she added, ``be able to buy some groceries.'' Think about the last time that any Senator stopped and thought: I wonder if I will have enough money to buy groceries this week. Here is a mom in Illinois, with kids, who says that our tax policy-- the one that was just criticized by the Senate Republican leader--is helping her. Well, if the Republicans were in charge, I am afraid they would take that money that Lydia, who wrote to me, is talking about buying groceries and put it right in Jeff Bezos' pocket. Now, I have nothing against Mr. Bezos. He has done fabulously well. I have talked to him once, maybe twice, a long, long time ago. I am not opposed to people investing in business, being successful, and making money, but I don't believe that his income should be somehow walled off from the Tax Code. I believe he ought to pay his fair share. And if I remember correctly--and I will stand corrected if I am wrong--I don't believe he paid taxes last year. So we are looking at that and saying: Mr. Bezos, congratulations. Amazon is a big deal. It is making a lot of money, and all of us--most of us--are participating in it, but you ought to pay some taxes. If you can build rockets and take your friends up for a little shot into space, shouldn't you pay a few bucks in taxes? I don't think it is unreasonable. The same thing holds true for these corporations. When we look at the biggest corporations and most profitable in America, too darned many of them pay no Federal taxes. What is going on here? We live in a country where success leads to wealth, and wealth leads, I think, to some social responsibility, and that includes paying your taxes. Under President Biden's Build Back Better agenda, we want to extend the child tax credit, give working families a little breathing room, and reduce child poverty in America. Now, if they want to come up and criticize us for reducing child poverty in America, so be it, but call it for what it is. We are putting our tax policy on the side of families with kids. For our Republican colleagues who say families like Lydia's don't need any help, they do. And we cannot walk away from them. Not a single Republican will vote for this reconciliation bill. We know it. They didn't vote for the rescue plan. That is just their choice. I'm sorry to say that we are not going to build back America better unless we change some policy and tax policy to help working families makes a difference. I mentioned to you how the deficit skyrocketed during the Trump administration. Well, the Senator from Kentucky comes and repeats over and over again: Well, they are going to do it again; they are going to run up the deficit. We have a plan to pay for the programs that we are talking about, and it means putting a new tax responsibility on people who are wealthy. The President made it clear: I don't want taxes going up on anybody making less than $400,000 a year. So any tax policy we have will affect the wealthy and corporations that aren't paying their fair share. That is our approach. It is quite a bit different than the Republican approach. Building back better is also going to do something about easing long- term inflationary pressure and making life affordable for families. The things we will invest in, in the Build Back Better agenda, are spread over a number of years, and they will pave the way for an enduring economic recovery. These policies will help parents get back to work by making safe, reliable childcare more accessible. I don't know what the final negotiations will be on Build Back Better. We know the amount of money involved is going to be less than we originally thought. We are going to have to change some things, but I certainly hope that this idea of childcare--affordable, quality, safe childcare--is part of the final package. It means so much to so many working families, particularly to moms who can't get back to work unless they have peace of mind and have their kids in good hands while they are working. Everyone, from single mothers to our Nation's economists, can tell you the best way to stabilize the American economy is by supporting working families. In fact, the report by Moody's concluded that the Republican fearmongering about inflation--and we hear it every day on the floor-- Moody's called it ``overdone.'' Moody's is hardly a Democratic publication. But the fear of inflation is one of the reasons Republicans give for not wanting to even talk about changing tax policy in America. This pandemic has shown us the cracks in our economy. This Build Back Better package will get us to the point where we can start to rebuild it in the right way--give families financial relief, invest in our Nation's economic potential. The President said in New Jersey--and I couldn't agree with him more--we have never gone wrong in America investing in the people in this country. We have a lot of hard-working people. They do it every single day for their families. Those who come to this country keep up the tradition. But they need the tools to succeed. One of those tools is education. I hope we can find a way to expand opportunities in education for training for our workers into the 21st century. Talk about giving the store to the Chinese, if we don't invest in our workers and their training and education in the next generation