Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, behind the scenes of our Nation's courtrooms and jails, we will find some of our most dedicated public servants. They are America's public defense lawyers. They work long hours for low pay, and even less attention and acclaim, to protect the most American ideal: equal justice under the law. It is thanks to their service that every single citizen in this country is guaranteed the right to legal counsel. Well, this Saturday, we have a chance to honor them. It is National Public Defender Day. This year, National Public Defender Day also marks a major milestone in legal history. It is the 60th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in the landmark case Gideon v. Wainwright. As hard as it is to imagine, there were days before the Gideon decision when the constitutional right to legal counsel was not protected. That means, in some States, if you were charged with a crime but couldn't afford a lawyer, you were on your own. That is exactly what happened to a man named Clarence Gideon in the summer of 1961. At the time, he was down on his luck, struggling with the disease of addiction on the streets of Panama City, FL. Early one morning in June, he was arrested for a burglary. The evidence against him: A witness claimed that they saw him steal from a local pool hall. The police arrested him based on that accusation alone. When Mr. Gideon appeared in court, he told the judge he couldn't afford a lawyer, and he asked for an appointed attorney. The judge denied his request. He told Mr. Gideon the court could only appoint counsel to defendants facing the death penalty. In other words, Mr. Gideon was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, which has been enshrined in our Constitution since the enactment of the Bill of Rights, because he wasn't accused of a very serious crime. Well, Mr. Gideon didn't need a law degree to know something was wrong here. So he picked up a pen and a sheet of paper and wrote a letter to the U.S. Supreme Court, and with that letter, he changed history. The Supreme Court agreed to hear his case and finally appointed him an attorney--and not just an average attorney--future Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas. Fast-forward to March of 1963. The Court issued its decision. All nine Justices ruled unanimously in favor of Mr. Gideon. In the majority opinion, Justice Hugo Black said, ``Lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries,'' and he concluded that the ``noble ideal . . . [of] . . . fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law . . . cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him.'' In the six decades since Gideon, generations of public defenders have stepped up to ensure that no one is denied their right to legal counsel, and for our most vulnerable neighbors in particular, public defenders are an indispensable protection. They have protected the rights of low-income and indigent Americans. They have helped defendants access resources and services to get their lives back on track, and they have worked day in and day out to secure sentences that are humane and proportional. Moreover, public defenders provide a service to all of us by strengthening the integrity of our system of justice. Think about this: The United States has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world. So when defendants are denied adequate legal representation, they could end up behind bars for crimes they did not commit or receive excessive or even inhumane sentences for those that they did commit. That is a subversion of justice that wastes resources, violates fundamental values, and, worst of all, treats humans as if they are disposable objects. So all of us owe a debt of gratitude to the public defenders fighting against these injustices. But we also need to show that gratitude by providing public defenders with the resources they need to advocate for their clients. While the legal profession may be lucrative for attorneys working in big, corporate boardrooms, the reality is very different for lawyers who dedicate themselves to public service. One recent study indicates that--when accounting for the cost of overhead--public defenders can earn as little as $5.16 an hour. With meager salaries for long hours of work, it is really no wonder that we are currently facing a shortage of public defense lawyers. And that shortage is having a detrimental impact across the country. Criminal cases are going unresolved, defendants in need of medical and mental services are not being treated, and justice is being delayed-- and therefore--denied. This is a problem that effects every part of the country. And right now, States like New Mexico and Oregon have a third of the number of public defenders they need to clear their criminal caseload. Today, Senator Booker and I will be introducing two bills to underscore the value of public defenders and provide them with greater funding and resources. One of these bills is a piece of legislation we first introduced in 2021: the Sentencing Commission Improvements Act. We wrote this bill for a simple reason. Public defenders not only provide an invaluable service to our country, they also offer an invaluable perspective. These legal professionals spend countless hours with vulnerable defendants, as well as their families. They see firsthand how the disease of addiction can lead people down the wrong path and understand how to best support them, so they can get on the road to recovery. Public defenders help console children who are coming to terms with the fact that they may not hug a parent for years because they are behind bars. And they are there to hold a parent's hand when they find out their son or daughter has received a lengthy sentence. Public defenders understand the sobering--and sometimes grim--reality of our justice system better than anyone. So to build a system that actually prepares incarcerated people to reenter society and become productive citizens, we need to give public defenders a seat at the decision- making table. The Sentencing Commission Improvements Act will achieve that by adding an ex officio member to the U.S. Sentencing Commission who is a public defender. It is exactly the perspective the Commission needs to develop fairer sentencing guidelines. Our other bill is the Quality Defense Act. It will create a grant program to help fund data collection, hiring, increased compensation, and loan assistance programs for public defenders. This bill also directs the Justice Department to study and develop best practices and recommendations on appropriate public defender caseloads and levels of compensation. These measures will provide public defenders with resources that reflect the importance of their service and encourage attorneys to pursue careers as public defenders. I believe our justice system is stronger when it incorporates the insights of experts who have worked across the legal spectrum. That is why, as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have worked to confirm Federal judges who have served as public defenders. These perspectives have long been excluded from the Federal bench, which is a disservice to the American public. Thankfully, we are finally changing course. Last year, this Senate confirmed the first former public defender