Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Women's History Month to recognize the extraordinary achievements of past generations of women and to pay tribute to the vital role they have played in the political, economic, and social development of this Nation.

Women's History Month provides a special opportunity to reflect upon the numerous contributions made by women who touch all aspects of our society--from government, to business, the arts and sciences, the military, and much more. I look upon the courage our predecessors displayed with great admiration, and I continue to be inspired by those who blazed the trail for women like me.

I am reminded of how incredibly proud I was to see the Smithsonian Women's History Museum Act, which I coled with Senator Susan Collins, enacted in December 2020. This law establishes a long-overdue, permanent museum to collect, study, and create programs that celebrate the contributions and experiences of women. The Women's History Museum will be established on or near the National Mall, and I look forward to hearing about the site when it is announced later this year.

However, it is with sadness that the past year brought with it the loss of a number of pioneering women, including the First Lady of Television Betty White; Sarah Weddington, who represented ``Jane Roe'' in the landmark Roe v. Wade case; authors bell hooks, Beverly Clearly, and Joan Didion; and

Motown vocalists Mary Wilson and Wanda Young. Although these icons are no longer with us, their contributions will live on, and their accomplishments have shattered glass ceilings for future generations of women. May we honor their work and memory with a commitment to empower and support future women leaders.

But the future is bright. In the 117th Congress, we have reached a new high-water mark for women in politics, as more women are now serving in elected office than ever before. There are now 148 women serving in Congress: 124 women in the House of Representatives and 24 women in the U.S. Senate. Just last year, the Senate confirmed Janet Yellen to be the first female Treasury Secretary. Just recently, President Biden nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to be the Nation's first Black woman as a Supreme Court Justice.

These are exciting times for women indeed, and much progress has been made. Yet we still have a lot of work cut out for us. We must come together to address the ongoing pandemic, which has had devastating consequences for the health of our country and economy. The pandemic has also uniquely harmed women and girls--especially women of color. A disproportionate number of women have lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic and are often unable to maintain work commitments with children learning from home while schools are closed. This unequal harm endured by women during the pandemic reminds us that the march toward equality is yet to be done. We must continue our work to ensure fairness and equity for women everywhere.

As we convene to celebrate Women's History Month, I ask my colleagues to celebrate with me how far we have come and to continue the fight for the progress of all women--especially those who are struggling during these trying times.

Madam President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Women's Health Protection Act and pleased to submit my remarks regarding this critical legislation. I regret that I am unable to attend the full Senate vote on this bill today due to a death in the family.

The Women's Health Protection Act would guarantee the right to an abortion. The bill would allow a patient to access an abortion and ensure providers are able to deliver those services

without the burden of medically unnecessary restrictions.

Now more than ever, we need to protect this fundamental right. Nearly 50 years after the Supreme Court guaranteed the right to safe and legal abortion in Roe v. Wade, reproductive rights are under direct attack.

States are introducing laws at an alarming rate that seek to dramatically limit or outright ban abortion access. Some of these restrictive laws ban abortion after the 6th week of pregnancy, before many people know they are pregnant.

Even more concerning, we may no longer be able to rely on the Supreme Court to protect reproductive rights. The Supreme Court recently finished hearing oral arguments in a case about Mississippi's restrictive abortion law. Many Americans, including myself, are worried that the Supreme Court could significantly diminish or altogether overturn Roe v. Wade.

The repercussions of such a decision would be devastating. According to the Guttmacher Institute, more than half of U.S. States are poised to ban or severely restrict abortion access if this landmark decision is overturned. I remember what it was like prior to Roe v. Wade. I understand the heartbreaking and often unsafe situations that pregnant individuals face.

We must respond by passing the Women's Health Protection Act. Congress must do everything it can to ensure that individuals are able to access critical medical care and make the best decisions possible for their health. I am proud to cosponsor this important bill, and I won't stop fighting to protect fundamental reproductive rights.

Madam President, I was proud to support and cosponsor S. 2342, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021. This bill is critically important in supporting survivors who have experienced sexual assault and sexual harassment in the workplace.

