Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 85, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, Madam President. The Senator from Louisiana is my friend. We throw that term around here in the Senate, but it is true. I think he would say the same. We both serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee. We have worked on issues together. We have been adversaries, but we have done it respectfully, and it will continue, I hope, to this day. But the gentleman, the Senator from Louisiana, brings to the floor of the Senate and to this debate special qualities. He sounds many times like a homespun backwoods lawyer. Don't be fooled. He is a graduate from a famous university in England--I have forgotten which one-- Oxford, Cambridge, one of those. They are not in the Big 10, I am sure of that, but I know they are in England. I congratulate him. I was never even considered for a university of that stature. He is a brilliant lawyer and Senator and raises important questions, not just for the moment but for history. The question before us today that he is raising is about the purported impeachment--I should say actual impeachment--of a member of President Biden's Cabinet, Mr. Mayorkas, the Secretary of Homeland Security. That is now about to be reported to the Senate, and we have constitutional responsibilities when it is reported. In this situation, we are waiting for the actual report to arrive. I think it will be momentarily, perhaps this week or next, and we will take up this matter as we are required to do. The House Homeland Committee engaged in a yearlong investigation of Secretary Mayorkas and his alleged maladministration of the border of the United States. This committee in the House held 12 hearings, testimony from more than two dozen witnesses, producing nearly 400 pages of reports. The Senate, when sitting as a Court of Impeachment, is not responsible for making the case on behalf of the impeachment managers. We are the jury. We are the ones who will decide the impeachment. Our duty is to make the determination based on the Articles of Impeachment and the facts at hand. We are not a factfinding operation. My friend from Utah is also on the floor. During the first Trump impeachment, he said that ``the Senate--here sitting as a court of impeachment--has both the authority and the obligation to decline to hold a full trial where the material facts in the case are not in dispute.'' The facts are not in dispute here. This is the first time that the House has successfully impeached a sitting Cabinet-level official without providing any evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor. None. All those hearings, all those pages, all those witnesses--no evidence of high crimes or misdemeanors. And that is a requirement in the Constitution. The Articles of Impeachment that will be before us contain zero evidence that Secretary Mayorkas has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. Instead, it can be read as a summary of Republican grievances with this administration's approach to border policy, immigration, detention, and methods of removal and parole--all of which is conduct that falls squarely within the executive branch's constitutional prerogative. Fortunately, the Constitution was designed to prevent this type of partisan politics driving this effort from contaminating the extraordinary process of impeachment. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention considered and rejected the concept of maladministration as an impeachable offense, in part, because they feared the misuse of impeachment for purely political retribution. The Constitution empowers the Senate to have the sole power to try all impeachments and to determine the rules of its proceedings, but the Senate only has the power to convict, remove, and disqualify officers whose conduct meets the constitutional standard. That standard is well known to all Members of Congress and to the Senate particularly. Given that the Senate only has the power to convict, remove, and disqualify officers who have committed ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' the appropriate Senate response to impeachment articles that do not articulate those charges is obvious. If congressional Republicans were genuinely interested in addressing concerns about our border, they should be willing to work on a bipartisan basis to pass legislation fixing our broken immigration system and give this President and Secretary Mayorkas the tools they have asked for to address the situation at the southern border. I want to make sure this is clear on the record. The border is broken. It needs to be fixed and what we should do and what we did do was to establish a bipartisan committee. The Republicans said: We insist that James Lankford, a respected Senator from the State of Oklahoma, speak for us and negotiate for us when it comes to changing the rules at the border. We agreed with that. Senators worked with Senator Lankford, whom I respect, and came up with a bipartisan proposal that gave new authority to the President and to the executive branch to deal with the crisis at the border. What happened on the Republican side of the aisle when James Lankford, the Republican Senator from Oklahoma, came up with this proposal? All but seven of them--I believe that was the number--walked away and said they wouldn't even support it. Why did they do it? You know why they did it--because Donald Trump announced he wanted no part of any agreement, any bipartisan effort to solve the problem. Then, former President Trump said: And blame me. Well, I am blaming him. We had an opportunity to actually do something on the floor of the Senate when it came to the border. He stopped it. And so many of the Republican Senators who begged us to work with Senator Lankford turned their backs on him after the yeoman's effort he put into this undertaking. That is the reality. We had our chance, on a bipartisan basis--and still do--to solve this problem rather than engage in any political stunt. Instead, the vast majority of Republicans, including the Senator from Utah and others on the floor, recently blocked the bipartisan border reform bill that was written by the Republicans' designated negotiator, Senator Lankford. They had their chance. It didn't work; neither will this. I object.

