Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Judge Melissa DuBose to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. Born in Providence, RI, Judge DuBose received her B.A. from Providence College and served as a teacher in Rhode Island for 11 years. While teaching high school, she earned her law degree by attending night classes at Roger Williams School of Law. Judge DuBose began her legal career as a special assistant attorney general in the Rhode Island Office of the Attorney General, where she was responsible for prosecuting adults charged with child abuse, felonies committed by juveniles, and violations of probation. She then joined Schneider Electric as a senior legal counsel, assisting and providing legal counsel in litigation involving federal government-related disputes. In 2019, then-Governor Gina Raimondo appointed Judge DuBose to serve as an associate judge on the Rhode Island District Court, where she has presided over approximately 250 to 300 bench trials that have gone to verdict or judgment. The American Bar Association rated Judge DuBose as ``qualified'' to serve on the district court, and she has the strong support of her home State Senators, Mr. Reed and Mr. Whitehouse. Judge DuBose's deep ties to the Rhode Island legal community, combined with her significant courtroom experience, will make her an excellent addition to the Federal bench. I urge my colleagues to support her nomination. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Hassan), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen), the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Lee amendment has such good language that it is already in law. The Justice Manual already establishes a standard with virtually verbatim language as in the Lee amendment. Furthermore, the Justice Manual reflects the express prohibitions against discrimination by law enforcement, enacted by Congress in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and in title VI of the Civil Rights Act. It also reflects consistent holdings by the Supreme Court on due process and equal protection. The only time they believe this has been successfully implemented was during the Trump administration, when there was fear that they were going to weaponize the Department of Justice, and this standard, which is already in the law, at least discouraged many from participating in that exercise. The good news is this language is redundant, and it is unnecessary. The bad news is, if we adopt it, we are going to stop the process of appropriating and avoiding closing the government this evening. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Lee amendment.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, is there any time remaining?

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have an extraordinary responsibility as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee--important legislation and, probably more important, the filling of vacancies in our Federal judiciary. Under article III of our Constitution, we create judges, and there are approximately 890 of these Federal judges across the United States. As vacancies occur, as they often do, the Senate Judiciary Committee, working with the White House and Members of the Senate, has to do background checks on these individuals, submit them to the FBI for further background checks, do our own due diligence, consider them in an open hearing before the committee, and ultimately vote in committee before they come to the floor for advice and consent. So far this year--I should say in this term--under President Biden, we have had 181 Federal judges who have gone through this process--been cleared on the floor, reported out of the Senate--and are now serving their Nation in this capacity. I can tell you that it is not an easy process. Lengthy questionnaires are given to each nominee to identify so many details of their lives, I find it hard to believe they kept track and record of it, but they did. Then, of course, Agencies call to verify the contents and answers in those questionnaires. Then they go through close scrutiny by the staff of the Judiciary Committee on both sides, Democrats and Republicans. Then comes the day of reckoning when they have their hearing in a public setting. Many of these nominees are questioned extensively by members of the committee. I will tell you, politics ain't beanbag, and when it comes to the questions asked of judicial nominees, it is a serious process. We have gone through more than 200 under the Biden administration in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Some of them have had a tough time of it, many of them had an easy time of it, but they all go through the same process. One of the most important accomplishments of this administration has been the confirmation of highly qualified, I believe evenhanded judges to the Federal bench. As I mentioned, to date, we have confirmed 181 lifetime judges, including a number of firsts--the first Black woman and public defender on the Supreme Court of the United States, the first Muslim-American judge on a district court, the first Asian-American judge on the Seventh Circuit. We should add another first to that list--Adeel Mangi to the Third Circuit. Mr. Mangi is a highly qualified nominee with incredible credentials and more than two decades of litigation experience. He would be the first Muslim American to ever serve on a Federal appellate court. Nevertheless, he is going through scrutiny unlike anything I have ever seen. He has been criticized and questioned in a way that I have never seen before in the committee. Unfortunately, many of the questions that have been raised about Mr. Mangi and his background have created suspicions in people's minds that his religion is the reason for the questioning. Treatment of this highly qualified nominee has sometimes reached an alltime low. At the hearing in December, committee Republicans subjected Mr. Mangi to combative