Forced arbitration clauses have become increasingly common in employment contracts. According to the Economic Policy Institute, 56.2 percent of private sector, nonunion workers are subject to forced arbitration. That means approximately 60 million workers in the United States are denied the right to have their employment cases heard by a court.

When it comes to matters of sexual assault and sexual harassment, forced arbitration clauses protect predators and prevent survivors from seeking justice in the courts for the wrongs they have experienced.

This practice of forced arbitration is deeply concerning. Employees are often not aware that their employment contracts contain arbitration clauses, and they often do not understand their effect. Scholars have estimated that 98 percent of workers will abandon their legal claims instead of pursuing them through the arbitration process. Employees who choose to arbitrate are then forced to use company-appointed arbitrators and are not able to appeal the decisions.

Even more troubling, forced arbitration clauses have been used to silence survivors of workplace sexual assault and sexual harassment, and that is unacceptable.

This bill will help protect the rights of survivors by allowing courts to invalidate forced arbitration clauses when the case involves sexual assault or harassment. This will ensure that survivors can bring their claims in court if they choose to do so.

I am proud to cosponsor this bipartisan bill, and I am happy to see my colleagues overwhelmingly support it on the floor today.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022.

This bipartisan bill would reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act through 2027 and provide important updates to modernize the law that has been critical to protecting and supporting the survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

I was proud to support the original Violence Against Women Act in 1994 and have supported each reauthorization of the law.

This includes the most recent reauthorization in 2013, which passed the Senate by a strong bipartisan vote of 78 to 22.

It is an honor to introduce this reauthorization and expansion of protections for survivors.

This bill is the result of a truly bipartisan effort. I would like to thank Senator Ernst, Senator Durbin, and Senator Murkowski for working with me to prepare this important piece of legislation.

We have also had help from a number of our Senate colleagues who have made important contributions to this effort. I am proud that this bill has received strong bipartisan support in the Senate.

I would also like to thank the many advocates who have lent their thoughts and support to this effort. This bill was written in close consultation with the people who are on the frontlines helping survivors of domestic violence every day. It is not a Democratic bill or a Republican bill--it is a bill for survivors.

Together, we drafted a bill that preserves the good work of the last Violence Against Women Act reauthorization and strengthens existing programs.

For nearly 30 years, the Violence Against Women Act has played a vital role in the Federal response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. I hope that this bill will be an effective tool to build upon those efforts.

Despite the progress made over the last three decades, sexual, emotional, and physical abuse are still painful realities for far too many Americans. More than one in three women experience rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime. Nationwide, an average of three women are killed each day by a current or former intimate partner.

According to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, in a single day in 2020, 76,525 domestic violence survivors received the resources they needed thanks to programs funded and supported by the Violence Against Women Act.

It is clear that the programs created by the Violence Against Women Act are necessary, and they need to be continually updated to meet the needs of survivors. The bipartisan bill that we are introducing today reauthorizes these important programs and provides the necessary updates to strengthen them.

This bill enhances and expands services for survivors of domestic violence, including survivors in rural communities, LGBT survivors, survivors with disabilities, and survivors who experience abuse later in life.

This bill reauthorizes and strengthens the criminal justice response to domestic violence, including by improving the Justice Department's STOP grant program; expanding support provided to survivors in the legal system; and strengthening the ability of Tribal courts to address instances of domestic violence on Tribal lands.

This bill also invests in prevention education efforts, improves the healthcare system's response to sexual violence across the country, and establishes a pilot program on restorative practices that focuses on preventing or addressing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking through community based, victim-initiated efforts to seek accountability.

I am pleased that we have strong bipartisan support for this bill, but our work is not done. The survivors--who this bill is for--need the Senate to not only introduce this bill but to pass it. The prevention of domestic violence and the support for survivors of these heinous crimes is not a partisan issue.

This is not a perfect bill. I regret that certain provisions were not able to be included in this bill, most notably the closure of the ``boyfriend loophole'' to ensure that individuals convicted of domestic abuse against a dating partner could not purchase firearms. Individuals convicted of domestic violence against a spouse are already prevented from purchasing a firearm, and it is deeply disappointing that there is not sufficient bipartisan support for this commonsense provision to close this loophole. I would have liked to include those additional provisions, as would many of my Senate colleagues. But though it is not perfect, it is a strong bill.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to advance this bill through the Senate and get it signed into law as soon as possible.