Mr. DURBIN. I object.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, the date was June 27, 2013, and on the floor of the U.S. Senate we had done something that no one believed could be achieved: We had, through the Gang of 8, established a comprehensive immigration reform bill. I was part of that Gang of 8--eight Senators, four Democrats and four Republicans--who labored for months to create that legislation. It was comprehensive, as I noted. It covered every aspect, from border all the way through the immigration process. We brought it to the floor in the hopes that, for the first time in decades, we would finally reach an agreement, a bipartisan agreement. The people who were involved in it--John McCain on the Republican side, Senator Flake from Arizona, Senator Graham from South Carolina, and four Democrats--worked hard to bring this to the floor. It was an opportunity for us to finally do something together. It got 68 votes. We needed 60, but we got 68 votes. There was a lot of celebration because business and labor and others were supporting us and so happy that we got it done. We know what happened to that bill. It went over and died in the House of Representatives. The Republican leadership over there refused to even call it for consideration. Of the Republican Senators currently on the floor, two of them were on the floor on June 27, 2013. They both voted no. Listen to the speeches and ask yourself the question: If the border and immigration policy need to be fixed in America, why weren't you there when we had a chance for a bipartisan approach to comprehensive immigration reform? And to make it even worse, there was an argument made that we would not provide defense supplemental spending, asked for by the administration, around the world, unless we came up with a border reform bill within the last several months. And the Republicans said: We have a leader on our side of the aisle whom we want to head up our effort to come up with a bipartisan bill to deal with the border. We do believe it needs to be fixed; it is in crisis. They proffered James Lankford, a conservative Republican Senator from Oklahoma, a highly respected Senator. I may disagree with him on many issues, but I respect him as a Member of the Senate. He was to be the lead negotiator, and we respected that request. Democrats had Chris Murphy and Kyrsten Sinema joining in the effort and prepared to bring to the floor a major--it was a bipartisan approach to solve this problem. Why is that necessary? Because in this body you need 60 votes. If you don't have 60 votes, you are wasting your time. We needed something bipartisan. And so this measure was headed to the floor. And at the last minute, former President Donald Trump announced that he wanted to stop the process; he did not want to even attempt to solve the problem with bipartisan legislation. He said: You can blame me if you want to. And I blame him again. Yes, he did that. And, unfortunately, the Republican Senators were complicit, most of them, in that effort instead of respecting what James Lankford had achieved and what a bipartisan bill would have made. So you can say what you want and make all the speeches about bodies and suffering, and I am sure most or some of that is true. But the bottom line is, when you had a chance to do something about it with the bipartisan Gang of 8 bill, you voted no, and when you had a chance to support James Lankford's bipartisan approach to fixing the border, you were not there to be seen. You were loyal to Donald Trump and not loyal to the situation that we face in the Senate. I object.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Judge Ann Marie Allen to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. Born in Richfield, UT, Judge Allen earned her B.A. from Brigham Young University and her J.D. from Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School. After teaching at BYU J. Reuben Clark Law School and Utah Valley University, Judge Allen began working in private practice under a public defender contract with Beaver County, UT, handling indigent defense cases and Criminal Justice Act panel appointments in Federal criminal matters. In 2007, Judge Allen became the deputy Iron County attorney and prosecuted a range of felonies and misdemeanors. She returned to private practice in 2013 while also serving part-time as the deputy Garfield County attorney. In 2016, Judge Allen was appointed by the president of Southern Utah University to serve as the university's special counsel and director of ethics and compliance. She became the university's first general counsel in 2018. In 2020, Judge Allen was appointed by then-Utah Governor Gary R. Herbert to the Utah State Fifth District Court. Over the course of her judicial career, she has presided over hundreds of civil cases and thousands of criminal cases resulting in plea bargains. The American Bar Association unanimously rated Judge Allen as ``well