Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, H.R. 9106, the Enhanced Presidential Security Act, passed the House of Representatives last week and is currently pending in the Senate. As chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over the U.S. Secret Service, I would like to offer a few thoughts on this legislation, which I support. The bill requires the Director of the Secret Service to follow the same standards for determining agent staffing levels for the President, Vice President, and major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. The bill also directs the Secret Service to conduct an internal review of its protection authorities and submit to Congress a report that includes recommendations for improvements. Since the first assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Homeland and Government Affairs Committee have received a classified briefing and held a joint hearing where we heard testimony from the Secret Service and the FBI. We have worked on a bipartisan basis to get to the bottom of how the Secret Service failed to protect former President Trump on July 13. Following the awful events of July 13 in Butler, PA, the Secret Service elevated the posture of its protectees and bolstered protective details to ensure the highest levels of safety and security. Specifically, former President Trump is receiving additional personnel and protective assets at levels comparable to that of the President of the United States. Additionally, the Secret Service has dedicated available protective assets typically reserved for the President to the Vice President and both Vice Presidential candidates. H.R. 9106 serves to capture in statute these efforts undertaken by the Secret Service and Department of Homeland Security to dedicate critical resources and personnel to mitigate the inherent risk in the protection of the President, Vice President, and other major Presidential candidates who seek our Nation's highest office in this heightened threat environment. I am concerned that the bill does not address the recruitment and retention challenges that have been perennial problems for the Agency. With the Secret Service now providing the same protections to candidates that it does for the sitting President, the strains on available agents will become even more apparent. Congress must continue working to address these issues.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 251, confirmation of the nomination of Michael Sfraga to be Ambassador at Large for Arctic Affairs. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yea.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, we are 1 week away from the deadline to fund the government. It is an embarrassment that we return again and again to this precipice, realizing full well the disaster that shutting down the government creates for our Nation. Yet the House of Representatives goes through these contortions every time, ultimately, giving in to common sense and funding the government, at least temporarily. I was relieved to hear last night that there is a bipartisan funding agreement reached finally after days of negotiations, one that maintains current funding through December 20 and avoids a government shutdown a month before the election. Wouldn't it be great if the Senate and the House were to announce some dramatic, positive legislative measure on a bipartisan basis other than keeping the lights on in the Federal Government? That seems to be all they can achieve in the House of Representatives. Thankfully, the agreement includes necessary provisions related to extending veterans' benefits, including one that enables the only joint DOD-VA facility in the country--one you know well--Lovell, located in North Chicago in our home State, to continue providing healthcare to servicemembers and veterans alike. Imagine we were just hours away from the possibility of suspending basic lifesaving services at the Lovell institute for our veterans. I am pleased this bipartisan negotiation led to an agreement free of poison pills and partisan cuts, but it should have been done a long time ago. Unfortunately, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think funding the government is a partisan bargaining chip and not one of the most essential tasks in Congress. Just last week, the House rejected Speaker Johnson's partisan government funding plan that would have pushed our job to fund the government until next March in 2025. A half-year delay was being proposed by the Republicans in the House. It is no surprise that this unserious funding plan did not pass. Not only did the Democrats vote against it, but 14 Members of the Speakers's own party opposed it. He forced the vote anyway, wasting precious time on a proposal that even his own caucus question. Now time is of the essence. If both sides and both Chambers continue to work in good faith, we can fund the government through December 20 with actions this week, before the September 30 deadline, but it will take cooperation from both Chambers. I hope we can find it.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the passage of S. 4698, action on the Peters amendment No. 3292 be vitiated and amendment No. 3293 be considered and agreed to, and the remainder of the order be in status quo.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following law clerks and fellows to the Senate Judiciary Committee be granted floor privileges until September 28, 2024: Simone Montgomery, Isha Sharma, Kenneth Mok, and Charles Alldredge.