Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Rosen) is necessarily absent.

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

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

Mr. President, I watched the debate last night. It was memorable. It was not a good evening for the former President of the United States. I have had more than one person tell me that the people who were watching laughed out loud when he started his rant about immigrants eating dogs and cats. It is an indication, I am afraid, that the former President Donald Trump, when it comes to the issue of immigration, is unhinged. You never know what he is going to say next.

But I think that Vice President Kamala Harris made it clear in her explanation that it was within the grasp and power of former President Donald Trump to do something about the border crisis and the immigration crisis and that he not only failed but he designed a strategy to sabotage efforts on a bipartisan basis to do something.

Specifically, I can recall--and you can as well--that we were told that there was a bipartisan effort underway to write a border bill. Senator Lankford, a conservative Republican from the State of Oklahoma, joined with Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, a Democrat, to put together, with months of effort, such a bill. We were told hands off. Step away. Let them do this. Let them put something on the floor that is meaningful and is bipartisan and has a chance of passing both the Senate and the House. We were underway, and such a piece of legislation was constructed.

But what happened at the last minute? At the last minute, Donald Trump, very publicly, stepped forward and said: I want to stop this bill from passing. I want the bipartisan bill not to pass, and you can blame it on me, he said. You can blame it on me. He stopped the bipartisan effort to pass a bill that would have been helpful to the border in reducing the number of people who have been coming across that border.

The Border Patrol Agency--men and women who risk their lives every day in service of this country on the border--endorsed this bipartisan bill. It was an indication that we finally--after 30 years of trying-- may be on the right track when it comes to immigration, at least when it comes to the border crisis. And who stopped it? Donald Trump stopped the immigration reform bill--the bipartisan effort--and publicly admitted it and took credit for it. You didn't hear that last night, did you? No, but there was a lot of complaining about the immigration issue and the border.

The simple reality is this: President Trump singlehandedly, personally, threatened those who were going to vote for such a bill. If I remember, only seven Republicans finally did. I wish more had. It wasn't a bill I would have written, but I was prepared to accept it as a final effort for a bipartisan compromise.

So I would say to those who watched the debate and wanted to have raised the issue of immigration, they still need an answer as to why Donald Trump stopped the only bipartisan effort in recent memory in the U.S. Senate.

23rd Anniversary of the September 11, 2001, Attacks

Mr. President, today marks the 23rd year since one of the darkest days in our country's history, the attacks of September 11, 2001.

I can vividly recall that day. I was in this building--just a few feet away--in a room for a morning meeting. We happened to notice on the television set that was playing in the room there that there was some news about a tower--tall building--in New York being struck by an airplane. We didn't know much more about it. Then the second plane went into an adjoining tower, and we knew that something was wrong, dreadfully wrong. Then we looked out on the Mall, down the Mall from the Capitol Building, and saw black billowing smoke coming from the Pentagon. That image is seared into my mind, and that day will forever be imprinted on our Nation's collective memory.

Twenty-three years after that devastating day, we still mourn the 2,977 innocent lives lost at the World Trade Center in New York, at the Pentagon in Virginia, and in a field near Shanksville, PA. That includes 343 heroic members of the New York City Fire Department, 71 law enforcement officers who died at the World Trade Center, and 55 military personnel who died at the Pentagon.

Last weekend, the ``60 Minutes'' television show rebroadcast the show on the fire department heroes from the city of New York. There were personal interviews of men who were at the scene and watched their comrades--dedicated firefighters--not only risk their lives but willingly give their lives to try to rescue the victims of September 11. It is a heartbreaking episode and one every American should see if you want to know what heroism looks like. It was an extraordinary effort by all involved and many others who weren't part of that program.

We continue to reflect on how these acts of pure evil have forever altered our sense of security and safety and how we must remain faithful to the Constitution while protecting the American people.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss the confirmation of four pending U.S. attorney nominations.

Currently, in the United States, we have 85 U.S. attorneys. There are several from my State, and depending on your population, it really indicates how many numbers you have. Those U.S. attorney nominations are filled by the incumbent President of the United States. Recommendations are made to the U.S. Senate, and we advise and consent on those nominations. After examinations of their backgrounds, we vote on these individuals to become U.S. attorneys.

Now, we have an agreement that has endured for a number of Presidents over a number of years which says that these will be fairly routine--in fact, very routine. The fact is that each one of the U.S. attorney nominations goes through a review by the Senate Judiciary Committee, by both Democrats and Republicans, and if they pass that review without controversy, they move to the floor for a vote.