The time to act is now. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation, and I hope that it will come to the floor for a vote quickly.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022.

This bipartisan bill would reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act through 2027 and provide important updates to modernize the law that has been critical to protecting and supporting the survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

I was proud to support the original Violence Against Women Act in 1994 and have supported each reauthorization of the law.

This includes the most recent reauthorization in 2013, which passed the Senate by a strong bipartisan vote of 78 to 22.

It is an honor to introduce this reauthorization and expansion of protections for survivors.

This bill is the result of a truly bipartisan effort. I would like to thank Senator Ernst, Senator Durbin, and Senator Murkowski for working with me to prepare this important piece of legislation.

We have also had help from a number of our Senate colleagues who have made important contributions to this effort. I am proud that this bill has received strong bipartisan support in the Senate.

I would also like to thank the many advocates who have lent their thoughts and support to this effort. This bill was written in close consultation with the people who are on the frontlines helping survivors of domestic violence every day. It is not a Democratic bill or a Republican bill--it is a bill for survivors.

Together, we drafted a bill that preserves the good work of the last Violence Against Women Act reauthorization and strengthens existing programs.

For nearly 30 years, the Violence Against Women Act has played a vital role in the Federal response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. I hope that this bill will be an effective tool to build upon those efforts.

Despite the progress made over the last three decades, sexual, emotional, and physical abuse are still painful realities for far too many Americans. More than one in three women experience rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime. Nationwide, an average of three women are killed each day by a current or former intimate partner.

According to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, in a single day in 2020, 76,525 domestic violence survivors received the resources they needed thanks to programs funded and supported by the Violence Against Women Act.

It is clear that the programs created by the Violence Against Women Act are necessary, and they need to be continually updated to meet the needs of survivors. The bipartisan bill that we are introducing today reauthorizes these important programs and provides the necessary updates to strengthen them.

This bill enhances and expands services for survivors of domestic violence, including survivors in rural communities, LGBT survivors, survivors with disabilities, and survivors who experience abuse later in life.

This bill reauthorizes and strengthens the criminal justice response to domestic violence, including by improving the Justice Department's STOP grant program; expanding support provided to survivors in the legal system; and strengthening the ability of Tribal courts to address instances of domestic violence on Tribal lands.

This bill also invests in prevention education efforts, improves the healthcare system's response to sexual violence across the country, and establishes a pilot program on restorative practices that focuses on preventing or addressing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking through community based, victim-initiated efforts to seek accountability.

I am pleased that we have strong bipartisan support for this bill, but our work is not done. The survivors--who this bill is for--need the Senate to not only introduce this bill but to pass it. The prevention of domestic violence and the support for survivors of these heinous crimes is not a partisan issue.

This is not a perfect bill. I regret that certain provisions were not able to be included in this bill, most notably the closure of the ``boyfriend loophole'' to ensure that individuals convicted of domestic abuse against a dating partner could not purchase firearms. Individuals convicted of domestic violence against a spouse are already prevented from purchasing a firearm, and it is deeply disappointing that there is not sufficient bipartisan support for this commonsense provision to close this loophole. I would have liked to include those additional provisions, as would many of my Senate colleagues. But though it is not perfect, it is a strong bill.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to advance this bill through the Senate and get it signed into law as soon as possible.

The time to act is now. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation, and I hope that it will come to the floor for a vote quickly.

Mr. President, today I honor the memory and steadfast service of CDR Kristin Driscoll, a beloved mother, wife, daughter, sister, and Active-Duty Coast Guard Officer.

To use a maritime metaphor from Lord Alfred Tennyson, Commander Driscoll ``crossed the bar'' on October 26, 2021, following a brave battle with a brain tumor. Kristin underwent brain surgery on November 13, 2017, 1 week after her 35th birthday. Although the surgeons were able to remove 97 percent of the tumor, the remaining 3 percent was rooted too deeply to reach.