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have served on the Senate Judiciary Committee for more than 20 years, including the most recent 3-and-a- half years as chair. I have come to know many of the dedicated professionals across our Nation who have devoted their careers to the law, the Constitution, and equal justice. Next month, one of those dedicated professionals, Jim Palmer, of Quincy, IL, will be celebrating his 50th year as a litigator. A Quincy native, Jim is Illinois educated through and through--having earned his undergraduate degree from Quincy University and his law degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. After graduating from law school, he served as a law clerk for the Fourth District Appellate Court in Springfield. And following that, Jim worked as an associate and then made his way to partner at a law firm, spending the rest of his career with his name on the door of that practice. His experience has spanned a wide range of legal issues, from estate planning to insurance defense to complex litigation. For much of his career, he has also concentrated on issues involving questions interpreting Federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution. Throughout his life, Jim's commitment to the law also inspired him to give back to his community, Illinois, and the country. For nearly three decades, Jim served as a member of the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Illinois Supreme Court. And in Adams County, IL, he tried criminal cases--serving as a part-time public defender representing indigent defendants and later as a part-time assistant State's attorney. In all of these endeavors, Jim used his knowledge of the law to help advance that ever-important goal of equal justice. But if you don't take my word about how excellent of an attorney Jim is, his awards and recognition speak for themselves. He is a graduate of the National Institute for Trial Advocacy, a recipient of the Liberty Bell Award from the Illinois State Bar Association, and a member of the Leading Lawyer Network, where he has been recognized as an outstanding defense counsel and general civil litigator in the State. But more than just practicing law, Jim has taken it upon himself to teach the law. Since 1979, Jim has taught classes including criminal law, criminal procedure, and constitutional law at Quincy University, helping to mold the next generation of lawyers, judges, and legal scholars. He also lectures on a regular basis for the Pursuit of Learning in Society--POLIS--a program sponsored by Quincy University that allows retired adults to continue the lifelong journey of learning. Jim, congratulations on 50 years of legal practice. Illinois' legal profession is stronger with you in it. I am lucky to call you a friend. To your wife Ann; your children Mark, Jennifer, and Christopher; and your grandchildren Luke, Eli, Dylan, and William Michael, you should be incredibly proud of Jim. I hope you all take time to be outside, travel, and maybe even pet some Newfoundland dogs in celebration of this momentous milestone.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, throughout our Nation's history, election season has brought out the dark side of politics. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson infamously waged smear campaigns against each other during the election of 1800. Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams exchanged accusations of murder and impropriety in the election of 1828, and questions about Grover Cleveland's activity out of wedlock became campaign fodder in the election of 1844--all to say dirty campaign tricks are hardly foreign to American elections. But, today, I want to address a particularly vile lie being circulated by former President Trump and his Vice Presidential candidate, J.D. Vance, and their supporters during this campaign, and this lie has real-life consequences. In recent weeks, false claims have been circulating on social media that members of the Haitian immigrant community in Springfield, OH, are abducting, killing, and eating people's pets. The former President even made this claim during his debate with Kamala Harris. This claim is not only outrageous and patently false, with both city officials and law enforcement confirming they have received zero criminal reports of such conduct, but it is now becoming a safety concern for the entire Springfield, OH, community. Despite this, the former President and his running mate have continued to knowingly spread this lie. Shockingly, in an interview with CNN this week, Senator Vance admitted that he was willing to ``create stories'' to get media attention. And that is exactly what he and former President Trump have done--first on social media, then during last week's debate to an audience of 67 million Americans, and then on national news. Think about that. A man who is seeking to become Vice President of the United States admitted that he was willing to spread vicious lies simply to get media attention. But these lies have real consequences for Haitian immigrants in Springfield, OH, and across the country. Since this smear campaign began, there have been multiple evacuations of schools, government buildings, and medical facilities in Springfield, OH, because of bomb and shooting threats related to these lies. I want to thank Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, a Republican and my former Senate colleague, for stepping up to debunk these lies and protect the people of his State. Yet these candidates have doubled down. They are willing to spread lies and put an entire community at risk to amplify their anti- immigrant platform. But this behavior is not a surprise. For years, the former President has engaged in bigoted fearmongering, especially when it comes to the topic of immigration. One incident summarizes his approach well. It was January of 2018. Then-President Trump, myself, and a handful of other lawmakers were sitting in the Oval Office in the White House, discussing a bipartisan immigration deal that I had negotiated, along with Senator Lindsey Graham. The agreement would have devoted billions of dollars to securing the border and giving legal protection to Dreamers, young immigrants who grew up in this country. But the former President was not interested. He complained that it would lead to more immigration from Haiti, which he dismissed in profane terms that I am loathe to repeat on the floor of the Senate. I was stunned. His words were hate-filled, vile, and racist. I could not believe that the President of the United States