to ever serve on the Supreme Court: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. And in the past 2 years, we have confirmed more circuit judges with experience as public defenders than all prior Presidents combined. One of them is Judge Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, who serves on the Seventh Circuit in my home State of Illinois. Back in 2017, Judge Jackson- Akiwumi reflected on her time as a public defender--and how it tested her as a legal professional. She wrote that, as a public defender, ``I am a counselor, helping clients to navigate difficult choices. . . . I am a teacher, introducing clients and their families to the federal court system . . . ``[and] I am a lay social worker: many of our clients have disadvantaged backgrounds, extensive mental health histories, substance abuse issues, and other everyday challenges.'' When you work as a public defender, the job demands a lot more than a simple attorney-client relationship. It is a job that demands resourcefulness, thoughtfulness, and quick, strategic thinking. These are the same qualities we need in the judges who serve on our Nation's Federal courts. And they are the same qualities people look for when they enter the courtroom as a plaintiff or defendant. So as we honor National Public Defender Day this weekend, I want to thank all of our courageous and dedicated public defense attorneys across America. We are grateful for your commitment to defending equal justice under law.

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 California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, when the Constitution was written, there were some fundamental principles which were included, and one of them said that any declaration of war in the United States had to have the approval of the American people through their elected representatives in Congress. It was an awesome responsibility and an important one. I think it was the right responsibility given to the people through their elected representatives. After World War II, there were several engagements by the American military without such declaration of war. Those were, of course, controversial and debated, but I am sure you recall and I do, too, October of the year 2002, when this Senate was called on, with the House of Representatives, to consider the invasion of Iraq and the authorization of use of military force for that purpose. We may have forgotten by now, 20 years later, but I remember very vividly the fearsome national debate over whether this Nation, having been hit by 9/11, needed to invade Iraq. The rationale was weapons of mass destruction were present in Iraq, threatening not only nations in the Middle East, which were our friends and allies, but even threatening the United States of America. That threat, weapons of mass destruction, was beaten into our heads day after day. But many of us were skeptical, and the vote came on the floor of the Senate, I recall, in October of 2002. It happened late at night. And at the end of the day, there were 23 of us--1 Republican and 22 Democrats--who voted against that authorization for the use of military force in Iraq. I look back on it, as I am sure others do, as one of the most important votes that I ever cast. It was not only a decision about going to war, but it was a false argument that weapons of mass destruction were threatening anyone. After invading and after making the commitment of the American military force, along with our allies, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq. It was a lie perpetrated by those who wanted to drag the United States into the Middle East for a long-term commitment and a dubious threat to our country. The repeal of this authorization of use of military force does not mean the United States has become a pacifist nation. It means that the United States is going to be a constitutional nation, and the premise of our Founding Fathers will be respected. If there is cause for us to use military force in the future, we should properly follow that Constitution and let the American people have their own voice in this process through their elected representatives in Congress. I am cosponsoring and fully support removal of this authorization of use of military force and believe it is consistent with the vote many of us cast in 2002 against that premise.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Jessica G.L. Clarke to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Born in Akron, OH, Ms. Clarke received her B.A. from Northwestern University in 2001 and earned her J.D. from The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law in 2008. She then clerked for Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr., on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio from 2008 to 2010. Ms. Clarke began her legal career in 2010, as a trial attorney at the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section. During her 6 years investigating and litigating civil rights violations, Ms. Clarke gained significant litigation experience, including successfully trying a ``first-of-its-kind'' housing discrimination case and also securing the largest settlement of its kind in another housing discrimination matter. In 2016, Ms. Clarke went into private practice in New York City for 3 years, focusing on commercial litigation and affirmative civil rights work. Since 2019, she has served as the chief of the Civil Rights Bureau at the New York State Office of the Attorney General, supervising the Bureau's attorneys and staff in enforcing Federal, State, and local civil rights laws in New York. The American Bar Association has unanimously rated Ms. Clarke ``qualified'' to serve on the Southern District of New York. Senators Schumer and Gillibrand strongly support her nomination as well. I will be supporting this outstanding nominee, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, behind the scenes of our Nation's courtrooms and jails, we will find some of our most dedicated public servants. They are America's public defense lawyers. They work long hours for low pay, and even less attention and acclaim, to protect the most American ideal: equal justice under the law. It is thanks to their service that every single citizen in this country is guaranteed the right to legal counsel. Well, this Saturday, we have a chance to honor them. It is National Public Defender Day. This year, National Public Defender Day also marks a major milestone in legal history. It is the 60th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in the landmark case Gideon v. Wainwright. As hard as it is to imagine, there were days before the Gideon decision when the constitutional right to legal counsel was not protected. That means, in some States, if you were charged with a crime but couldn't afford a lawyer, you were on your own. That is exactly what happened to a man named Clarence Gideon in the summer of 1961. At the time, he was down on his luck, struggling with the disease of addiction on the streets of Panama City, FL. Early one morning in June, he was arrested for a burglary. The evidence against him: A witness claimed that they saw him steal from a local pool hall. The police arrested him based on that accusation alone. When Mr. Gideon appeared in court, he told the judge he couldn't afford a lawyer, and he