to make sure that it is smarter than the last, then, we are going to lose ground to the Chinese. I wanted to say one last word here. I see the Senator from Ohio is here so I am going to be quick about this. It is easy to overlook--take a look at this chart. It is easy to overlook computer chips, small pieces of silicon. They power so many products and appliances, that we use every day, that we don't pay much attention. They are in our computers, smartphones, lifesaving medical equipment, appliances, microwaves, and our cars--dozens even in the cars that we drive. There is a global shortage of microchips. That is one of the reasons why it has slowed down production of new vehicles and why the market for used vehicles is tighter than usual, because of these little chips. And we have become too reliant on foreign countries to produce them. In a bill that we considered a few months ago, we put direct investment in America in building microchips. I think that is money well spent. I hope it works. I think it can. If we can provide these microchips, we don't have to wait for some company in Taiwan or China to send us this critical element that is needed to build all of these products. The global shortage of computer chips and the higher cost to consumers is one example of how we failed to invest in our Nation's resilience. I have to say that education and investment in American production and workers is the best way to get this economy moving again. We need to have a reserve supply of these chips so that we can build the autos and provide for the assembly lines and stabilize prices for everything from toasters to tractors. It is an important undertaking, and I hope my colleagues will realize that Build Back Better, the reconciliation bill, is dedicated to the same premise.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Several faith leaders also submitted letters, including Rev. Allison DeFoor, who wrote that Ms. Perez is ``an individual of the highest integrity. She is thoughtful and sound in her judgment and committed to principles of justice that transcend politics. She embodies the true meaning of public service and would be an exceptional federal judge.'' Ms. Perez's nomination received bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee. In short, she is a seasoned litigator, ready to take on an important job. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting her. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the following letter in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, right now, the end of the pandemic may be--I underline ``may be''--within our reach. The Delta surge is finally waning. Over the past month, coronavirus case numbers have fallen by more than 40 percent, thank goodness. The average number of daily vaccinations has increased by more than 25 percent--not an unrelated statistic--and COVID death rates are finally starting to decline. These are all promising developments, and they demonstrate that President Biden's response to the coronavirus is working. But as winter approaches, we need to ask ourselves a serious question: Will we continue to take the steps that are necessary to save lives and beat this virus once and for all? Or will we do nothing, as some of our Republican colleagues seem to urge, and allow the pandemic to come roaring back for another deadly wave? Millions of American families have already suffered the consequences of denial, deception, and inaction. A report released earlier this month found that since June--just since June--nearly 100,000 American lives could have been saved if there were more vaccinations. But we can save the next 100,000 lives in America if we rally behind the President's call for his vaccination policy. The American people are already with him. The majority of people support mandating COVID-19 vaccinations for students 12 and up. Business owners across the country have followed President Biden's lead by instituting their own vaccine mandates. They have helped increase vaccination rates by more than 20 percent. In Texas, where the Governor is seeking to outlaw vaccine mandates, one hospital CEO said that requiring his workers to be vaccinated is ``unequivocally . . . the best decision we ever made'' and that 98 percent of his staff has now been vaccinated. President Biden's vaccine policy is supported by parents and business owners alike because they recognize a very simple truth: The only way to keep our kids in school, keep our economy on the road to recovery, and stop the spread of this deadly virus is vaccination. A do-nothing strategy is deadly and disastrous for our economy. Yet that is exactly what many of our Republican colleagues continue to propose that we do: nothing. It is the same response they had earlier this month when it came to raising the debt limit. Let me reflect for a moment on the effort that is underway by State attorneys general. The Republican attorneys general across the United States represent 24 different States. They have threatened to file lawsuits to try to stop vaccine mandates and mask requirements. I think it is fair to take a look at the period of June 15, 2021, to September 15, 2021, and ask how the States are doing represented by these attorneys general who are fighting President Biden's coronavirus