True to form, Kristin rebounded from her surgery with energy and renewed purpose. Despite her prognosis, she ran a half marathon in April 2018, reported to work every day, and planned family outings.

Stanford Medical Center quickly took note of Kristin's energy and optimism and asked her to participate in a patient education video project, saying they had been looking for someone like her for nearly 2 years. She filmed the video the very next week.

Commander Driscoll served in the U.S. Coast Guard for 20 years and was the first in her family to serve. For the majority of that time, she was stationed in California, from San Diego to Alameda, and had a clear passion for Coast Guard operations. Specifically, she focused on emergency management supporting natural disasters, oil and pollution response, and search and rescue.

She was a leader on a diverse list of operational teams that ranged from the National Contingency Plan ``Special Teams'' that monitored Federal Marine Environmental Response operations across the southwest border to a Command Center that conducted search and rescue efforts across 3.3 million square miles of offshore waters from California to the Panama Canal.

In reviewing the achievements of Commander Driscoll, I am struck by her unwavering dedication and poise in confronting terrific challenges. She contributed to the response to the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, led a security deployment to Guantanamo Bay, and oversaw the first-ever deployment of a U.S. Coast Guard standard boat from a foreign naval vessel in support of counter-drug smuggling operations in the Caribbean. She deployed in the wake of Hurricanes Irma and Maria as deputy incident commander to lead search and rescue and recovery efforts, took a leading role in supporting COVID-19 response efforts as planning section chief, and took the lead role as incident commander for the USS Bonhomme Richard fire.

Commander Driscoll's ability was well-noted throughout her life, and her record of success is etched in Coast Guard history. After graduating cum laude from Baker University in 2005, Commander Driscoll earned a master's degree in Homeland Security Leadership from the University of Connecticut. Her personal awards include an Advanced Boat Force Operations Insignia, six Coast Guard Commendation Medals, two Coast Guard Achievement Medals, two Letters of Commendation, a NOAA Corps Directors Ribbon, and various service and unit awards. She was a leader in every sense, and I take some solace in the fact that her inspiration will live on in the thousands of officers she taught at the Coast Guard's Leadership Development Center.

Today, I thank CDR Kristin Driscoll for her devotion, as well as her husband PJ, daughters Averie and Cameron, and son Nolan. Her service was an honor to us all.

Madam Vice President, I rise today in support of two important voting rights bills the Senate is now considering, the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

The Freedom to Vote Act would protect access to the ballot by permitting

all voters to vote by mail, providing a minimum of 15 days of early in- person voting for Federal elections, and allowing same-day voter registration at polling places. The bill would also protect nonpartisan election officials from interference and intimidation and end partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts.

The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would restore the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by allowing the Justice Department to prevent discriminatory State voting laws from taking effect.

The need for Federal legislation to protect the sacred and fundamental right to vote is clear. Over the last year, we have witnessed a disturbing increase in efforts by State legislatures across the country to make it harder for eligible voters to access and cast their ballots.

Last year, legislators in 49 States introduced more than 440 bills that would make it harder to vote and easier for improper, partisan interference in our election processes. At least 34 of these restrictive bills have become law in 19 States.

For example, one new law in Georgia gives the partisan State election board--composed of members appointed by the majority party of the State legislature--the authority to take over election administration from the existing nonpartisan county boards of elections that have historically been responsible for conducting elections.

Another example is a new law in Iowa that makes it harder for Americans with disabilities to vote by restricting access to absentee ballots and restricting who is allowed to help voters with disabilities return their ballots.

And across the country in red and blue States alike, State legislators are engaging in partisan gerrymandering, strategically redrawing congressional and State legislative maps to prevent some voters from fully participating in the political process by diluting the power of their votes.

This partisan gerrymandering, in effect, allows elected officials to choose their voters rather than allowing voters to choose their elected officials. This allows one party to design maps that give it a disproportionate edge in State legislatures and delegations in the House of Representatives. It also has an outsized impact on minority communities, who all too often see their votes diluted when maps are drawn to minimize their voting clout.