lines of questioning about the Israel- Hamas war. This is a man who is seeking to serve on a Federal bench in appellate court. The questions that are asked of him were more appropriately asked of the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense. At one point, a Republican Senator asked this Muslim American the following question: Do you celebrate the anniversary of 9/11 in your home? Think about that for a second. Because he is Muslim, this Senator thought it was appropriate to ask him whether he celebrated 9/11 in his home. He, of course, said no. He was a resident of New York and thought it was a tragedy that occurred in our Nation, and he had friends and family who were affected by that tragedy. During his hearing, under oath, Mr. Mangi unequivocally condemned anti-Semitism in all forms and condemned any acts of terrorism no fewer than 10 times. Think of that. Because he is a Muslim American, he was asked 10 different times whether he was anti-Semitic. He, of course, said no on each occasion. He also repeatedly denounced any form of hatred or bigotry in his answers to written questions. Any insinuation that Mr. Mangi is anti-Semitic is rooted in prejudice that has no place in our country, and claims that were made are false. As he explained, ``I have [ ] worked extensively to advance religious liberty, which I consider to be a fundamental American value, and to combat religious bigotry against any religious group. I have been proud to represent a unique and massive coalition that I built over many years involving major Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, and other religious groups on matters of common interest.'' Mr. Mangi has also been unfairly attacked for his nominal affiliation with the Alliance of Families for Justice. Critics have falsely claimed that because of his minimal involvement with this organization, he has somehow associated himself with violent criminals and supports ``cop killers.'' That charge was made on the floor of the Senate against Mr. Mangi. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a longtime corporate lawyer, Mr. Mangi has never said or written anything--anything--that suggests he supports individuals who have murdered members of law enforcement. He has never--never--represented or otherwise provided legal counsel to anyone accused of killing a police officer. During the Trump administration, Republicans voted unanimously to confirm two judges who had personally represented individuals who had killed police officers. Let me add quickly that everyone in America has the right to counsel. The crimes they may be charged with could be horrendous, but they still have the right to legal representation. But to think that they would accuse Mr. Mangi of somehow supporting cop killers when he has never been involved with a client charged with that crime--the treatment of Mr. Mangi by some Republicans puts their hypocrisy on full display. There cannot be one standard for Republican appointees and another for Democratic appointees. Mr. Mangi is eminently qualified. He is a graduate of Oxford and Harvard Law School. He spent more than two decades in private practice at a preeminent law firm, focusing on complex commercial litigation. He has served as counsel of record in more than 30 matters before Federal appellate courts, as well as eight amicus briefs submitted to the Supreme Court. Throughout his career, Mr. Mangi has also demonstrated a deep commitment to pro bono work. In fact, he has devoted more than 4,000 hours to representing clients in religious discrimination, employment discrimination, and asylum cases. Given Mr. Mangi's record, he has earned the support of a wide range of organizations, including organizations representing more than 1 million Jewish Americans. Listen to what the National Council of Jewish Women had to say about Mr. Mangi: He is highly qualified to serve on this court, bringing a wealth of professional and personal experience in addition to extraordinary legal qualifications. Yet some of the Republican Senators on the committee suggested he was anti-Semitic, prejudiced against Jewish people. This endorsement by the National Council of Jewish Women clearly says otherwise. Following Mr. Mangi's hearing, the Anti-Defamation League, an organization which is dedicated to rooting out prejudice against Jewish people, sent a statement to the committee, unsolicited by me, in which they said: 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. Mr. Mangi also has the support of a number of law enforcement organizations, from the New Jersey chapter of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives to the Hispanic American Law Enforcement Association. Mr. Mangi stated: I am ready and prepared to be held accountable for any statement that I have ever made, any word that I have ever written, or any action that I have ever taken. He went on to say: I am not and should not be held accountable for statements made by people I do not know at events that I was not involved [in]. Mr. Mangi is right. He should be judged based on his record, not on dishonest, bad-faith insinuations. I urge my colleagues to dismiss the smear campaign against Mr. Mangi and support his nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, tomorrow night, we will have the annual State of the Union Message from the President of the United States. Each year, Members of Congress are given a ticket to invite a guest to the State of the Union. I have invited several people over the years whom I will never forget. One of them, 15 years ago, was a woman in military uniform who came to see us from her hospital room. She had just been shot down in her helicopter over Iraq, and there she was a few weeks later as my guest at the State of the Union. Her name was Tammy Duckworth. Now she is my colleague in the U.S. Senate. So you never know what might happen when a Member of Congress offers an invitation to the State of the