asked for an appointed attorney. The judge denied his request. He told Mr. Gideon the court could only appoint counsel to defendants facing the death penalty. In other words, Mr. Gideon was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, which has been enshrined in our Constitution since the enactment of the Bill of Rights, because he wasn't accused of a very serious crime. Well, Mr. Gideon didn't need a law degree to know something was wrong here. So he picked up a pen and a sheet of paper and wrote a letter to the U.S. Supreme Court, and with that letter, he changed history. The Supreme Court agreed to hear his case and finally appointed him an attorney--and not just an average attorney--future Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas. Fast-forward to March of 1963. The Court issued its decision. All nine Justices ruled unanimously in favor of Mr. Gideon. In the majority opinion, Justice Hugo Black said, ``Lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries,'' and he concluded that the ``noble ideal . . . [of] . . . fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law . . . cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him.'' In the six decades since Gideon, generations of public defenders have stepped up to ensure that no one is denied their right to legal counsel, and for our most vulnerable neighbors in particular, public defenders are an indispensable protection. They have protected the rights of low-income and indigent Americans. They have helped defendants access resources and services to get their lives back on track, and they have worked day in and day out to secure sentences that are humane and proportional. Moreover, public defenders provide a service to all of us by strengthening the integrity of our system of justice. Think about this: The United States has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world. So when defendants are denied adequate legal representation, they could end up behind bars for crimes they did not commit or receive excessive or even inhumane sentences for those that they did commit. That is a subversion of justice that wastes resources, violates fundamental values, and, worst of all, treats humans as if they are disposable objects. So all of us owe a debt of gratitude to the public defenders fighting against these injustices. But we also need to show that gratitude by providing public defenders with the resources they need to advocate for their clients. While the legal profession may be lucrative for attorneys working in big, corporate boardrooms, the reality is very different for lawyers who dedicate themselves to public service. One recent study indicates that--when accounting for the cost of overhead--public defenders can earn as little as $5.16 an hour. With meager salaries for long hours of work, it is really no wonder that we are currently facing a shortage of public defense lawyers. And that shortage is having a detrimental impact across the country. Criminal cases are going unresolved, defendants in need of medical and mental services are not being treated, and justice is being delayed-- and therefore--denied. This is a problem that effects every part of the country. And right now, States like New Mexico and Oregon have a third of the number of public defenders they need to clear their criminal caseload. Today, Senator Booker and I will be introducing two bills to underscore the value of public defenders and provide them with greater funding and resources. One of these bills is a piece of legislation we first introduced in 2021: the Sentencing Commission Improvements Act. We wrote this bill for a simple reason. Public defenders not only provide an invaluable service to our country, they also offer an invaluable perspective. These legal professionals spend countless hours with vulnerable defendants, as well as their families. They see firsthand how the disease of addiction can lead people down the wrong path and understand how to best support them, so they can get on the road to recovery. Public defenders help console children who are coming to terms with the fact that they may not hug a parent for years because they are behind bars. And they are there to hold a parent's hand when they find out their son or daughter has received a lengthy sentence. Public defenders understand the sobering--and sometimes grim--reality of our justice system better than anyone. So to build a system that actually prepares incarcerated people to reenter society and become productive citizens, we need to give public defenders a seat at the decision- making table. The Sentencing Commission Improvements Act will achieve that by adding an ex officio member to the U.S. Sentencing Commission who is a public defender. It is exactly the perspective the Commission needs to develop fairer sentencing guidelines. Our other bill is the Quality Defense Act. It will create a grant program to help fund data collection, hiring, increased compensation, and loan assistance programs for public defenders. This bill also directs the Justice Department to study and develop best practices and recommendations on appropriate public defender caseloads and levels of compensation. These measures will provide public defenders with resources that reflect the importance of their service and encourage attorneys to pursue careers as public defenders. I believe our justice system is stronger when it incorporates the insights of experts who have worked across the legal spectrum. That is why, as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have worked to confirm Federal judges who have served as public defenders. These perspectives have long been excluded from the Federal bench, which is a disservice to the American public. Thankfully, we are finally changing course. Last year, this Senate confirmed the first former public defender to ever serve on the Supreme Court: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. And in the past 2 years, we have confirmed more circuit judges with experience as public defenders than all prior Presidents combined. One of them is Judge Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, who serves on the Seventh Circuit in my home State of Illinois. Back in 2017, Judge Jackson- Akiwumi reflected on her time as a public defender--and how it tested her as a legal professional. She wrote that, as a public defender, ``I am a counselor, helping clients to navigate difficult choices. . . . I am a teacher, introducing clients and their families to the federal court system . . . ``[and] I am a lay social worker: many of our clients have disadvantaged backgrounds, extensive mental health histories, substance abuse issues, and other everyday challenges.'' When you work as a public defender, the job demands a lot more than a simple attorney-client relationship. It is a job that demands resourcefulness, thoughtfulness, and quick, strategic thinking. These are the same qualities we need in the judges who serve on our Nation's Federal courts. And they are the same qualities people look for when they enter the courtroom as a plaintiff or defendant. So as we honor National Public Defender Day this weekend, I want to thank all of our courageous and dedicated public defense attorneys across America. We are grateful for your commitment to defending equal justice under law.