To give you an idea of how that works for the Members on the other side who are relatively new to the Senate, when President Donald Trump made nominations of U.S. attorneys, he made 85 nominations. Each one of those nominations came to the floor of the U.S. Senate, and they were approved by voice vote, unanimous consent. In other words, not even a rollcall was required. It was the routine approval of U.S. attorneys' nominations in a situation where a body like the Senate would have a majority of Democrats but approve a nomination from a Republican President by voice vote--no controversy moving forward.

Why is it even important to fill these vacancies? Because these 85 U.S. attorneys are literally the people who implement the policies of the Department of Justice. If the Department of Justice of the United States decides that we are going to have a serious effort under a President to go after fentanyl, for example, or narcotics, for example, or some crimewave in another area, it is the U.S. attorney who runs the play. He is the quarterback in that U.S. attorney's district. So these turn out to be fairly critical.

Some of us stayed up late last night to watch the debate, and in that debate, there was a discussion of crime in the United States and what we were going to do to stop it. Well, both of the candidates-- regardless of party--would be in favor of reducing crime. I am assuming that every one of my colleagues who is on the floor now and wishes to speak would put themselves in the same category. We want to stop crime in our States and in our country,

and we rely on the Department of Justice to do that. The one who leads the effort in each and every State is the U.S. attorney.

In this circumstance, we have four nominees for U.S. attorney who have been waiting patiently for the approval of the U.S. Senate. On seven previous occasions, I have requested unanimous consent--the same process that was followed with every single one of Donald Trump's U.S. attorneys. I requested unanimous consent of the Senate to take up and confirm law enforcement nominees nominated by President Joseph Biden. Each and every time, the junior Senator from Ohio--now running for Vice President of the United States--has objected.

I asked him on many occasions when we came to the floor and raised this question: What objection do you have to this U.S. attorney nominee?

He said at the time: I don't have any objection to this nominee. I object to the Department of Justice, and I want to stop U.S. attorneys from being appointed nationwide.

Communities across America desperately need their top Federal prosecutors in place. U.S. attorneys lead the Nation's effort to prosecute violent criminals and protect our communities from violent crime, child exploitation, terrorism, and much more. The U.S. Attorney's Offices in the four districts I am talking about today are no exception.

I just left a meeting this morning. We gathered about 40 or 50 leaders from across the United States to talk about child trafficking. Child trafficking, of course, is a Federal crime, prosecuted by the Department of Justice in each and every one of our States where it happens. I can't think of a more awful situation for a person to live through as those this morning who talked about what they lived through before the prosecution took place and the person was removed from the State. I would not want to play political games with those nominations.

Those U.S. attorneys do critical work in each and every State. We felt that way under President Trump, and that is why we allowed his U.S. attorney nominees to move forward by voice vote. I think President Biden is entitled to the same treatment.

The entire Nation has been impacted by the opioid epidemic. Ohio is one of the States that has been hit the hardest. In 2023, nearly 4,500 Ohio residents died from accidental drug overdoses. This story can be told over and over in State after State. The U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Ohio can focus her attention on combating this drug crisis with the DEA's Operation Overdrive. This operation is set up at a location in Toledo due to the city's ``copious violent crimes, including homicides, shootings, assaults, and drug overdoses.''

We are talking about serious prosecutions and a team of effective professionals to fight them, not just in Ohio or in Illinois but around the Nation. Instead, this nomination--one of them today which I am suggesting, the nomination of Rebecca Lutzko--has languished for more than a year because of the objection of the junior Senator from Ohio. It may have helped that Senator to make that decision for some other reason, but it certainly doesn't help the fighting of crime in his home State to have a vacancy in this office. He is harming Americans and undermining public safety across the country for reasons I can't explain.

The Senate has a long history of confirming U.S. attorney nominees as I said. We have done it by unanimous consent. We have made it fairly routine, as it should be. All 85 of President Donald Trump's nominees for U.S. attorney were filled by unanimous consent. The Senate has a long history of following that practice. Before President Biden took office, the last time the Senate required a rollcall on a U.S. attorney was in 1975--49 years ago. You have to go back 49 years to find an objection to a U.S. attorney nominee.