The right to vote is a cornerstone of our democracy, enshrined in our Constitution. And the Constitution also makes clear that it is the duty of Congress to ensure that the fundamental right to vote is protected.

Sadly, this legislation has become a partisan issue, even though voting rights has traditionally passed the Senate by a strong bipartisan majority and been signed into law by Presidents of both parties. In today's Senate, it has become all too easy for either party to block action on important legislation. Blocking debate or preventing votes is as easy as denying requests for unanimous consent; Senators don't even have to enter into debate or explain their opposition to a measure.

Having been in the Senate since 1992 and seen important legislation pass this body, I have resisted calls to change the Senate rules and to limit the rights of the minority. But the Senate filibuster, which was intended to be a tool to promote bipartisanship, has become a tool to stop almost any major legislation.

When Americans thinks about the filibuster, many recall the image of Jimmy Stewart in ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' speaking on the Senate floor, actively debating a piece of legislation and explaining their support or opposition. It is time that we return to that tradition of debate and not use the filibuster to prevent us from even talking about a bill.

If my Republican colleagues want to block this voting rights legislation, I believe they should have to stand on the Senate floor and explain to the American people why that is the case, even as the right to vote is under attack in statehouses across the country.

As representatives of the American people, we should be fighting to protect the fundamental right to vote, not standing in the way of it. It should never be a legislator's goal to make it harder for eligible voters to cast their ballots.

We cannot wait any longer. It is time for Congress to do the job the Constitution gave us: To ensure that the right to vote is protected.

Mr. President, I rise today to share my support of the ongoing bipartisan efforts to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.

As you know from the prior speaker, the distinguished Senator, negotiations to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act on a bipartisan basis have been ongoing now for three years. Since the beginning of this year, my office has been working closely with Senator Ernst's, Senator Durbin's, and Senator Murkowski's offices to negotiate bipartisan agreement to reauthorize this important and critical law. I am thrilled that we are now able to share that we have reached a bipartisan framework which will strengthen, modernize, and reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.

We are committed to introducing this bill next month. This bipartisan agreement would reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act through 2026 and provide important opportunities to modernize the law that has been so critical to protecting and supporting survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

Our bipartisan agreement would enhance and expand services for survivors of domestic violence--including survivors in rural communities, LGBT survivors, survivors with disabilities, and survivors who experience abuse later in life.

Our agreement would reauthorize and strengthen the criminal justice response to domestic violence, including by improving the Justice Department's STOP grant program, closing the ``dating partner loophole'' on a prospective basis, and strengthening the ability of Tribal courts to address instances of domestic violence on Tribal land.

Our agreement would also invest in prevention education efforts. It would expand access to emergency housing support for domestic violence survivors, and it would improve the healthcare response to sexual violence across the country.

These protections are urgently needed, and the time to act is now. I have been here for a while. I have never seen the coming together of the two sides of the aisle any stronger than it is now to work together to solve this problem. So I look forward to participating in the introduction of this bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act next month.

I would, if I could, also like to speak briefly in support of Holly Thomas, who has been nominated to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judge Thomas is an experienced appellate litigator and currently serves as a judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. And I hope my colleagues will support her.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Holly Thomas to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Judge Thomas is an experienced appellate litigator and sitting State court judge in California. I believe she would make an outstanding addition to the NinthCircuit.

Her credentials are impeccable. She is a graduate of Stanford University and Yale Law School.

After law school, Judge Thomas spent more than a decade gaining experience and insight into the Federal appeals courts as a litigator whose primary focus was on appellate cases. She has served as a public interest lawyer with the NAACP, in the Federal Government as an appellate attorney with the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, and in State government in both California and New York.

Though she began her career as an appellate litigator, Judge Thomas has been fascinated by judicial service since her childhood. When she was a young child, her mother--who was a bookkeeper--would take her to the San Diego courthouse to watch the legal proceedings in court.

So it is fitting that in 2018, she was appointed to serve as a judge on the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County. Judge Thomas works in the Family Law Division, where she hears between 10 and 30 cases on average each day, including a mix of hearings and trials. She has also served on a temporary basis as a State appeals judge on the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District.

