Richard Durbin

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 on the nomination of Justice Maria Kahn, who has been nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Since 2017, Justice Kahn has served as an associate justice for the Connecticut Supreme Court. Over the past 6 years, she has authored over 55 opinions. Prior to her appointment, she also briefly served on the Connecticut Appellate Court, where she authored eight opinions. Justice Kahn began her judicial career on the State's Superior Court in 2006 and presided over thousands of matters, 50 criminal trials, and several civil trials. Prior to joining the bench, Justice Kahn spent her entire time in practice in government service. She began her legal career as a deputy assistant public defender for the Connecticut Public Defender Services in 1991. In 1993, she became a staff attorney in the Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities. Most recently, Justice Kahn served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut. As an AUSA, she worked in the civil division from 1997 to 1999 and the criminal division from 1999 to 2004 before being promoted to computer crimes coordinator. Across these roles, she tried dozens of cases and argued two appeals before the Second Circuit and one before the Connecticut Supreme Court. Born in Benguela, Angola, Justice Kahn immigrated to the United States when she was 10. She earned her B.A. cum laude from New York University in 1986 and her J.D. from Fordham Law School in 1989. She also clerked for the Honorable Peter C. Dorsey on the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut for 2 years. Justice Kahn enjoys the strong support of Senators Blumenthal and Murphy, and she has been unanimously rated ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association to serve on the Second Circuit. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this eminently qualified nominee.

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

Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, last year, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I convened a bipartisan hearing on carjacking. It was the first-ever Judiciary Committee hearing on the subject. We heard from experts in law enforcement and the automobile industry. And since then, I have been working with Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican from Iowa, on a bill we are going to introduce soon on the subject. The Senator from Arkansas is a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. He did not attend our hearing, and he has never raised this issue with me. In fact, he introduced the bill we are considering at this moment yesterday. Why now? Well, he is very open when he said on the floor and what he said in his press release. Later this afternoon, there will be a vote on the DC Criminal Code. One of the issues is carjacking. He is trying to hitch a ride on this train in terms of the discussion of the penalties for crime. It is no coincidence. Senator Cotton has brought this bill to the floor because, today, we are voting on that resolution. The opponents of the resolution have focused on the bill's new sentence for carjacking, reducing the penalty from 40 years to 24, and ignored the fact that the resolution increases sentences for a host of other violent offenses and goes after crime guns--a source of gun crimes in many cities, including Washington and those I represent. Don't take my word for it. The Senator's own press release explicitly links his new bill to today's vote. The Senator knows this bill is not going to pass today. He wants a Democrat to object so he can falsely claim we don't care about carjacking. The reality is that the Senator's bill would not help prevent carjacking, and it would make our Federal prisons less safe. Let me explain. The Senator from Arkansas' bill is called No Early Release for Carjackers Act. Catchy title. But it fails to recognize one basic fact: Carjackers cannot get early release from the Federal system. Like every other Federal sentence, it is measured in years. Carjacking sentences have a full-term release date and a good conduct release date. If you go to Federal prison, you earn 54 days a year of good conduct credit if you follow the rules. If you break the rules, they take away your good conduct time. That has been the standard in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which abolished Federal parole. Every Federal judge knows about good conduct time when they impose a sentence. Earning good conduct time isn't getting released early. It is getting released when you really expected to, so long as you behave and follow the rules. I made it a point of visiting prisons regularly as a Member of Congress and Member of the U.S. Senate. I recommend it to all my colleagues. We spend a lot of time talking about criminal sentencing and criminals themselves and very little time actually visiting prisons to see what life is like behind bars. It is an educational experience. I can tell you one thing you will come to realize right off the bat: It is a dangerous place. The men and women who are corrections officers in the Federal system literally risk their lives every single day to keep those incarcerated who have been sentenced by the courts. They ask us for very little: enough people to do the job right, safety in the workplace, and those few incentives that make it possible for them to have a decent day at work and go home alive at the end of the day. One of those things is good conduct. If they can incentivize prisoners not to beat up other prisoners or the correction officers themselves with the promise of good conduct reductions in their sentences, it is a very important thing to do. We want these men and women, these law enforcement professionals, to have respect and also to have the law on their side. There are no Federal offenses that disqualify you from good conduct time--not a single one. And for good reason. Good conduct time is an incentive to follow the rules in prison. That is what we want people who have broken the law to do while