Union. Tomorrow night, I am going to have a special guest and a special friend. I am hosting an extraordinary resident of my State, Dr. Zaher Sahloul. Dr. Sahloul is a critical care specialist at Advocate Christ Medical Center at Saint Anthony's Hospital. He is an associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Illinois in Chicago, but he is much, much more than that. Dr. Sahloul has a long history of leading timely and often dangerous medical missions to some of the most desperate parts of the world, including recently a trip to Gaza. You see, Dr. Sahloul is the president of MedGlobal, a nonprofit that provides critical medical services in areas of crisis all over the world. His work was recently featured on ``60 Minutes.'' Before that, he led the Syrian American Medical Society, which led similar lifesaving missions. Through these efforts, he and other volunteer doctors have provided urgent care to desperate populations, including in Syria, Ukraine, Yemen, and Bangladesh. In fact, in 2017, when the Burmese military was attacking that country's Rohingya population with unspeakable cruelty, Dr. Sahloul and his colleagues helped the war-weary refugees who were fleeing into Bangladesh. I had a chance to visit him and witness those efforts firsthand at one such camp in the Bangladeshi city of Cox's Bazar. I will never forget walking through that sea of humanity, desperate humanity, and seeing what Dr. Sahloul and his colleagues were doing to bring basic dignity and basic medical care to this traumatized population. It was truly heroic. And what he and his colleagues similarly have done in Syria, with barrel bombs falling from the sky, or in Ukraine or in Gaza, has been equally moving. It is no wonder he has been awarded the Gandhi Award for Peace, the Heartland Alliance Kovler Center Dr. Robert Kirschner's Award for Global Activism, and UNICEF Chicago's Shine a Light on Global Refugee Crisis annual humanitarian award. I believe that Dr. Sahloul epitomizes humanity's goodness during times of conflict and trauma. And it is my honor to have him as my guest tomorrow night. His most recent work in Gaza is a stark reminder of the dire humanitarian needs facing us in the unfolding crisis that started with the horrific October 7 Hamas attack on Israel. He shared with me and several of my colleagues deeply troubling stories of innocent people caught in this conflict who are in desperate need of basic medical attention and supplies. Operations and amputations occurring using vinegar as an antiseptic or Tylenol for anesthesia in the amputation of children's limbs, expectant mothers without safe medical facilities to give birth. The United States has started airdropping emergency supplies into Gaza. It is a relatively small step, but it is a step in the right direction, although not a long-term solution to the conflict. I have long called for a cease-fire by all sides that includes the release of the remaining Israeli hostages. That seems to be the direction negotiators are aiming for before the start of Ramadan. I hope that is the case, and I hope that any such pause can be used to reunite hostages with their families and deliver desperately needed humanitarian aid into Gaza. I continue to believe in the two-state solution, one with new leadership on all sides. I think it is the only viable long-term path forward. In tomorrow's State of the Union Address, President Biden will not only fulfill one of his most important constitutional obligations, he will also have the opportunity to highlight to America how his administration has been working with congressional Democrats to improve the lives of our Nation's working families. In addition to the millions of Americans who will tune in to hear the address, there is no doubt that people across the world will be watching and hoping that he will say something that will lead us toward a more peaceful globe because, as we all know, America's influence extends way beyond our borders, and as Dr. Sahloul has proven, so, too, do our citizens. I am honored to be joined by a guest who embodies the best of America--selflessness, a commitment to service, and a belief that a single individual has the ability to make the world a better place. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and reserving the right to object, I want to make it clear that we can all agree: Noncitizens who are convicted of committing violent crime should be detained and removed from the United States, period. Under current law--under current law--any noncitizen who entered the country illegally, violated the terms of their status, or had their visa revoked, can be ordered detained by ICE officials. Current law-- current law--also requires the detention of individuals with serious criminal convictions and those who have committed murder, rape, or any crime of violence or theft offense with a term of imprisonment of at least 1 year. The law also gives ICE the discretion to detain or release a noncitizen in cases where a noncitizen has merely been charged but not convicted. This bill that we are considering now from the Senator from Iowa would require ICE to detain any individual charged with a crime that resulted in death or serious bodily injury of another person, pending their criminal case, no matter what the circumstances or the nature of the crime, and no exceptions. As just one example, a victim of trafficking or domestic violence who defended themselves against an abuser would have to be detained under the law. Most immigrants in the United States are law-abiding individuals who are seeking a better life. Studies have shown that immigrants have no impact on crime rates, and immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than ordinary U.S. citizens. But the sweeping approach in this bill would deprive immigrants of the due process that everyone is afforded to prove that they are innocent of a crime. And I agree with many of my colleagues that we need a more