of America not only held these views but felt comfortable enough to speak them aloud in the Oval Office. But he did. So it was hardly surprising that, when presented with the opportunity to continue to fuel his anti-Haitian hate, the former President has taken that opportunity. I speak on the floor today to tell Haitian immigrants and Haitian Americans and the entire immigrant community: There is no place for hate in America--no place for hate. You are a critical piece of American leadership. You make our communities and our Nation stronger. Just look at the attorney general of my home State of Illinois, a dear friend of mine, Kwame Raoul. He is the son of Haitian immigrants, and his service to the State of Illinois and the Nation is invaluable. He, too, has condemned the former President's fearmongering. Or look at CPT Alix Idrache, a top member of his class and graduate of West Point, who is a pilot for the U.S. Army. He was born in Haiti. He rose to national prominence, in 2016, after a photo showed him with tears streaming down his face at the West Point graduation. His tears, he explained, were a representation of the American dream. For Haitians who have already experienced violence and instability in their native country, the lies that the former President is spreading only make their lives in America--somewhere they hoped would be a safe place--more dangerous. It disheartens me that, in the year 2024, I must come to the floor of the Senate to condemn the lies of a former President who is running yet another political campaign fueled by fearmongering and hate. Immigrants make our Nation stronger, and any attempt to score cheap political points from lies suggesting otherwise should be met with swift condemnation from both sides of the aisle. It is ironic that, at a time when these dehumanizing remarks are being made about immigrants in Springfield, OH, there was a press conference yesterday in St. Louis, MO. I call it to the attention of everyone. St. Louis is a town I know well. I grew up across the river, in East St. Louis, IL, and I have spent many a day in St. Louis, MO. The town has seen its problems and its challenges, and, a few years ago, they decided to try to analyze what the problem was. The problem was they needed a workforce, and they didn't have one. Do you know what they suggested as a solution? Immigrants--immigrants. They need more in St. Louis. Yesterday, there was an announcement by the chamber of commerce. It was an extraordinary announcement that they have attracted some 30,000 immigrants to that city. They believe that it means that they can move forward now with economic development. It was a plan by the chamber of commerce. Contrast those two remarks--remarks of former President Donald Trump and his Vice Presidential candidate, J.D. Vance--about immigration, dehumanizing these immigrants and suggesting they are not only unnecessary in the United States but actually negative in their impact. They are wrong in Springfield, OH. They are clearly wrong in St. Louis, MO. They are wrong in America. Immigrants have made this country. We are a nation of immigrants, and I would say quite boldly: I am damn proud of it. My mother was an immigrant to this country, brought here at the age of 2. I am glad that my grandparents, whom I never knew, had the courage to make that journey to the United States. Because of that courage and determination, like so many other immigrants--because of it--I am standing here today as a Senator representing the great State of Illinois. How in the world can we continue to allow this rhetoric to come from Trump and Vance in terms of the immigrants' impact on America? We can see before our eyes it makes a difference. The diversity of our population is our strength, and that strength should be capitalized on. To think that young people who are Dreamers, brought here by their families, run the risk of being deported at some point because of this rhetoric makes me sick to my stomach. These are wonderful young people, extraordinary contributors to America's future, and we should applaud them, not hate them. I can tell you for a fact. I know a little bit about the Senate. I have served here for a number of years. There are Members of the Senate on the other side of the aisle who want not one single new immigrant to come to America. I believe there should be an orderly process. That is why I was one of the Gang of 8 to create the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, which passed in the Senate quite a few years ago. It should pass again. We should have an orderly process of immigration and capitalize on the benefits that they bring to this country, and build our economy on those. But to say that we are opposed to all immigrants is just plain unfair. It is wrong, and it is un-American. St. Louis now realizes that with a workforce, they can start to rebuild their economy, and they are applauding that. Immigration is part of the solution if it is done in the proper, orderly manner. And we can do it that way if we pass comprehensive immigration reform. The notion of deporting 11 million people from the United States is a fantasy. It cannot, it should not ever happen. These people have made a great contribution to this country. President Trump wants to say that, if you have a woman, for example, who is a mother who is undocumented in a house full of documented citizens, she should be deported or everyone in the house should be deported. It isn't going to happen, and it should never happen. We should capitalize on comprehensive immigration reform and make it a viable part of America's future. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, there is a pamphlet that is circulated to tourists and students alike entitled ``How Laws Are Made,'' and it tells the basic process under our Federal Constitution for enacting legislation. It talks about committee hearings; it talks about votes in committee, votes on the floor--in the Senate, then in the House; conference committees, agreements, a lot of other votes. Finally, the measure is sent to the President, if it is successful, for his signature or his veto. That is the ordinary process. You will not see what is happening on this floor of the Senate in the pamphlet to describe how laws are made. It is such an unusual thing. Here we are in the Senate, basically trying to say: I ask unanimous consent to ignore the Constitution as written and the laws as described and go ahead and pass this bill anyway. Well, you might say there are times when that is needed--and it is-- but when it comes to the issue of immigration, there is a much broader consideration. The fact of the matter is, it has been almost 35 years since we have passed an immigration reform bill--35 years. I don't know how many times the Senator from Utah has voted for an immigration bill--perhaps not--but the point is, we have tried and can't bring the measure to the floor. There is resistance and objection, primarily from the Republican side of the aisle, for any type of comprehensive reform. But there comes a time when there is a glimmer of hope. Once in a while, something happens around here, and you think things are going to be different. That happened not that long ago, a few months back. We had a conservative Republican Senator from Oklahoma named James Lankford. James and I disagree on so many issues, but I respect him so very much when it comes to his legislative commitment. He sat down with Chris Murphy, a Democratic Senator from the State of Connecticut, and they said: Can we, Republican and Democrat together, come up with a measure that won't solve every problem with immigration, but at least it will move us forward? What are we going to include in that? Well, we are going to include provisions that dictate what happens when someone presents himself to the border: who would be considered in a fast fashion and who would not be. We are going to put more Border Patrol agents on the border. They wrote a provision that the Border Patrol agents' union--thousands of men and women who risk their lives--endorsed. Well, what are we going to do about fentanyl and narcotics that are coming into the United States as well? They added more provisions and then more law enforcement to stop the flow of narcotics. There were provisions in that bill which I didn't like, but by and large, I had to say that was a good bill. It really was a bipartisan effort to solve some of the major problems we have. Some on the Republican side said: Unless you pass this bipartisan bill, we are not going to allow other business to occur. It was a pretty serious showdown moment. So we were prepared to do it. A lot of us were prepared to vote for this measure. It was bipartisan, it made real progress, and it really addressed the flow of people coming across the border. What happened next is important. What happened next is one person stepped up and said: Stop. That person was Donald Trump, the former President of the United States. He said: I don't want this bipartisan measure that Senator Lankford and Senator Murphy have crafted to pass in the Senate. Critics said: Wait a minute, former President. If we don't do this, we won't do anything. We won't be able to address this measure significantly or constructively before the next election. He said: So be it. Blame it on me, Donald Trump said. Kill this bill. The word went out on the Republican side: Stop where you are. No measure is to pass, not even this bipartisan measure. When it turned out that only a handful of Republicans were willing to defy Donald Trump, the measure died. That was the end of it. You have to ask yourself, did we miss an opportunity there? The answer is, we certainly did--a bipartisan opportunity to do something constructive. And the decision was made by Donald Trump that he would rather have this issue going into the election in 2024 than to have any solution, bipartisan solution, which might inure to the credit of the Democrats as well as the Republicans. That was the end of the conversation. So we find ourselves on the floor today with a measure that is being suggested on it by unanimous consent that, of course, did not go through committee and has not been reviewed, and it unfortunately has some serious flaws. Instead, this bill targets the most vulnerable people seeking safety and protection in the United States: children traveling without a parent or guardian, families with minor children, and asylum seekers fleeing persecution. The bill that is before us--the unanimous consent request--would strip away protections for unaccompanied children. It would deport many of them back into the hands of smugglers, keep others in detention for up to a month, and keep them separated from adults who could care for them. This bill would require families to be detained--a failed policy that has disastrous effects on children and doesn't make the border any safer. This bill would also create multiple new restrictions on asylum, undermining our longstanding commitment to refugees seeking safety, such as the people in Ukraine. Many of them were refugees to the United States, once attacked by Vladimir Putin, and I believe most Americans agree that providing protection for them and their families is the right thing to do. The Biden administration is doing what it can under our outdated immigration laws to secure the border, and encounters between the ports of entry have decreased by more than 50 percent. Yes, there are too many flowing over the borders at various times, but we have seen dramatic reductions in those who are coming across our border now, and we could have seen more with this bipartisan bill, which Donald Trump and his loyalists ended up killing. The administration has dramatically increased deportations, made tough changes in our asylum system, and improved access to lawful pathways to citizenship, but ultimately it is Congress's responsibility to reform our broken immigration system, which has not been updated, as I said earlier, in 35 years. To resolve our challenges at the border, we need immigration reform that will actually fix our broken