At the beginning of a new Presidential administration, it is customary for the U.S. attorney to step down and for the new President to select replacements. That is why, during the Trump administration, we moved so many so quickly. Senate Democrats allowed every single one of President Trump's nominees to be confirmed by unanimous consent, many of whom we would not have personally selected, but it is just as a courtesy to a new President to fill the vacancy. It wouldn't have been fair or realistic to force the Senate to debate and vote on every single one of these nominees. Each one of these votes is a process which eats up several days of the calendar. We already do that for nominations for the Federal bench. It would not have been fair or realistic to expect it for U.S. attorneys. So we respected the then- President. We respected our colleagues, and we respected the need for the Senate to have confirmed leadership in the U.S. Attorney's Office.

We put public safety and the needs of law enforcement ahead of politics. We have done it always when it has come to U.S. attorneys until now. The Senator from Indiana and some of his colleagues have set an unfortunate standard. They are putting us on a path to require cloture and confirmation votes on every U.S. attorney nominee. Talk about a waste of time. That would be a terrible waste of time. This is entirely unsustainable, which is something everyone here knows.

Without Senate-confirmed leadership for U.S. attorneys, public safety will suffer across the United States. Candidates cannot vote to delay these nominations and then stand up and say they are for law and order, and they want to fight crime. We shouldn't be playing politics. I don't know the reason behind this--I believe it is entirely political--but I hope my colleagues will think twice about it. What we do to one another will likely be revisited and become a precedent in the Senate to the detriment of everyone.

These highly qualified nominees that I nominate today--the four of them--have the strong support of their home State Senators, including of several members of the Republican caucus. If President Biden has been accused of misuse of the Justice Department, we shouldn't take that out on these individuals who are competent and qualified to keep us safe.

Until we confirm them, law enforcement agencies in Iowa, Massachusetts, and Ohio will be stymied in their ability to fight crime.

Don't be giving a speech that says ``I want to have a real assault on crime in my State or my district'' and then turn around and stop the prosecutor from being appointed who has that job. Otherwise, that would be a temporary appointment, and the effort cannot be as effective as it might be. That is a loss to the Nation, and it creates a danger to the people living in that particular State.

So, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 544, 545, 604, and 605--those are the nominations of Matthew Gannon to serve as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Iowa, Rebecca Lutzo to serve as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, Joshua Levy to serve as U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts, and David Waterman to serve as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Iowa; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without any intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.

Madam President.

Did you hear that? The Department of Justice is too partisan. The Department of Justice is too partisan. It is interesting to note that two of the prosecutions of Donald Trump are not even starting at the Department of Justice. They come from State prosecutions in the States of Georgia and New York, not Washington.

So these nominees for U.S. attorney are being held up because of decisions made by some other prosecutor in another State? Apparently, that is the case in this situation.

I just have to say that at least in one of the prosecutions in New York, they have been successful in bringing a case against the former President and convicting him of felony counts--34, if I

am not mistaken. So there is some merit to it that goes beyond any question of intrigue in Washington, DC.

Let me also add that, as far as I can tell, this Department of Justice has tried to take a reasonable position to avoid conflicts of interest. In this circumstance, we have a special attorney who is appointed to prosecute the President's own son--the President's own son--this Department of Justice, which is being accused of being partisan in this situation. There is no precedent for that in history. It is a clear effort by the Biden administration to deal fairly with a painful situation personally.

Well, you look at this and you say: Well, what point have colleagues made today? They have made the point that in these four places in the United States--Iowa on two occasions, Massachusetts, and in Ohio--that the competent professionals for prosecutor--that these competent positions will not be filled with individuals who they admitted on the floor they have no objection to.

What is the net result of this? It means that crimes that are being committed or allegedly being committed in these States are not going to be prosecuted as aggressively as they should.

Don't give me a speech about wanting law and order and safety in community and then turn around and say: To make a political point, we are going to stop sending prosecutors to these areas. It is inconsistent, it doesn't follow, and it is unfortunate.

I am sorry, for these four individuals who are worthy candidates to be U.S. attorneys, that this happened today. It has happened before.

It is a sad day if this is going to be a new precedent, that any President coming in a new term is going to face this kind of an obstacle course for the routine appointment of individuals to enforce the law across the United States. We will not be a safer nation because of this political strategy.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm

Ms. Mary Kay Lanthier to the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont.

Born in Orwell, VT, Ms. Lanthier earned her B.A. at Amherst College in 1993 and her J.D. from Northeastern University School of Law in 1996. After graduating from law school, she served as a law clerk in the court administrator's office for the Chittenden County District Court and Addison County Courts.