Judge Thomas has a breadth of experience and knowledge that would make her well-suited to sit on the Ninth Circuit. If confirmed, Judge Thomas would be the first Black woman to serve on the Ninth Circuit from California and only the second Black woman to ever serve on the Ninth Circuit.

I encourage all my colleagues to vote for her confirmation.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

Permit me a moment to interrupt you.

One of my great joys is to work on a bipartisan basis, and the Senator from Alaska has been just wonderful. She is a 10, in my book.

You have listened to us on this side. Our staffs have been able to work closely together, and I think, thanks to you, we have a workable, bipartisan product. So I just want to say thank you. I wish the Senate could be more like this all the time, but I think we made a great notch in the right track. So thank you very much.

Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing legislation that would help bolster the Nation's background check system for firearms.

Under current law, the FBI is forced to remove records from incomplete background checks from their systems if those checks are not finalized within 90 days. As a result, many firearms are sold without completed background checks--a dangerous practice that allows individuals to access a firearm even if they are prohibited by law from possessing such weapons.

In 2020, Americans purchased a record number of guns--over 23 million firearms--and this year is expected to set records once again. That record number of purchases is overwhelming our background check system.

The large majority of background checks are straightforward and are completed within 3 days, but especially due to the volume of checks required by the increase in gun purchases, some can take significantly longer.

According to Everytown for Gun Safety, between March 2020 and July 2020, the FBI was unable to resolve 207,694 background checks within 90 days and was therefore required to wipe the incomplete checks from their systems. Since these background checks were never completed, it is impossible to know how many firearms were transferred to prohibited purchasers.

As firearms sales continue to soar, Congress must act to protect public safety by ensuring background checks are completed.

This bill would do exactly that. It would allow the FBI to maintain gun purchase records until the background checks is completed. It would also require the FBI to query additional relevant databases as part of a firearm-related background check. This would guarantee that the information necessary for conducting effective firearm background checks is maintained.

I thank Senators Blumenthal, Booker, Brown, Menendez, Murphy, Padilla, and Whitehouse for their support and urge the rest of my colleagues to support the bill as well.

Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing legislation that would help bolster the Nation's background check system for firearms.

Under current law, the FBI is forced to remove records from incomplete background checks from their systems if those checks are not finalized within 90 days. As a result, many firearms are sold without completed background checks--a dangerous practice that allows individuals to access a firearm even if they are prohibited by law from possessing such weapons.

In 2020, Americans purchased a record number of guns--over 23 million firearms--and this year is expected to set records once again. That record number of purchases is overwhelming our background check system.

The large majority of background checks are straightforward and are completed within 3 days, but especially due to the volume of checks required by the increase in gun purchases, some can take significantly longer.

According to Everytown for Gun Safety, between March 2020 and July 2020, the FBI was unable to resolve 207,694 background checks within 90 days and was therefore required to wipe the incomplete checks from their systems. Since these background checks were never completed, it is impossible to know how many firearms were transferred to prohibited purchasers.

As firearms sales continue to soar, Congress must act to protect public safety by ensuring background checks are completed.

This bill would do exactly that. It would allow the FBI to maintain gun purchase records until the background checks is completed. It would also require the FBI to query additional relevant databases as part of a firearm-related background check. This would guarantee that the information necessary for conducting effective firearm background checks is maintained.

I thank Senators Blumenthal, Booker, Brown, Menendez, Murphy, Padilla, and Whitehouse for their support and urge the rest of my colleagues to support the bill as well.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Lucy H. Koh to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Judge Koh is a highly respected member of the Federal judiciary and has served California well throughout her career. She would be a welcome addition to the Ninth Circuit bench.

I have long supported Judge Koh and am pleased that the Senate will soon be considering her nomination. I recommended Judge Koh for a seat on the Ninth Circuit back in 2016 and was pleased that President Obama nominated her at that time. And I was disappointed that she did not receive a vote on the Senate floor, even though she received strong bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee, which favorably reported her nomination.

I am pleased that Judge Koh was among the first circuit court nominees announced by President Biden earlier this year. Her credentials are undeniably impressive. She received her undergraduate degree from Harvard College in 1990, and her law degree from Harvard Law School in 1993.