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. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) are 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

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, it seems a little unusual to follow Senator Schumer because usually Senator McConnell is next, and we certainly understand why he is not here today. He is in recovery from a fall that he experienced last week. We wish him the very best and hope he is back very soon.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), and the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, yesterday, I joined Leader Schumer, Senators Baldwin, Blumenthal, and Murray and a number of my colleagues in introducing a piece of legislation that is urgently needed. It is entitled the Women's Health Protection Act of 2023. This bill would protect the right to obtain and provide reproductive healthcare--as basic as anything in America--as well as the freedom of Americans to seek this care free of medically unnecessary restrictions or limitations as to where a patient can receive it. It has been about 9 months since the Thomas-Alito Court ripped away this fundamental right in America and put a target on the backs of women and healthcare providers across the country. Since then, we have heard one horror story after another--stories of rape victims as young as 10 years old who have been forced to travel across State lines to receive critical healthcare, stories of women who were suffering miscarriages but still have been denied care by doctors in red States where the doctors are afraid of being charged with a crime, stories of women who have been abandoned by their State's leaders, many of whom have found refuge in the State of Illinois. Despite these stories of girls and women who have been denied critical healthcare because of partisan politics, Republicans are continuing to push dangerous abortion bans and restrictions. These politicians think they know better than the women who are affected by these decisions and their doctors. Beware of the moment when legislators start playing doctor. They are doing it all across America on this issue. They are wrong. We need to respect the freedom and right of women and the expertise of their medical professionals, period, and we need to recognize that politicians have no business in the hospital room or in the doctor's office. There should be a matter of privacy and respect that should be guiding our policy. If we want to defend freedom and fundamental rights in America, we need to pass the Women's Health Protection Act. The debate has even gone so far as to affect the corner drugstore. This week, I was on the phone with the CEO of Walgreens, an Illinois- based company, one of the largest pharmacy companies in the United States of America. They are torn currently by an announcement of policy earlier this week which generated a lot of controversy: whether or not they will dispense medications which are used to end a pregnancy. I begged them to at least wait until this issue has become clearer in the courts before taking a corporate position. The other major pharmacy chains are making the same decision themselves. We will find out what they conclude. But it is an indication that this debate has gone far beyond the floor of the U.S. Senate in Washington--it is on your street corner; it is in your mall; it is in the shopping center that you have been going to all your life--as to whether or not you can have access to a drug that was judged safe and effective 20 years ago by the Federal Government. That is what happens when legislators decide to be doctors.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Judge James Simmons, Jr., who has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Born in Inglewood, CA, Judge Simmons received his B.A. from the University of California at Berkeley in 2001 and went on to earn his J.D. at Golden Gate University School of Law in 2004. Judge Simmons began his legal career as a deputy city attorney for the city of San Diego in 2005, a role in which he tried 19 jury trials on behalf of the city in 1 year. In 2006, he became a trial attorney at the San Diego District Attorney's Office. As an attorney in the gang prosecution unit, Judge Simmons tried 30 jury trials over 11 years. Since 2017, Judge Simmons has served as a Superior Court judge for the San Diego Superior Court. Having presided over thousands of matters and 12 bench trials, Judge Simmons has notably never been reversed by a reviewing court. The American Bar Association has unanimously rated Judge Simmons ``well qualified'' to serve on the Southern District of California, and Senators Feinstein and Padilla strongly support his nomination as well. I will be supporting this highly qualified nominee, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.