orderly system to process recent arrivals at the border and assure that bad actors are detained, if they have serious criminal convictions. Recently, a bipartisan group of Senators and the White House began negotiating a change in our immigration laws and a tough border deal. It was written by the Republican's designated negotiator, Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma, along with two other Senators--one, an independent from Arizona, and the other, a Democrat from Connecticut. The bill that they wrote to make our border safer and to deal with immigration was endorsed by the National Border Patrol Council, which represents the men and women on the border who are risking their lives every day to keep us safe. I had personal concerns about this bill, but I wanted to move it forward. And yet, when it came to a vote, the vast majority of Senators on the other side of the aisle opposed it, at the request of Donald Trump, who tanked the border agreement for his own cynical reasons. What were those reasons? One House Republican said: Let me tell you, I'm not willing to do too damn much right now to help a Democrat and to help Joe Biden's approval rating. President Trump himself was crystal clear. He said: ``Blame it on me'' if the bill fails. That bill was our vehicle and opportunity to work on a bipartisan basis, to change many of the provisions in immigration law, to make America safer, and to make our borders secure and more effective. Some extremists have said the quiet part out loud: Donald Trump doesn't want a solution to our challenges at the border; he wants a political issue for November. It is time that my Republican colleagues and Democratic colleagues stop talking about the border in one-off responses to it and start legislating, rather than vilifying all immigrants based upon a few bad actors. It is a tragedy what happened to these two young women. There is no excuse for it, and those responsible should be held accountable. I urge my colleagues to do the best that we can to come up with an immigration reform that resolves not only this serious issue but all of the other issues we are haunted with on a regular basis. I object.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator for bringing us together on the floor today. Are you worried about what your kids are looking at on those phones they carry around all the time? You try to get their attention, and they just can't take their face away from the phone. You often may wonder, What is on there? They say: Don't worry, Mom and Dad, we are just fine. Grandparents feel the same way. They look at it and think, What in the world are they looking at? Sadly, we know that some of them are looking at horrible things that they should never look at in that stage of their life, and we also know that exploitation is taking place. In January, we joined together on a bipartisan basis. Senator Graham and myself, as chairman and ranking member of the committee, called a historic hearing with five CEOs from Big Tech companies. That hearing demonstrated that kids' online safety has widespread bipartisan support. Perhaps no other topic--in fact, I can't think of another topic where we had a unanimous vote on these bills by every member on the committee, Democrat and Republican, all 21. The emotion I witnessed during that hearing and the faces of survivors, parents, and family members were unforgettable. There were parents who lost their children to the little cell phone they were watching day in and day out. They committed suicide by the instruction of some crazy person on the internet. They were children then and had grown up into adults, still haunted by the images they shared with some stranger on that little telephone years and years ago. And you think to yourself, Well, why didn't they step up and say something? If those images are coming up on the internet, why don't they do something about it? Why don't they go to the social media site? In many and most instances they did and nothing happened. That is the reason why we need this legislation. The STOP CSAM Act will allow survivors of online child sexual exploitation to sue the tech companies that have knowingly and intentionally facilitated the exploitation. In other words, one young woman told a story. She shared an image of herself, an embarrassing image of herself, that haunted her for decades afterward. She went to the website that was displaying this and told them: This is something I want to take down. It is an embarrassment to me. It happened when I was a little girl and still I am living with it even today. They knew that it was on their website because this young woman and her family proved it, and yet they did nothing--nothing--but continued to play this exploitation over and over again. Why? How could they get away with it? They asked and many people asked: I thought we had laws in this country protecting children; what is going on? Well, there is a section 230 which basically absolves these companies--these media companies-- from responsibility for what is displayed on their websites on their social media pages. That is exactly what we have changed here. We say something basic and fundamental. If the media, social media site knowingly and intentionally continues to display these images, they are subject to civil liability. They can be sued. Want to change this scene in a hurry? Turn the lawyers loose on them. Let them try to explain why they have no responsibility to that young woman who has been exploited for decades. That is what my bill works on. I am happy to have the cosponsorship of Senator Graham and others. We believe that this package of bills should come to the floor today, and that is what Senator Graham is asking for. Let's have a debate. Let's hear the other side of the story if there is one. But for goodness' sake, for parents and grandparents across America and particularly for the kids, let's do something to protect them that is