Judge Koh spent several years early in her career in public service, first as a legal fellow on the Senate Judiciary Committee's Immigration Subcommittee and then with the Department of Justice. Among her achievements while at the Justice Department, Judge Koh received an award from the FBI for ``Demonstrated Excellence in Prosecuting a Major Fraud Case.''

She then brought her skills to the private sector, spending nearly a decade in private practice in Palo Alto, CA, where she became a distinguished intellectual property lawyer working on patent, trade secret, and commercial civil litigation. In 2008, she was appointed by California's then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, to serve as a judge on the California Superior Court for Santa Clara County.

In 2010, President Obama nominated her to serve as a Federal district judge on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Senate voted unanimously, 90 to 0, to confirm her to that position. She has served with distinction as a Federal district judge for more than a decade.

Judge Koh has excelled throughout her career as a Federal prosecutor, in private practice, and as both a state and Federal judge. I have no doubt that she will continue to excel if she is confirmed to the Ninth Circuit.

Judge Koh has received bipartisan support each time her nomination has come before the Senate, including a bipartisan vote earlier this year in the Judiciary Committee. I urge all of my colleagues to support her nomination.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill for the private relief of Shirley Constantino Tan. Ms. Tan is a Filipina national living in Pacifica, CA. She is the proud mother of 20-year-old twin boys, Jashley and Joriene, who are U.S. citizens. She is married to Jay Mercado, a naturalized U.S. citizen.

Ms. Tan faces deportation to the Philippines, which would separate her from her family and jeopardize her safety. I believe Ms. Tan merits Congress's special consideration for this extraordinary form of relief because her removal from the United States would cause serious, undue hardship for her and her family.

Ms. Tan experienced horrific violence in the Philippines before she came to the United States. When she was only 14 years old, Ms. Tan's cousin murdered Ms. Tan's mother and sister and shot Ms. Tan in the head. The cousin was eventually prosecuted, but he received a short jail sentence. Fearing for her safety, Ms. Tan fled the Philippines just before her cousin was due to be released from jail. She entered the United States legally on a visitor's visa in 1989.

Ms. Tan faces a deportation order because of negligent counsel. Ms. Tan applied for asylum in 1995. When her case went before the Board of Immigration Appeals, her attorney was supposed to file a brief in support of her case, but the attorney failed to do so. As a result, the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Ms. Tan's case and granted her voluntary departure from the United States.

However, Ms. Tan's negligent counsel never notified Ms. Tan that the Board of Immigration Appeals issued an order granting her voluntary departure. Because she did not know about the order, Ms. Tan did not depart the United States, so the grant of voluntary departure automatically led to a removal order. She learned about the deportation order for the first time on January 28, 2009, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents took her into immigration custody.

Because of her attorney's negligent actions, Ms. Tan was denied the opportunity to present her case in immigration proceedings. She later filed a complaint against her former attorney, who had similar complaints from other clients, with the State Bar of California.

On February 4, 2015, Ms. Tan's spouse, Mr. Mercado, a U.S. citizen, filed an approved spousal petition on her behalf. On August 20, 2015, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied her application due to the fact that she still had a final order of removal. Ms. Tan must go back to the immigration court and ask for the court to terminate her case and then reapply for her green card. Ms. Tan still faces the threat of deportation while she seeks to close her case before an immigration court.

In addition to the hardship that would come to Ms. Tan if she is deported, her deportation would be a major loss to her community and would cause serious hardship for her two children, Jashley and Joriene, who are U.S. citizens.

Ms. Tan used to run an in-home daycare, and she is now a homemaker caring for her husband and two sons. Ms. Tan and her family are heavily involved in their community in Pacifica and own their own home. The family attends and volunteers at Good Shepherd Catholic Church. They also volunteer with the Mother Theresa of Calcutta's Daughters of Charity. Ms. Tan has the support of dozens of members of her community who have shared with me the family's spirit of commitment to their community.

Joriene is a junior at Stanford University and is premed, majoring in human biology. In addition to his studies, Joriene is involved in Stanford's Pilipino American Student Union. Jashley is a junior at Chapman University, majoring in business administration.