Ms. Lanthier then worked on family law, workers' compensation, and criminal defense cases as an associate at Keiner & Dumont, P.C. between 1998 and 2000. After that, from 2000 to 2003, she served as a staff attorney at the Addison County Public Defender's Office. Ms. Lanthier later worked as an associate from 2003 to 2004 and partner from 2005 to 2007 at Marsh & Wagner, P.C. There, her practice centered on family law, real estate law, and criminal defense.

Since 2007, Ms. Lanthier has served as a staff attorney and supervising attorney in the Rutland County Public Defender's Office. Over the course of her career, she has tried approximately 50 criminal cases to a jury verdict.

The American Bar Association unanimously rated Ms. Lanthier as ``well qualified,'' and her nomination is strongly supported by her home State Senators, Mr. Sanders and Mr. Welch.

With 20 years of experience as a public defender, Ms. Lanthier's litigation background and deep commitment to equal justice has prepared her to serve with distinction on the Federal bench in Vermont. Her nomination has received support from a range of individuals and organizations, including law enforcement, prosecutors, and the Vermont Bar Association.

I am proud to join them in supporting her nomination and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, have you ever seen an ad for a pharmaceutical's prescription drugs on television? If the answer is no, then I would suggest you don't own a television, because literally every single day we are bombarded with ads for pharmaceuticals. And they are very profitable because the drugs themselves are expensive, and people are encouraged to say to their doctors: I think I need Xarelto.

And the doctor might have to tell them: Xarelto has nothing to do with your current physical condition.

But, doctor, I have seen it on television so many times, and those people seem so happy. They are dancing once they take Xarelto.

Well, the doctors have to, many times, warn them about being lured into believing that it is something they need.

But there are people who definitely do need prescription drugs, and we know that story as well. But many people, despite their best efforts to comply with what the doctor wants, can't afford it.

Drugs cost a lot of money. In fact, they cost dramatically more money for exactly the same drugs in the United States as those for sale in Canada.

Why? Because the Canadian Government cares and the Canadian Government has laws that limit the prices that can be charged to Canadians in their health system for the same prescription drugs. Many times, we don't have that.

When he was campaigning for President in 2016, Donald Trump made it clear where he stood on this. I quote him: ``When it comes time to negotiate the cost of drugs, we are going to negotiate like crazy,'' he said in 2016. Then he got elected, and he said: Fixing the injustice of high drug prices is one of the top Trump priorities. Prices will come down, he said. But they never did. Despite years of talk, Trump failed--no greatness there.

Thankfully, President Biden and Vice President Harris did more than just talk; they delivered. You see, for decades, the Medicare Program was blocked from bargaining with Big Pharma. Many of us kept arguing: Well, we let the Veterans Administration bargain to get lower prices for our veterans. Why wouldn't we do the same for elderly Americans?

But we changed that. We changed it in a bill called the Inflation Reduction Act.

Last month, President Biden and Vice President Harris succeeded in negotiating with pharmaceutical companies to lower prices for 10 of the most expensive drugs under Medicare. Some of the prices were lowered by up to 79 percent. As a result of this negotiation, 9 million seniors will save a total of $1.5 billion each year in copays on these 10 drugs. That is real money, real savings for real people.

For example, 142,000 seniors in Illinois take Xarelto or Eliquis as a blood thinner, costing Medicare nearly $25 billion last year. But thanks to the new law, Medicare was able to negotiate a price reduction of 60 percent, up to $3,840 off the annual pricetag for seniors who were taking these two blood thinners.

Last week, I met with pharmacists from the University of Illinois in Chicago. They shared with me how many patients are forced to ration doses between paychecks. They said that should not be a reality in our Nation.

Well, we are just getting started. Next year, Medicare will negotiate lower prices for another 15 drugs, and another 20 the year after that.

We also capped the price of insulin to $35, thanks to the Presiding Officer, saving 50,000 seniors in Illinois approximately $500 next year.

We made vaccines under Medicare free. Vaccines can be expensive. The shingles vaccine cost up to $385. Now they are free for seniors.

Starting in January, we will impose a $2,000 annual cap on out-of- pocket costs for seniors, no matter how expensive their medications are.

But let me remind you--this is for a matter of record: Every single Republican Senator voted against these prescription drug savings. That bears repeating. Every single Republican Senator in this Chamber voted against this effort to lower prescription drug prices.

While Big Pharma has raked in many millions and billions of dollars, they have also worked to block this law. They have Republican allies in Congress plotting how to repeal these historic price savings.

How can the Republicans explain that? You have got seniors, many on fixed incomes, with expensive drugs that they need to stay alive, and they can't afford them.