qualified,'' and she has the strong support of Senators Lee and Romney. Her nomination was unanimously advanced by the Judiciary Committee. Judge Allen's significant courtroom experience and dedication to service make her an excellent nominee to the District of Utah. I will vote in favor of her confirmation and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Bazis to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. Judge Bazis's deep ties to Nebraska and experience in the courtroom as a litigator and on the bench have prepared her to serve as a U.S. District Judge. A graduate of the University of Nebraska and Creighton University School of Law, Judge Bazis worked as a Douglas County public defender and later in private practice, including as a solo practitioner. Over the course of her legal career, she tried approximately 675 cases to verdict in front of administrative hearing officers and approximately 150 cases to verdict in courts of record. In 2007, Judge Bazis was appointed to serve as a Douglas County Court judge, presiding over criminal, civil, probate, and protection order matters. Since 2017, she has served as a U.S. magistrate judge for the District of Nebraska. In over 15 years on the bench, she has presided over 550 cases that have gone to verdict or judgment. Judge Bazis has the strong support from her home State Senators, Mrs. Fischer and Mr. Ricketts. In addition, she was unanimously rated ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. Judge Bazis's significant courtroom experience as a litigator and as a jurist will ensure that she will continue to be an asset on the federal bench. I urge my colleagues to support Judge Bazis's nomination.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, one of my highest priorities has been the confirmation of judges to fill vacancies on the Federal bench. Since the beginning of the Biden administration, the Senate has confirmed over 191 highly qualified, independent, and evenhanded jurists to the Federal bench. It is my belief that there will be a total of 193 in just a matter of days. They represent the best of our legal system--demographically and professionally diverse judges who respect the rule of law, adhere to precedent, and above all, answer only to the Constitution. We should add another nominee to that list-- Adeel Mangi--who has been nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. What an amazing resume. Mr. Mangi is eminently qualified. He graduated from Oxford and Harvard Law School. He spent more than 20 years in private practice at one of the top law firms in the United States. He focuses his practice on commercial litigation. Mr. Mangi has served as counsel of record in more than 30 matters before Federal appellate courts as well as eight amicus briefs submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. He has gone above and beyond in his pro bono practice, devoting more than 4,000 hours to representing clients in religious discrimination, asylum, and employment discrimination cases. Based on his record, you would think Mr. Mangi would be quickly confirmed, but I left out one fact on his resume: He is a Muslim American. The treatment of this nominee before the Senate Judiciary Committee has reached a new low in many ways but also with historic echoes. More than 50 years ago, President Lyndon Johnson nominated Thurgood Marshall, who would become the first Black American to serve on the Supreme Court. In his confirmation hearing, Justice Marshall faced racist questions and McCarthy-like accusations that he was a Communist. If that sounds familiar, it is because Mr. Mangi--the first Muslim American nominated to the Federal appellate court--faced similar treatment at his hearing before our committee. Committee Republicans subjected him to irrelevant, combative lines of questioning about the Israel-Hamas war. They even asked whether he celebrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks in his home. Think about that for a second: An American coming before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of the Muslim faith, is being asked if he celebrates the 9/11 anniversary in his home each year. During the hearing and while under oath, Mr. Mangi unequivocally condemned anti-Semitism in all its forms and condemned any acts of terrorism no fewer than 10 times--10 times at one hearing. He also repeatedly denounced any form of hate or bigotry. Any insinuation that Mr. Mangi is anti-Semitic or a terrorist sympathizer is rooted in anti-Muslim bigotry that has no place in our country or in Congress. The claims are simply false. He has represented a broad coalition of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, and other religious groups. As Mr. Mangi said, it is ``distinctly American for people of so many different faiths to come together in unity in this manner.'' What has been un-American has been the treatment Mr. Mangi has faced since his hearing. Republicans are trying to blame Mr. Mangi for statements by other people at events he didn't even attend and wasn't even aware of. That is guilt by association. It is wrong. It is unfair. Republicans have unfairly attacked Mr. Mangi for his nominal affiliation with the Alliance of Families for Justice. They falsely-- falsely--claim that he supports ``cop killers''--that he supports ``cop killers.'' That outrageous allegation could not be farther from the truth. In Mr. Mangi's own words, he has ``not represented or otherwise provided legal services to any individual convicted of killing a law enforcement officer.'' In addition, he has clearly stated: I condemn any violence against law enforcement