policy. Well, we took a look at the average of the 24 States that are threatening these lawsuits. Their infection rate is more than twice than all the other States'. So the people in their States where they are supposedly fighting for their well-being are losing when it comes to the infections of coronavirus. How about the death rates? Of the 24 States in this period of time threatening lawsuits, we have a death rate almost three times the death rate in the other 26 States. The vaccination rate is lower in the 24 States represented by these Republican attorneys general. So what are they winning? Some political war? What the heck difference does it make who wins a political war when we are talking about a life-and-death issue? And that is frankly what we are faced with. When it comes to the debt limit, we see the same negative default approach by the Republicans. Senate Republicans were ready to let go of the steering wheel and swerve into oncoming traffic with the debt limit. Right up until the eleventh hour, they wanted to use the filibuster to block Democrats from addressing the debt, the limit of the debt. Do you know when that debt was incurred? It was incurred during the Trump administration, with many of these same Republicans voting for the spending that stands behind it. Now the minority leader, Senator McConnell, has once again pledged that Republicans refuse to lift a finger to deal with the debt limit when it expires in the first week of December. Think for a moment what defaulting on the debt would mean to American families. It is fodder for even more inflation. So don't come to the floor with your posing for Holy pictures on the issue of inflation and then turn around and say: I don't care what happens to the debt limit. Americans will pay more each month because of that for their mortgages and credit card bills and student and car loans. Fifteen trillion dollars in household wealth and retirement savings would be wiped out if Senator McConnell and the Republicans have their way in the first week of December. If our Republican colleagues are truly concerned about the economic well-being of America, work with us to put together a sensible response to the debt limit. Senator Schumer and the Democrats have said to the Republicans: If you won't lead, if you can't follow, then get the heck out of the way. Democrats, with a majority vote, will enact a new debt limit. We understand our responsibility to this Nation.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have 14 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it was December 7, 1941, a young African- American man from the South Side of Chicago was celebrating his 23rd birthday. He was in a neighborhood tavern, and somebody bolted through the front door and cried out that the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor. In 1943, that same young man was inducted into the U.S. Army, a segregated institution at the time. He landed in Normandy within days of D-day. He fought across France in the Battle of the Bulge. While his unit regrouped, they heard rumors--horrible rumors--about a camp near Weimar, Germany. This young soldier and his commanding officer hopped into a jeep to see for themselves. What he witnessed at Buchenwald, the Nazi death camp, changed this man forever. As he recalled in his memoir, his first thought was ``this is what happened to my ancestors.'' This is what happens when human beings see others as less than human. Then he made a vow to himself. He said: I made an emotional decision that when I returned from the Army, the rest of my life would be spent trying to make [the place] where I live, and the bigger world, a place where all people could have peace and justice. That soldier's name was Timuel Black. He kept that vow faithfully for 76 years. Tim Black was a foot soldier for justice. He died last week at the age of 102, living in the neighborhood that had been his home nearly all his life, a place that he personally called a ``Sacred Ground,'' the South Side of Chicago. His passing is our loss--to our city, our State, and our Nation. If you are not from Chicago, you may not know his name, but we all live in an America that is better because Timuel Black helped shape it. He was a living link to some of our Nation's worst sins and our greatest achievements. All four of Tim Black's grandparents were born into slavery. When he was a year old, Tim Black and his parents left Alabama and the terrorism of Jim Crow and headed to Chicago, part of the first wave of America's Great Migration. They settled on the South Side in a then- segregated neighborhood now known as Bronzeville. After he served in World War II, Tim Black returned to Chicago. He graduated from Roosevelt University, earned a master's degree in history from the University of Chicago. He was teaching history in Chicago public schools in 1955 when he heard a young minister speaking on television, he was so moved that he decided, at his own expense, to fly to Montgomery, AL, to meet this man, a man by the name of Martin Luther King, Jr. In 1963, Dr. King and the great African-American labor leader A. Philip Randolph called on Tim Black. They asked him to organize Chicago's contingent to come to Washington for the great March on Washington. Three years later, Tim Black asked