they are in prison: learn to follow the rules. The threat of losing good conduct time is also a deterrent against breaking the rules. That helps prevent violence in prison, protects correction officers, and protects the other incarcerated people. Good conduct time is a critical tool for Federal prison officials to maintain order. That is why we don't disqualify anyone from good conduct time based on their offense of conviction. This bill would be the first time in history. We have never done it before, and we shouldn't start now. Now, this is not the first time that this Senator has opposed efforts to rehabilitate prisoners. The reason he is trying to dismantle good conduct credit is because carjackers are already excluded from an important rehab program created by the FIRST STEP Act. He comes to the floor regularly to criticize the FIRST STEP Act, which he didn't support, and it is his right not to. He fails to mention two things. It was a bipartisan measure introduced by the primary sponsor at the time, Senator Grassley, and myself and Senator Lee. It was signed into law by President Donald Trump. Soft on crime? This bill passed by an overwhelming vote of 87 to 12 in the Senate. It was signed into law by President Trump. Unlike most Republican Senators, Senator Cotton opposed the FIRST STEP Act. The FIRST STEP Act established earned time credits that allowed prisoners to earn time off their sentences in exchange for completing programs that help reduce the likelihood they will commit a new crime after their release. The bill included a compromise and excluded from the program individuals who had committed any of dozens of offenses. Carjacking is one of those offenses. So the criticism he is making of the FIRST STEP Act doesn't apply to the argument he made on the floor. No matter how many recidivism-reducing programs a carjacker completes, no matter how many classes he takes or how many skills he learns, he cannot earn a day off his sentence under the FIRST STEP Act--exactly the opposite of what the Senator from Arkansas just said. That compromise wasn't enough for the junior Senator from Arkansas. He offered an amendment to the FIRST STEP Act that would have excluded tens of thousands of low-level offenders for earned time credits. And I stood here on the Senate floor to oppose that amendment because I knew then and I know now the purpose of a recidivism reduction program is to reduce recidivism. Almost everyone in the Federal Bureau of Prisons will get out one day. And when we exclude people from these programs, we do not facilitate successful reentry, and we do not reduce recidivism. Now let's talk about what we can do to reduce carjacking. I have been working for months on a bill with Senator Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Our Combating Carjacking Act is based on recommendations from experts who came to our hearing last year. I have discussed one key provision many times with the sheriff of Cook County, Tom Dart, and here is what it does. Almost any car manufacturer today has some kind of vehicle location system built into it. It is a device that automatically calls for help if you have been in an accident. This system is a great way to locate cars right away in real time after they have been carjacked, and that should be a huge deterrent to carjacking. If you take a car by threat of violence, law enforcement should be able to find you right away, take back the car, and put you under arrest for your crime. But right now, law enforcement has a hard time getting auto manufacturers to provide that location data, even when the victim, the vehicle owner, is standing there saying: Please help the police find the person who just stole my car. Why? Some manufacturers are better than others about this, but they tell us that we are worried about violating the Federal Driver Privacy Act, and they are worried about liability. So the bill we are working on, on carjacking, creates an exception to the Driver Privacy Act. It says, if a car manufacturer gets a reasonable, good-faith request from law enforcement for vehicle location data after a carjacking, they can provide that location data without liability because we want to make carjacking a crime that never pays off, and it won't if carjacked vehicles can be immediately tracked and recovered. That is why we are pursuing this. As I said before, I agree with Senator Cotton, carjacking is a serious problem that needs local and Federal solutions. I invite him to join me and Senator Grassley in our bipartisan effort. I don't agree that wiping out good conduct credit for Federal prisoners is the way to do it. Madam President, I object.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Pennslyania (Mr. Fetterman), and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper), the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week, the Biden administration announced it was imposing Magnitsky law-related sanctions on several Putin thugs involved in the jailing of Vladimir Kara-Murza. This is the move that I, along with Senators Shaheen, Rubio, Tillis, Menendez, and Risch, had urged. Kara-Murza is an incredible Russian patriot who, despite being poisoned twice by the Kremlin, returned to Russia last year to continue the peaceful struggle for a more democratic nation and an end to the disastrous war in Ukraine. I will never forget that he came to talk to me just before he returned to Russia and reflected on his determination and optimism for a better future for Russia. Tragically, he was arrested shortly after arriving in Moscow on the laughable charge of criticizing Mr. Putin's war. Kara-Murza, Alexei Navalny, and so many other Russians who are courageously pursuing a better future for their country deserve our support, and they deserve to be released from Putin's disgraceful gulags. I would also like to take a moment to mention another brave person. This gentleman, Oswaldo Paya, a brave Cuban, died under suspicious circumstances 11 years ago. Oswaldo Paya had spent years advocating for peaceful, democratic change in Cuba, including submitting thousands of signatures calling for greater political freedoms using a process allowed by the Cuban Constitution itself. Not only did the Castro regime cowardly ignore these modest requests, but it then changed the constitutional provision that allowed for this kind of political input. After years of harassment and threats, in July 2012, Oswaldo Paya's car was run off the road by a government vehicle, leading to his death. The Cuban Government has never provided a credible accounting of the incident or charged anyone with his death. So, this week, Senators Rubio, Kaine, Cassidy, Menendez, Cruz, Cardin, Warner, and I are again calling on the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to complete this investigation. I hope the Commission finally acts to bring light to Paya's case and to help deter acts of aggression like this in the future.