We believe those prices ought to come down for those seniors, like insulin. That is a life-or-death drug for many people. The fact that we want to lower prices for seniors is just common sense.

So how do the Republicans explain it? You heard it earlier. Anyone who wants the government to step in and negotiate lower prices is a Marxist, a socialist, a communist. You hear this over and over again.

Well, if you are a student of history, this is nothing new. That is what they said about Social Security. That is what they said about Medicare and Medicaid. They believe that there is just way too much government for the government to step in and lower prescription drug prices. I don't. I think that is a reasonable role by government.

Remember, these same prescription drugs--virtually all of them--began with federally paid research, medical research by the National Institutes of Health, which taxpayers pay for. And the companies develop the drugs, and I thank God they do. But to say we should have nothing to say about the cost of those drugs and the burden they place on seniors is just unreasonable.

When it comes to critical medications, no one should have to choose between their wallet and their life.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm U.S. Magistrate Judge Adam Abelson to the U.S. District Court for District of Maryland.

Judge Adam Abelson's experience in the courtroom--as a litigator and on the bench--has prepared him to serve as a U.S. District Judge.

After graduating from Princeton University and New York University School of Law, Judge Abelson clerked for the Hon. Catherine C. Blake on the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the Hon. Andre M. Davis on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Following his clerkships, Judge Abelson worked as an associate and partner at Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, where his practice focused on complex civil and criminal litigation. Over the course of his legal career, he tried six cases to verdict, judgment, or final decision.

In 2023, Judge Abelson was appointed by the judges of the District of Maryland to serve as a magistrate judge.

Judge Abelson has the strong support from his home State Senators, Mr. Cardin and Mr. Van Hollen. In addition, he was rated unanimously ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. I urge my colleagues to support Judge Abelson's nomination.

I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, today the Senate will vote to confirm Jeannette Vargas to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

A highly skilled litigator, Ms. Vargas is a dedicated public servant who will be an asset to the Federal bench. A graduate of Harvard College and Yale Law School, Ms. Vargas began her legal career at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett before clerking for then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Since 2002, Ms. Vargas has been an assistant U.S. attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. In addition, she previously served as deputy chief of the Tax and Bankruptcy Unit, chief of the Tax and Bankruptcy Unit, and senior trial counsel. She currently serves as deputy chief of the Civil Division.

In the U.S. attorney's office, Ms. Vargas has handled and supervised a range of complex commercial litigation cases in the areas of bankruptcy, tax, civil rights, national security, and administrative law. She has also investigated criminal civil rights cases involving allegations of excessive use of force.

Over the course of her legal career, Vargas has tried eight cases to verdict. She has also drafted or helped draft more than two dozen appellate briefs and has argued 10 cases before Federal appellate courts.

Ms. Vargas has the strong support of her home State Senators, Mr. Schumer and Mrs. Gillibrand. In addition, she was rated unanimously ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association.

I urge my colleagues to support Ms. Vargas's nomination.

I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Butler) and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I have served on the Senate Judiciary Committee for more than two decades. During that time, I have evaluated and voted on more than 1,000 judicial nominees in the committee and on the Senate floor. I now serve as the chair of the committee, where one of my greatest privileges is helping to confirm President Biden's judicial nominees to the Federal bench. We have been steadfastly committed to confirming highly qualified, independent, and evenhanded judges; judges who rule with reason and restraint; judges who respect the rule of law, pursue justice, and answer only to the Constitution. And we have been committed to confirming judges who reflect the demographic and professional diversity of our Nation. So, it is safe to say that I understand what makes a person a capable arbiter of the law. The Hon. Ann Claire Williams is one such remarkable jurist.

For the entirety of her career, Judge Williams has defied odds and broken boundaries. In 1985, President Ronald Reagan nominated her to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of

Illinois. She made history, becoming the first woman of color to serve on a district court in the Seventh Circuit. More than a decade later, President Bill Clinton nominated Judge Williams to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, making her the first judge of color to sit on that court, and only the third Black woman in history to serve on any Federal circuit court.

Even before she was appointed to the Federal bench, Judge Williams was no stranger to breaking barriers. After graduating from Notre Dame Law School, she clerked for Judge Robert A. Sprecher on the Seventh Circuit. She was one of the first two female African-American law clerks to work on that court. Thereafter, she served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Northern District of Illinois for 9 years, becoming the first woman of color to serve as supervisor in that office and later becoming the first chief of the Northern District of Illinois' Organized Drug Enforcement Task Force in 1983. In short, Judge Williams is a trailblazer.