officers without equivocation. As Mr. Mangi noted, it is ``shocking and false'' to suggest that he has sympathy for attacks on law enforcement. On the other hand, during the Trump administration, Republicans voted unanimously to confirm two judges who had personally represented individuals who had killed police officers. Those individuals were entitled to their right to counsel--I am not arguing that point--but it just shows you how far they have gone in establishing a new standard--a totally unfair standard. The treatment of Mr. Mangi by the Republicans puts their hypocrisy on full display. There cannot be one standard for Republican appointees and another for Democrats. Based on Mr. Mangi's actual record, more than 125 civil rights and human rights organizations support him-- organizations representing more than 1 million Jewish Americans, including the National Council of Jewish Women and the Anti-Defamation League. I want to say this point: After the terrible hearing that he was subjected to in the committee in December, the Anti-Defamation League volunteered a statement to our committee, which I read into the record, in defense of Mr. Mangi and in criticism of the harsh and unfair criticism of those at his hearing who blamed him for being anti- Semitic. Nothing could be further from the truth. These other organizations and ADL have openly supported his nomination and condemn the treatment he faced at his hearing. In addition, Mr. Mangi has received the support of a number of law enforcement organizations, including the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives and a bipartisan group of former New Jersey State attorneys general and U.S. attorneys. Any judicial nominee should expect a close examination of his legal career before the committee. Since first being nominated, Mr. Mangi has been prepared for just that. However, he should not have to answer for baseless and bigoted attacks that do not accurately reflect him or his record in many different ways. In a letter of support, retired Third Circuit Judge Timothy Lewis contrasted Mr. Mangi's experience as a nominee to his own experience as one of only two Black judges nominated to the Federal appellate court by President George H. W. Bush. Judge Lewis noted that he was treated with respect by Republican Senators as well as Democratic Senators, who held the majority. Judge Lewis urged the Senate to treat Mr. Mangi with the same level of respect that he received. He wrote: If people from underrepresented communities believe they will be unfairly attacked, stereotyped, and rejected by the Senate, they are likely to think twice about being nominated, thus hindering efforts to make our courts look more like America. Judge Lewis is right. I urge my colleagues to dismiss the smear campaign against Mr. Mangi and to support his nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Robert Jerome White to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Born in Royal Oak, MI, Mr. White received his B.A. from the University of Michigan and his J.D. from Chicago-Kent College of Law. After graduating from law school, he worked as an associate attorney at Ralph E. Meczyk and Associates from 2010 to 2014. There, Mr. White worked on cases involving financial crimes, healthcare fraud, bank/mortgage fraud, firearms offenses, drug-trafficking offenses, and organized crime. In 2014, Mr. White began serving as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Western District of Texas's El Paso Division. From 2015 to 2018, he served on the organized crime and drug enforcement task force. In 2018, Mr. White continued his service as assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Michigan. He has served as the lead attorney on the Detroit dark web task force, where he investigated and prosecuted cases relating to wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, drug trafficking, and money laundering. Mr. White has also served as the office's digital asset coordinator and presently serves in the white-collar crime unit. Throughout his career, Mr. White has tried approximately 15 cases to verdict in Federal court. The American Bar Association unanimously rated Mr. White as ``well qualified,'' and his nomination is strongly supported by his home State Senators, Ms. Stabenow and Mr. Peters. He also received bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee. I am proud to support his nomination.

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. Madam 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 Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Hassan), the Senator from Maine (Mr. King), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, last week, we saw another tragedy in Gaza--an attack that killed seven people delivering desperately needed, lifesaving humanitarian aid. The victims were employees of the World Central Kitchen, an amazing organization run by an extraordinary individual, Jose Andres. They started to feed people in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake, and they have continued their mission in some of the most challenging parts of the world. Andres' innovative and courageous team has been helping people in Gaza since the crisis began in October, providing critical food to millions of innocents caught in the conflict. I joined Mr. Andres in a meeting in our Capitol just a few weeks ago with a few other Senators. He told us of his ambitious plans to increase food aid to Gaza. I have always admired his ingenuity and tenacity in taking on these truly lifesaving operations for those most in need. Mr. Andres is truly a hero. So my heart goes out