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Judge Andrew Schopler, who has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Since 2016, Judge Schopler has served as a magistrate judge for the Southern District of California. To date, he has presided over five misdemeanor trials. Prior to his Federal judicial appointment, he served as a judge pro tem for 5 years on the San Diego Superior Court's Small Claims Court, where he presided over dozens of civil bench trials. Before joining the bench, Judge Schopler served the Southern District of California as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for 12 years, spending 4 years in the general crimes section, four in the criminal enterprise/narcotics enforcement section, and four in the major frauds and special prosecutions section, where he served as deputy chief. Judge Schopler began his legal career in North Carolina as an assistant public defender at the Orange and Chatham County Public Defender's Office and in private practice. He tried approximately 55 cases to verdict or judgment and was sole counsel in 39. Since 2014, Judge Schopler has also served this country as a major in the U.S. Army, California Army National Guard. In 2018, he deployed to Afghanistan for 8 months. Born in Chapel Hill, NC, Judge Schopler earned his J.D. cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1997 and his B.A. summa cum laude from Dartmouth College in 1994. Senators Feinstein and Padilla strongly support Judge Schopler's nomination. The American Bar Association has also unanimously rated him ``well qualified'' to serve on the Southern District of California. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this highly qualified nominee.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Arun Subramanian to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Mr. Subramanian attended Case Western Reserve University and Columbia Law School. After graduating, he went on to clerk at all levels of the Federal judiciary--first for Judge Dennis Jacobs on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, then for Judge Gerard E. Lynch on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and finally for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Subramanian then entered private practice in Manhattan, where he has focused on complex civil litigation. His work has covered a wide variety of issue areas, including State and Federal false claims, commercial and employment contract disputes, tort actions, securities, antitrust, fraud, and patent litigation. Mr. Subramanian has also dedicated hundreds of hours to his pro bono work, and he also coordinates his law firm's pro bono activities. He was unanimously rated ``well qualified'' by the ABA and received a bipartisan vote in committee. In addition, he has the strong support of his home State Senators--Mr. Schumer and Mrs. Gillibrand--and his Supreme Court co-clerks. His fellow clerks emphasized that they had witnessed Mr. Subramanian's ``collegial, candid, and fair-minded temperament.'' Given his significant litigation experience and strong ties to the Southern District of New York, Mr. Subramanian will make an excellent addition to the District Court bench. I strongly support his nomination and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate voted to confirm Judge Robert Ballou to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Born in Roanoke, VA, Judge Ballou received both his bachelor's degree and J.D. from the University of Virginia. After clerking for Judge Peter H. Beer on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Judge Ballou began his legal career at Christian, Barton, Epps, Brent & Chappell as an associate, where he worked on a variety of matters, including insurance defense, products liability, and traffic and misdemeanor offenses. He then went on to work for Johnson, Ayers & Matthews, PLC as an associate, where he tried more than 50 cases to verdict before a jury, including matters involving personal injury, products liability, and construction defects. In 2011, Judge Ballou was appointed to serve as a U.S. magistrate judge for the same district to which he is now nominated. As a magistrate, he has presided over approximately 300 cases. The American Bar Association rated Judge Ballou unanimously ``well qualified,'' and he has the strong support of Senators Warner and Kaine. Judge Ballou's deep ties to the Virginia legal community, combined with his significant courtroom experience, will make him an excellent addition to the Federal district court bench. I was pleased to support his nomination.