them to return the favor and he persuaded Dr. King to bring his campaign for racial justice to Chicago. Together, they pressed for an end to discriminatory housing laws that squeezed many of the city's Black residents into overpriced, ramshackle apartments in unsafe, segregated neighborhoods with few jobs and failing schools. In 1975, after decades working at high schools, Tim Black became a professor of sociology, anthropology, and Black history at what is now known as Harold Washington College. He was the Griot of Chicago, who preserved the rich history of the Great Migration and Bronzeville. He was also a brilliant political strategist who understood how to use his power to help others. So, in 1982, Harold Washington, who had been his friend since they were children, was representing their neighborhood in the U.S. House of Representatives. Professor Black and a few others went to Harold Washington and said: You have to run for mayor of Chicago. Washington replied: ``Sure. If you get 50,000 new Black voters and raise $100,000, then I'll consider it.'' Washington figured that was the end of it; they would never reach those goals. But Professor Tim Black started a fundraising drive and helped organize a voter registration campaign that ultimately registered not 100,000, not 50,000, but 263,000 new voters in Chicago, and he raised more than $1 million for the Harold Washington campaign. In 1983, with the support from voters from all backgrounds--Black, White, and Brown--Harold Washington became Chicago's first Black mayor. A decade later, a young lawyer by the name of Barack Obama sought out Professor Tim Black's guidance when he first considered running for office. Last month, President Obama returned to the South Side to break ground on the Obama Presidential Center in Jackson. Although Professor Black's failing health didn't allow him to attend in person, it is a good bet that ceremony couldn't have happened without him. Mr. President, I was blessed to know Tim Black. When Barack Obama, my Senate colleague from Illinois, was elected President, I was given a handful of tickets to the inauguration. The first name that came to my mind was Tim Black. He had to be there, and his wife Zenobia Johnson- Black, a personal friend who volunteered to drive me in my first Senate campaign. Zenobia is a wonderful person. She is an exciting driver, and we had many escapades together. So I invited Tim and Zenobia to come and sit in the best seats that I had for the inauguration of Barack Obama, the first African-American President from the South Side of Chicago. I was fortunate I knew Tim Black. I counted him as a friend. I was there sitting next to him at his 100th birthday party. It was a great night, and the man still had it all together and a great sense of humor. Loretta and I send our condolences to his beloved wife of 40 years, Zenobia Johnson-Black, his daughter Ermetra, and his countless friends and students. A great man has left us. He will be missed.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this week, the Senate will consider Christine O'Hearn's nomination for the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Ms. O'Hearn is eminently qualified to be a district court judge. She has nearly 30 years of experience as a litigator in private practice. During that time, she has tried numerous cases to verdict and has completed more than 150 trial days as lead counsel. Ms. O'Hearn has worked on both the plaintiff and defense sides of complex civil litigation matters, with her core focus being employment law. In addition to representing individual clients, Ms. O'Hearn has represented both private and public entities, including a number of county and municipal governments. Throughout her career, Ms. O'Hearn has also given back to the legal community. For example, she has served on the New Jersey Supreme Court's Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law; the U.S. Magistrate Judge Selection Committee for Camden, NJ; and the New Jersey Supreme Court District IV Ethics Committee. While serving on the New Jersey Supreme Court's Ethics Committee, Ms. O'Hearn devoted hundreds of hours--pro bono--to prosecuting an attorney for violating the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct. After a 15- day trial before a Special Master, the attorney was found to have violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct. Ms. O'Hearn also briefed and argued the case on appeal, where the ruling was affirmed. Numerous groups and individuals have written letters of support for Ms. O'Hearn's nomination, including: the New Jersey State Bar Association, the Camden County Bar Association, and dozens of New Jersey Fellows with the American College of Trial Lawyers. With her extensive experience, it is no surprise that Ms. O'Hearn was unanimously rated ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. Ms. O'Hearn has the strong support of her home state Senators, Senators Menendez and Booker, and she received bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee. With decades of legal experience on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants alike, Ms. O'Hearn is well prepared to serve with distinction in the District of New Jersey. I urge my colleagues to join me voting in support of her nomination.