to him and the families of those on his team who were recklessly and avoidably killed last week, adding to the more than 200 aid workers who have been killed in Gaza. We have seen a series of seemingly cascading crises in this conflict, and the list keeps growing: October 7, the Hamas attack on Israel that killed 1,200 and took more than 200 people hostage; the widespread destruction and loss of civilian life and growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza amid Israel's response that lacks any long-term strategy and is made worse by Hamas's hiding among civilians; the continued holding of Israeli hostages, including one with ties to our home State of Illinois, by Hamas and Hamas's refusal to accept a ceasefire in exchange for their release; the bewildering and inexcusable failure of Israel to set up deconfliction mechanisms for adequate aid delivery; and the failure to recognize that a massive military-only response by Israel will never provide a long-term path to stability and end the cycle of violence. I have long said that I do not think the current Israeli or Palestinian leadership is really up to the challenge needed to bring hope, stability, or a viable two-state solution to the region. Early in the conflict, I cautioned the Israelis not to be blinded by their pain from October 7 and make the same types of mistakes we made after September 11--a warning I believe the current leadership in Israel has failed to heed. But, if unable to learn from our missteps, then perhaps they should listen to former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan, who, before his death years ago, concluded that Israel, over the decades, ``achieved a long string of impressive tactical successes but also disastrous strategic failures.'' Tragically, I am worried that that is the same case today. Chef Andres has made a similar point with which I agree--that Israel's strategy in Gaza is futile and indefensible with so much innocent loss of human life. I have long called for a ceasefire that includes the release of the remaining hostages as well as a sustained, U.S.-led Gaza relief operation that includes food, medicine, and other critical basics. The inexcusable deaths of the World Central Kitchen staff in Gaza are reminders that these steps are needed now more than ever. (The remarks of Mr. Durbin pertaining to the introduction of S. Res. 629 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to address what can only be called the hostage-taking of Americans by the government of Vladimir Putin of Russia. The list is troubling and growing. This month marks the 1-year anniversary of Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich's dubious arrest in Russia. He has spent more than a year in pretrial detention in a notorious Moscow prison, including in isolation, with limited medical attention. Even during the height of the Cold War, the Soviet police state didn't arrest and hold American journalists in such a brazen and transparently crude manner. The longest was a U.S. News & World Report reporter, who was released after 13 days. But it is not just Evan whom Vladimir Putin is holding hostage. In 2018, Russia arrested American citizen Paul Whelan and sentenced him to 16 years in prison on fraudulent espionage charges. He has spent 4 years in various Russian high-security jails and labor camps, enduring solitary confinement and forced labor. Last year, Russia arrested American citizen and Radio Free Europe journalist Alsu Kurmasheva for being a foreign agent. She is facing a 5-year sentence. While in pretrial detention, her conditions are being described as ``inhumane.'' In August 2021, Russia arrested American citizen and international schoolteacher Marc Fogel for possessing medical marijuana prescribed by his physician. Then they sentenced him to a ludicrous 14-year sentence in Russian labor camps. Earlier this year, Russia arrested American citizen Ksenia Khavana on nonsense charges of high treason after she donated--get this--$50 to a charity supporting humanitarian aid for Ukraine. For that, she is facing a 20-year sentence in prison. Two years ago, Russia also arrested U.S. legal permanent resident Vladimir Kara-Murza, sentencing him to 25 years for criticizing Putin's disastrous war in Ukraine. These are some of the photographs of the individuals whom I have just described. Mr. Kara-Murza was a visitor in my office. I know him personally. I met with him a month before his arrest. And, despite two murder attempts by poisoning, he was determined to go back to Russia to fight for democracy. Evgenia, his wife, is here this week for a bipartisan event on the anniversary of his arrest. And let us not forget Brittney Griner, whose arrest in 2022 on trumped-up charges was cynically used to secure the release of notorious Russian arms merchant Viktor Bout. It is outrageous that Russia, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, is holding hostage American citizens. It is the act of a desperate rogue regime, similar to the criminal actions of countries like Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. Today, I am introducing a resolution condemning Russia's hostage- taking, calling for the immediate release of these hostages and urging the administration to consider ``wrongfully detained'' status. And, to those detained and their families, I want you to know you are not forgotten. We will continue to advocate for your release.