If Ms. Tan were forced to leave the United States, her family has stated that they would go with her to the Philippines or try to find a third country where the entire family could relocate together. This would mean that Jashley and Joriene would have to leave behind their education and the only home they have known.

I do not believe it is in our Nation's best interest to force this family, with two U.S. citizen children, to make the choice between being separated or relocating to a country where they may face safety concerns or other serious hardships.

Enactment of the legislation I am introducing on behalf of Ms. Tan will enable this entire family to continue their lives in California and make positive contributions to their community.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill for the private relief of Shirley Constantino Tan. Ms. Tan is a Filipina national living in Pacifica, CA. She is the proud mother of 20-year-old twin boys, Jashley and Joriene, who are U.S. citizens. She is married to Jay Mercado, a naturalized U.S. citizen.

Ms. Tan faces deportation to the Philippines, which would separate her from her family and jeopardize her safety. I believe Ms. Tan merits Congress's special consideration for this extraordinary form of relief because her removal from the United States would cause serious, undue hardship for her and her family.

Ms. Tan experienced horrific violence in the Philippines before she came to the United States. When she was only 14 years old, Ms. Tan's cousin murdered Ms. Tan's mother and sister and shot Ms. Tan in the head. The cousin was eventually prosecuted, but he received a short jail sentence. Fearing for her safety, Ms. Tan fled the Philippines just before her cousin was due to be released from jail. She entered the United States legally on a visitor's visa in 1989.

Ms. Tan faces a deportation order because of negligent counsel. Ms. Tan applied for asylum in 1995. When her case went before the Board of Immigration Appeals, her attorney was supposed to file a brief in support of her case, but the attorney failed to do so. As a result, the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Ms. Tan's case and granted her voluntary departure from the United States.

However, Ms. Tan's negligent counsel never notified Ms. Tan that the Board of Immigration Appeals issued an order granting her voluntary departure. Because she did not know about the order, Ms. Tan did not depart the United States, so the grant of voluntary departure automatically led to a removal order. She learned about the deportation order for the first time on January 28, 2009, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents took her into immigration custody.

Because of her attorney's negligent actions, Ms. Tan was denied the opportunity to present her case in immigration proceedings. She later filed a complaint against her former attorney, who had similar complaints from other clients, with the State Bar of California.

On February 4, 2015, Ms. Tan's spouse, Mr. Mercado, a U.S. citizen, filed an approved spousal petition on her behalf. On August 20, 2015, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied her application due to the fact that she still had a final order of removal. Ms. Tan must go back to the immigration court and ask for the court to terminate her case and then reapply for her green card. Ms. Tan still faces the threat of deportation while she seeks to close her case before an immigration court.

In addition to the hardship that would come to Ms. Tan if she is deported, her deportation would be a major loss to her community and would cause serious hardship for her two children, Jashley and Joriene, who are U.S. citizens.

Ms. Tan used to run an in-home daycare, and she is now a homemaker caring for her husband and two sons. Ms. Tan and her family are heavily involved in their community in Pacifica and own their own home. The family attends and volunteers at Good Shepherd Catholic Church. They also volunteer with the Mother Theresa of Calcutta's Daughters of Charity. Ms. Tan has the support of dozens of members of her community who have shared with me the family's spirit of commitment to their community.

Joriene is a junior at Stanford University and is premed, majoring in human biology. In addition to his studies, Joriene is involved in Stanford's Pilipino American Student Union. Jashley is a junior at Chapman University, majoring in business administration.

If Ms. Tan were forced to leave the United States, her family has stated that they would go with her to the Philippines or try to find a third country where the entire family could relocate together. This would mean that Jashley and Joriene would have to leave behind their education and the only home they have known.

I do not believe it is in our Nation's best interest to force this family, with two U.S. citizen children, to make the choice between being separated or relocating to a country where they may face safety concerns or other serious hardships.

Enactment of the legislation I am introducing on behalf of Ms. Tan will enable this entire family to continue their lives in California and make positive contributions to their community.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.