immigration system and provide the necessary resources to DHS to secure the border. Rather than providing additional resources, improving infrastructure, or adding more lawful pathways, this bill would undermine fundamental American values and put families and children at risk. Recently, a bipartisan group of Senators had a tough border deal put together. I want to commend Senator Lankford for his courage in stepping up, particularly when Donald Trump was opposed to it. I wish the majority of Republicans would have stood behind their Senator from Oklahoma, but the Senator from Utah and others decided they wouldn't. They would rather take these opportunities to come to the floor and try the unanimous consent route. Donald Trump was crystal clear. He said: Blame it on me if the bill fails. The bill failed, and I am blaming it on him just as he has. He doesn't want a solution; he wants an issue in November. The time is long past due for my Senate Republican colleagues to stop partisan bickering, get behind James Lankford's effort, and work on a bipartisan basis to pass the immigration legislation the American people deserve. I object.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this is a serious topic. To rush through it in a matter of minutes is unfair. More time should be devoted to it, but I am going to do my best in a short period of time to be very direct. My first direction is, to anyone following this debate at home, pull out your cellphone, go to your search engine, whatever it happens to be, and look up the following name. I am going to spell it carefully because I want you to be able to type it in. Kermit, K-E-R-M-I-T, Gosnell, G-O-S-N-E-L-L. Kermit Gosnell. While I speak, I hope you will take a look at what you see on your screen. This bill has been proposed by my friend from Oklahoma. It creates new standards of care for doctors providing reproductive healthcare, and these standards are not based on medicine, fact, or science. The goal of this bill is to target and intimidate reproductive healthcare providers and make it harder for women to access comprehensive, compassionate healthcare. Let me be clear. Despite former President Trump's wild claims, it is not legal in this country, in any State, to kill a child after it is born. Doctors already have an obligation under the law to provide appropriate medical care to any child that is born alive. How do I know this? I voted for it. It is explicitly codified in a law which President Bush signed entitled ``Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002''--2002. It has been on the books over 20 years. And when doctors harm babies in violation of State and Federal laws, they are held accountable. For example, in the year 2013, Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a Pennsylvania doctor, was convicted on three counts of first- degree murder for murdering babies after botched abortions. I want you to read, if you brought this up on your phone, the story of this man. What he did was an outrage. It was disgusting. He was held accountable for it and is serving life in prison as a result, without any possibility of parole. So to argue that we are talking about an area of law that is not addressed by current law is just plain wrong. Our Nation already has laws in place to protect newborns. To suggest otherwise is simply false. Alleging that doctors are wantonly killing infants after birth is as ludicrous as accusing immigrants in Ohio of eating cats and dogs. Here we are. This is today's Republican Presidential campaign. Rather than create meaningful protections for women and infants, what this bill would actually do is put politicians into private healthcare decisions. Abortions occurring late in pregnancy are incredibly rare--incredibly rare. Why don't we hear the same level of concern for women being denied reproductive care and bleeding out in the parking lot of a hospital because of decisions by State legislatures? Let's be honest. That is a real problem and a real challenge. In these heartbreaking situations, it is not for Congress to dictate the course of medical treatment. Those wrenching decisions must be left to medical professionals and the individuals in their care. It is the only compassionate outcome. Therefore, I object.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, today the Senate will vote to confirm Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michelle Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Judge Court's extensive career as a litigator for nearly two decades combined with her experience as a California State court judge have prepared her to serve on the Federal bench. After graduating from Pomona College and Loyola Law School, Judge Court worked as an Associate at Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley & Jennett. She then worked as an attorney at the ACLU of Southern California before continuing her career in private practice as an Associate at Litt & Marquez and Milberg, Weiss, Bershad Hynes & Lerach. Prior to taking the bench, Judge Court served in several roles at Bet Tzedek Legal Services: as a deputy director of litigation, as the director of litigation, and as the vice president and general counsel. At this organization, she provided legal services to low-income, elderly, and disabled clients and supervised more than 30 staff attorneys and advocates. Since 2012, Judge Court has served as a judge on the civil division of the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles, where she has presided over approximately 200 civil trials and ruled on 12,000 motions and requests. Judge Court has the strong support of her home State Senators, Ms. Butler and Mr. Padilla. In addition, she was rated unanimously ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. Judge Court's deep ties to the California legal community, combined with her courtroom experience both on and off the bench, will ensure that she serves on the Central District of California with distinction. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting her nomination.