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Ernest Gonzalez to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Born in San Antonio, TX, Mr. Gonzalez received his B.B.A. from the University of Texas at San Antonio and his J.D. from the Thurgood Marshall School of Law at Texas Southern University. From 1994 to 2000, he worked at the Bexar County District Attorney's Office in San Antonio, where he prosecuted misdemeanor and felony crimes. In 2000, he joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Texas in Del Rio as an assistant U.S. attorney, where his portfolio consisted primarily of immigration and narcotics violations. From 2003 to 2023, Mr. Gonzalez worked as an assistant U.S. attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Texas in Plano. While there, he served as chief of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces Section, and he represented the United States in a variety of domestic and international criminal cases, including drug-trafficking cases. Since 2023, he has worked as a senior attorney advisor for the U.S. Department of Justice in the Narcotics and Dangerous Drug Section of the Criminal Division in Washington, DC. Mr. Gonzalez has an extraordinary amount of trial experience in both State and Federal court. He has tried more than 250 jury trials to verdict, including more than 120 State jury trials and more than 135 Federal jury trials. He enjoys the strong support of both of his home State senators--Mr. Cornyn and Mr. Cruz--and the American Bar Association unanimously rated Mr. Gonzalez as ``well qualified'' to serve on the Western District of Texas. During Mr. Gonzalez's confirmation hearing, Senator Cornyn expressed his belief that Mr. Gonzalez's ``temperament, his knowledge of the law, and ability to handle a large docket will serve the Del Rio Division of the Western District well.'' I agree with that assessment. I strongly support Mr. Gonzalez's nomination, and I urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I want to thank my colleague from Colorado. He has been steadfast in his support of the Ukrainian effort, and it makes a difference. I think we all have to speak out with what we are facing. We should have appropriated the money long ago to stand behind the people of Ukraine. And the fact that they are now in a moment of history where their fate may be decided really underlines the importance of the statements of this Senator. So while this bill we are going to be voting on this evening covers so many areas, it still leaves a terrible gap, not only in our support for Ukraine but also for the humanitarian assistance which was part of our efforts. When we read of the terrible humanitarian tragedy in Gaza and other places, we realize the United States has to help provide water, food, medicine, and basic supplies for them to survive, just as we need to help the people of Ukraine fight this effort. Let me just add, parenthetically, a point of personal pride: ``60 Minutes,'' in a show last week, highlighted Lithuania in the Baltics and how this small country of 3 million people has become a haven for political dissidents from Russia and other places. It is with some risk that they would assume this responsibility, but they are part of a commitment--this small nation--to democracy. The United States needs to make that same commitment and put our money where our values are. Your speech this evening highlighted that, and I thank you for your leadership.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Judge Leon Schydlower to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Born in Long Beach, CA, Judge Schydlower received his B.A from the University of Texas at Austin and his J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law. After completing law school, Judge Schydlower began his legal career in the U.S. Navy, first as an assistant staff judge advocate, then as a military prosecutor. Thereafter, he joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Hawaii as a special assistant U.S. attorney, where he handled Federal law enforcement cases at the trial and appellate levels. After leaving government service, Judge Schydlower practiced commercial litigation and medical malpractice defense at Kemp Smith, P.C. He later operated his own firm, where he handled Federal criminal defense cases and various business litigation matters. In 2015, Judge Schydlower was appointed to serve as a U.S. magistrate judge for the same district to which he is nominated. On the bench, he has issued more than 34,000 orders, reports and recommendations, opinions, and orders on motions. The American Bar Association has unanimously rated Judge Schydlower ``well qualified'' to serve on the district court, and he has the strong support of his home State Senators, Mr. Cornyn and Mr. Cruz. Taken together, Schydlower's service to his country in the military and as a prosecutor, as well as his courtroom experience both on and off the bench, make him well-suited to serve on the Federal bench with distinction. I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. When we are giving speeches about our concern of the impact of disinformation and misinformation on America, this is exactly the wrong amendment. We know the Russians, the Chinese, and God knows who else are using information and twisting information and delivering it to our neighbors as the truth, and how are they supposed to know any better? This amendment will basically remove the authority of the U.S. Government to speak up about misinformation and disinformation. If you want our citizenry to be more vulnerable, vote yes on this amendment. If you want to make sure we are doing everything in our power to stop Vladimir Putin and others from infiltrating America, vote no on this amendment. Vote on Motion to Concur