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I have a few statements I would like to make this morning, but I would like to respond to the Republican leader's statement that he just completed. I am not naive when it comes to Iran. I know what is happening there from press reports. Their treatment of women is abominable. There is no excuse for it. And the protests in the streets of Tehran and all across that country really are an expression of human dignity which the United States--at least I as a Senator in the United States--supports publicly. Secondly, there are no excuses for the assistance Iran is giving to Vladimir Putin and his ruthless attack on the people of Ukraine. I won't make excuses for that or any other terrorist conduct by Iran. But for the record--for the record--it was President Obama who moved forward with the notion that we ought to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. They are guilty of bad conduct in many quarters, but we didn't want them to have a nuclear weapon. We didn't think it made America any safer, the Middle East safer, or our allies like Israel any safer either. So President Obama pushed for an arms control when it came to the development of nuclear weapons, and Iran had put together a coalition which sounds amazing today. To think that he could gather at one table in this effort--Russia, China, Great Britain, France, the European Union, and the United States in this effort to stop the Iranians from developing a nuclear weapon was nothing short of a political miracle. It was resisted every step of the way by the Republicans. They didn't want to have this. We did it anyway. And with this nuclear effort was an inspection team--an international inspection team--on the ground in Iran to make sure they didn't violate it. We were safer--not by much, but we were safer then. And then who came along but President Donald Trump who said his approach would be just the opposite. We are going to eliminate the whole program to stop Iran from developing a nuclear program, and he did. So for the Republicans to come before us today and argue that we are not being tough enough on Iran, I would like to tell them that I am not going to make excuses for Iran and its foreign policy. But there are nuclear weapons we had a chance to do something about, and some of us voted for it, some of us voted against it. I think that ought to be a matter of public record.

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. Madam President, I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 37, confirmation of the nomination of Colleen Lawless to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of Illinois. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yea. I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 38, motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Gordon P. Gallagher to be a U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yea. I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 39, Confirmation of the nomination of Jonathan James Grey to be a U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yea. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record).

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, today, the Senate voted to confirm Colleen Lawless to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in my hometown of Springfield. Born in Joliet, IL, Judge Lawless received her bachelor's degree from Illinois Wesleyan University and her J.D. from Northern Illinois University College of Law. After graduating from law school, Judge Lawless joined the Springfield, IL, firm Londrigan, Potter & Randle P.C., where she represented plaintiffs and defendants in State and Federal courts, including the court to which she has now been nominated. In this role, she handled matters ranging from employment discrimination to medical malpractice to family law and tried four cases to verdict before a jury. In 2019, the judges of Illinois' Seventh Judicial Circuit appointed Judge Lawless to serve as an associate circuit judge, and she is currently assigned to the domestic relations division. Since her appointment to the bench, Judge Lawless has presided over 125 domestic relations bench trials and many more proceedings implicating mental health commitments, small claims, evictions, and emergency protection orders. Notably, she has never been reversed or significantly criticized by a reviewing court. Judge Lawless received a rating of ``well qualified'' from the ABA and a bipartisan vote in committee. She was also highly recommended by a judicial screening committee that Senator Duckworth and I established to consider judicial candidates for the Central District of Illinois. Judge Lawless will fill the Springfield-based seat that has been occupied over the past decade by Judge Sue Myerscough. I want to thank Judge Myerscough for her outstanding service to the people of the central Illinois. She leaves big shoes to fill, but I am confident that Judge Lawless is more than up to the task. Given her significant trial experience and deep knowledge of the Central District, Senator Duckworth and I strongly support Judge Lawless. I was glad to see her confirmed. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, today the Senate confirmed Judge Jonathan Grey to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Born in Poplarville, MS, Judge Grey attended Morehouse College and the Georgetown University Law Center before serving as a law clerk to both Judge Damon J. Keith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and Judge W. Louis Sands of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. He then began his career in private practice as an associate at Seyfarth Shaw, LLC, a role in which he focused on labor and employment matters in Federal, State, and local courts, as well as before administrative agencies. As an Assistant United States Attorney for both the Southern District of Ohio and the Eastern District of Michigan, Judge Grey briefed and argued dozens of dispositive and nondispositive motions and also led several substantial investigations in cases that spanned multiple States and countries. In 2021, Judge Grey was appointed to serve as a magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, where he has written opinions in approximately 40 cases. The American Bar Association rated Judge Grey as unanimously ``well qualified,'' and he enjoys the strong support of Senators Stabenow and Peters. Judge Grey's experience as both a litigator and a jurist in the Eastern District of Michigan demonstrates his deep knowledge of the district to which he has been nominated to serve, and he will make an outstanding addition to the Federal bench. I was glad to see him confirmed.