fundamental and basic. To say that this industry is somehow beyond liability and beyond the law is not right; it is not American; and it shouldn't be allowed in this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to thank Senator Graham. This has truly been a bipartisan effort. People are saying: Why don't they work together? Why don't the two parties work together? Well, 21 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously voted for these six bills--unanimously. And we come to the floor today saying we want to bring these to the floor for consideration. This Chamber is largely empty day in and day out. We have got plenty of time and opportunity to use these desks and these microphones to consider issues. What are the issues we might take up? The issues that keep families up at night. Why in the world is our little girl on that telephone night and day? What is she doing on there? She promises us she is safe and not to worry, Mom and Dad. But we don't know any better. And for goodness' sake, what is a parent supposed to do? Now consider the worst case scenario: Someone takes advantage of your little girl or granddaughter on the internet and displays an image which is horrifying. You know it, you see it, and you can't believe it. You finally go to the media platform and say: For goodness' sakes, take that image down. This is exactly where you will find it. Bring it down. We don't want that to be broadcast anymore. And if the media platform, at that point, knowingly and intentionally ignores the information you have given them to protect your family, then they can be held civilly liable. They can be sued. Do you think they will pay attention then? Why, of course, they will. That is why the objections are being heard. I am going to keep working on this. I thank Senator Graham for making it a bipartisan effort. He is a wonderful partner on these issues. We are coming back. I am working on a modification of my bill to bring some more support and make sure we consider everybody's point of view. But we do not take any position on encryption. As Senator Graham said, we are agnostic on that subject, but we do believe that something should be done to protect these families once and for all and to let these media platforms--these multimillion-dollar, profitable platforms--know they have a responsibility to the people of this country. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled vote: Senator Collins for up to 5 minutes and Senator Murray for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have a statement I am going to make on the Voting Rights Act, which I think is apropos as we are considering Super Tuesday and the millions of Americans who will participate. But first I would like to address the comments that were just made by the Republican Senate leader. Mr. President, you are a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and you were there the day Adeel Mangi's nomination came before our committee. It is a unique nomination. It has never happened before-- never in the history of the United States--because Mr. Mangi is a Muslim American, and he is being nominated to serve on the second highest court in the land. When you read his biography--and I don't have it before me; I am going to come back when I do have all the information before me--you cannot help but believe that this is an extraordinary individual and an extraordinary lawyer who is seeking this spot. The treatment he received in the Senate Judiciary Committee--you will remember it as well as I will--because he was a Muslim American was outrageous--outrageous. They believe that he must be a terrorist because he is Muslim, and it was suggested by a number of Senators questioning him that he has links with terrorism. In fact, one Republican Senator went so far as to ask him on the record: Do you celebrate 9/11 in your home? Do you celebrate 9/11 in your home? He said: Of course not. It was a horrible thing. I condemn all forms of violence and terrorism, he said, and those people--many who died-- were from the same community I was in in the States of New York and New Jersey. Then there was a suggestion that because he was a Muslim American, he must be anti-Semitic. I can't tell you how many different times that was asked of him, and he condemned anti-Semitism on a wholesale basis, with no qualifications and no equivocation. The questioning in that area was so outrageous against this individual, this Muslim American, so outrageous that the Anti- Defamation League, a national organization, highly respected, that stands up for Jewish Americans and their rights and speaks out without hesitation when people are being critical and prejudicial to Jewish Americans, sent us on the Senate Judiciary Committee--unsolicited--a response to the questioning he faced. I read it into the record at the committee meeting. Mr. President, I want to tell you, politics is a beanbag, and I know that if you are seeking a lifetime appointment to the bench, you better be prepared to answer a lot of questions. Some of them will be fair, and some won't be fair, but be ready--it is going to happen. But what happened to Mr. Mangi in that committee was beyond anything acceptable by Senate standards, and it continues to this day. To argue that he somehow is a cop killer--my God. What more are they going to throw at this man? I am going to come before the Senate on another day--maybe even tomorrow, if I can do it--and tell the whole story about his nomination, but to listen to what was just said about this man is breathtaking. He is an extraordinary individual. He is overqualified for the job, if there is such a thing. He has certainly served his country and wants to do more. The fact that he is a Muslim American should not subject him to this type of a beating in the committee or on the floor of the Senate, and I will return to address that issue specifically at a later date.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.