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Adeel Mangi has been nominated by President Biden to serve on the Third Circuit. We have had a hearing before the Judiciary Committee, a vote in the committee, and his name is on the calendar. In recent weeks, we have heard an amazing number of attacks against this individual. It is hard to imagine some of the things that are being said about him. They bear no resemblance to the truth. What was said this morning on the floor of the U.S. Senate is painful. To accuse a nominee of being anti-Semitic is heartbreaking when it is not true. In this case, it clearly is not true. After the initial hearing on Mr. Mangi, who would be the first Muslim to serve on the Federal circuit bench, we received communications from several groups in defense of his nomination and critical of the questioning that took place in the Senate Judiciary Committee. One of the most noteworthy came from the Anti-Defamation League. The ADL issued a statement in response to what they called ``the inappropriate and prejudicial treatment of Adeel Abdullah Mangi, a nominee for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.'' I am going to read this in its entirety because it clearly rebuts the charge that was made on the Senate floor today that this nominee is anti-Semitic: As the leading anti-hate organization in the world, whose mission is ``to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all,'' ADL is compelled to speak out about the inappropriate and prejudicial treatment of Adeel Abdullah Mangi, a nominee for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, during the Judiciary Committee Hearing on December 13, 2023. The ADL statement goes on to say: During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Mangi was subjected to aggressive questioning unrelated to . . . professional expertise or qualifications. Rather, he was forced to provide responses to a wide range of inquiries regarding his views on global strategic considerations in a manner that inappropriately politicized these issues and raised serious questions regarding pretext and bias. The ADL statement goes on to say: Just as associating Jewish Americans with certain views or beliefs regarding Israeli government actions would be deemed antisemitic, berating the first American Muslim federal appellate judicial nominee with endless questions that appear to have been motivated by bias towards his religion is profoundly wrong. The ADL goes on to say: Hate, bias, and bigotry have no place in government, especially in the hallowed halls of Congress. When nominees approach a congressional hearing, their religion, heritage, race, gender, or any other protected identity characteristic should not be a subject for political fodder. This was an attempt to create controversy where one did not exist. ADL urges leaders to refrain from fueling discrimination and hate--and urges the Senate to offer Mr. Mangi a fair vote, based on his qualifications and fitness for the job. That statement from the ADL--as they describe themselves, the ``leading anti-hate organization in the world'' when it comes to the Jewish people--is specific and directed toward those who are really making criticisms of Mr. Mangi which are not warranted in any aspect of fact. To have a man characterized as anti-Semitic on the floor of the U.S. Senate is a gross miscarriage of justice in this case. This gentleman could not have been more explicit in his statements against terrorism, against what happened in Israel on October 7, and the fact that he is coming before this body with no prejudice whatsoever toward the Jewish people. The questions that were asked of him, a Muslim nominee, are heartbreaking. At one point, one of the Republican Senators asked if he celebrated 9/11 in his family household. He said: Of course not. He was sickened by what happened on that day and had friends who were associated with the losses. This kind of treatment of any nominee is unacceptable in America. To charge someone as anti-Semitic on the floor of the U.S. Senate is truly unfortunate, if not scandalous in itself. We should be fair to every nominee, whether proposed by a Democratic or Republican President, and we should not have any prejudice or bigotry when it comes to a person because of their religious beliefs. I am sorry that this was said on the floor of the Senate this morning. I hope that the person who did it will have second thoughts about whether or not that was appropriate.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me say at the outset that Senator Tillis, though we may disagree on this particular issue, is a respected colleague, a friend, and a member of the committee which I chair. I value him on the committee. I thank him for his friendship. Though we may disagree today, I hope we find room to agree tomorrow. Mr. President, this bipartisan bill, the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, was signed into law in August of 2022, almost 2 years ago. It was part of what was known as the PACT Act. This was an important bill to provide a day in court, finally, for U.S. marines and others who were poisoned by contaminated water in Camp Lejeune, NC. For over three decades, from 1953 to 1987, marines, their families, and others working and living in Camp Lejeune were exposed to a toxic mix of industrial solvents and other chemicals in their drinking water. As a result, as many as 1 million people are at an increased risk of cancer, Parkinson's, and other debilitating diseases. Had these individuals suffered the same harm in another place, they would have been able to go to court and seek compensation for their injuries, but unfortunately hurdles in the law locked servicemembers and their families out of the judicial system. For decades, they suffered without any ability to have their day in court, despite their injuries. That changed with the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, which was led by Senator Tillis--and I thank him for that--as well as Senator Blumenthal, Senator Burr, and Senator Peters. It finally allowed marines the opportunity, after literally decades of waiting, to seek justice by filing a lawsuit in Federal court if an administrative claims process did not reach a satisfactory resolution. Now, there have been some problems with the implementation of this bill. I will be the first to admit that. We need to work--and I am happy to work with Senator Tillis--on a bipartisan basis to address these problems just as we did with the Camp Lejeune Justice Act. The bill was proposed by the Senators from North Carolina. The one he proposes aims to help veterans, but unfortunately it has several serious shortcomings. First, it would require attorneys to provide Camp Lejeune victims a written acknowledgement that they are required to sign. This acknowledgement would state that the victim--plaintiff-- understands that they may seek guidance free of charge from veterans service organizations, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, their congressional representatives, and the Department of the Navy. But this acknowledgement won't be accurate in all the cases. For example, not all the Camp Lejeune claimants are veterans. Many are civilians who worked at the camp. For these individuals, it is inaccurate to say, as this bill does, that they get free guidance from veterans service organizations or the Veterans' Administration. Second, the bill would require attorneys to submit a second written acknowledgement with the Secretary of the Navy stating that the client understands that legal representation by an attorney is not required to file an action pursuing a Camp Lejeune claim. This is technically correct. Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, legal representation may be needed to have any chance at successfully pursuing your claim. Just look at the experience to date. Remember, this bill was passed 2 years ago almost. To date, almost no Camp Lejeune claims have been paid by the Navy. As of the end of February, 1,530 Camp Lejeune claims have been filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina, and 170,502 administrative claims are on file with the Navy. Of all those thousands of claims, only 48 cases have been determined to meet the government's criteria for settlement based on submitted documentation. Even there, the process for uploading what are known as the ``substantiation documents'' has been extremely difficult for families to understand. And for cases that will ultimately be litigated, the process can be lengthy, complicated, and expensive. Toxic exposure cases are not easy to prepare or prove, particularly when they relate to conduct that happened decades ago. Victims will need to go through ``discovery.'' For many of them, it will be the first time they have heard the word in that context. And they may need to retain expert witnesses to demonstrate causation. While all of this can technically be done without an attorney, it is practically impossible to do so and have your claim succeed. So steering victims away from legal representation may eliminate any chance of recovery. Finally, this bill contains a provision stating that a law firm that receives ``veteran data'' from an advertising agency must reduce their legal fee in an amount equal to the cost incurred to receive that data. It is unclear to me, in reading this bill, what the term ``veteran data'' even means. Additionally, this requirement would discourage attorneys from reaching out to potential plaintiffs who may have worked at Camp Lejeune years in the past and may not even know they are eligible for compensation. After fighting so hard to make sure those poisoned by the water at Camp Lejeune can finally have their day in court, we should not now close the courtroom door all over again. Let me be clear. If there are unscrupulous lawyers or nonlawyers who are deceiving veterans or running scam solicitations, I want to join in a bipartisan effort to crack down on them. There is a bill, the GUARD VA Benefits Act, which has 42 bipartisan cosponsors, that is properly scoped to do just that. Current law prohibits individuals or businesses from assisting a veteran in preparation, presentation, or prosecution of a VA claim unless they are accredited by the Veterans' Administration. They are also prohibited from charging fees for this assistance before the VA makes a decision on the claim. However, the VA and other Agencies are limited in their ability to enforce the law because criminal penalties were eliminated from the statute about 20 years ago. The GUARD VA Benefits Act would reinstate those criminal penalties. This bill is a top priority for veterans organizations that have been working for years to combat predatory practices of unaccredited entities who charge unauthorized fees while purporting to help veterans with their disability claims. These are the types of reforms that will actually help veterans from Camp Lejeune and others as they seek compensation benefits. I will be happy to work with the Senator from North Carolina to make sure that veterans are protected from unscrupulous actors while ensuring that we don't inhibit quality advocates from helping veterans finally get their day in court, but I cannot support the bill in its current form, and I would object.