Over the course of her storied career, Judge Williams has gone above and beyond in her commitment to pro bono and civic work. She recently finished her third consecutive term as chair of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which conducts peer review evaluations of all lifetime appointed Federal judges. I share her commitment to making sure our Federal bench is comprised of jurists who have the requisite integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament to serve, and I commend her for her dedication to this work. Additionally, Judge Williams became the first person of color to become an officer of the Federal Judges Association when she ascended to its treasurer and president positions, helping to strengthen the judicial community.

Judge Williams's call to serve has extended beyond the duties related to the bench. She helped found the Public Interest Fellowship Program of Equal Justice Works, a nonprofit that seeks to promote a lifelong commitment to public service and equal justice. And in Illinois, she helped to found Just the Beginning-A Pipeline Organization, which encourages students of color and those from underrepresented groups to pursue career and leadership opportunities in the law. You see, Judge Williams has not just broken boundaries; additionally, she has blazed a trail for others to follow, making the legal profession more diverse, equitable, and responsive to the needs of our Nation.

Judge Williams's dedication to the rule of law has inspired her to look beyond America's borders. She taught prosecutors at the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. And now, Judge Williams leads Jones Day's pro bono efforts to advance the rule of law in Africa, using her legal talents to advance equity and justice for people across the world and establishing justice initiatives in Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Liberia, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia.

So it is no surprise that Judge Williams is being recognized for her extraordinary contributions to the legal profession. I want to congratulate her on being honored by the ``American Lawyer'' with a Lifetime Achievement Award, which recognizes lawyers who have ``left an indelible mark on the legal profession through their substantive area of work as well as a strong public service component.'' I also want to commend her for being awarded an American Bar Association Presidential Citation, based on her ``extraordinary and tireless leadership as chair of the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary; her dedication to building a pipeline aimed at inspiring young students and increasing diversity and inclusion in the legal profession and the judiciary; and her lifetime commitment and devotion to the rule of law, both at home and abroad.'' More than just recognizing the achievements of a particularly outstanding lawyer and jurist, by naming Judge Williams a recipient, these awards also illustrate the goal toward which our legal system should constantly aspire: equal justice under the law.

Judge Williams, congratulations on a truly remarkable career. And thank you for your steadfast commitment to public service. You are a model for all those who follow, and you make our judiciary and our Nation stronger.

Madam President, it was over 20 years ago when I was a Member of the House of Representatives that one of my colleagues Mike Synar, then a Congressman from Oklahoma, asked me if I would like to join him on a trip.

I said: Where do you want to go, Mike? I'm not all that popular back home in my district, so you better pick a place that we can explain. He said: I am going to take you to a place that no one will ever complain about. I would like you to go with me to Bangladesh.

I said: Where is that? He said: I will show you. And off we went to Bangladesh halfway around the world. It was a great trip. It is a poor country that has been through a lot of political turmoil. It has had more than its share of natural disasters, and they are a remarkable people.

During the course of that trip, I was introduced to an economics professor at the university. He was an interesting character. He would come up with a theory that he thought would help the poorest people on earth. It was known as microcredit, and he created something called the Grameen Bank, the people's bank.

And, basically, what he set out to do was to prove that you could loan a small amount of money to the poorest people on earth and dramatically change their lives.

They would pay it back, and they would start to be more constructive, more profitable in what they were doing. It was just a theory at the time, but he is starting to prove it. We kept in touch after leaving that visit, and I watched over the years as he expanded the concept.

Pretty soon, there were cell phones in these tiny little villages in Bangladesh. One person would own a cell phone and sell minutes on the phone for people to call in to the nearest city to see if this was the right time to bring their produce to market.

His name was Muhammad Yunus, and he caught the attention not just of this Congressman--now a Senator--but he caught the attention of the world. When it was all said and done, he received the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in economics.

I thought he was extraordinary and should be recognized here as well, so I led the effort with the late Senator Mike Enzi and Congressman Rush Holt to award the Congressional Gold Medal to this remarkable economics professor--Dr. Muhammad Yunus. He was sometimes known as the ``Banker to the Poor'' after he received the Nobel Prize.

He pioneered microlending as a groundbreaking method of helping some of the world's poorest people. He recognized that, just with a little bit of money in hand, many people could lift themselves out of poverty, but traditional banks wouldn't lend small sums to the poor, particularly the women who were poor. Banks saw such loans as too risky, not profitable, and unworthy.

Dr. Yunus never gave up. He saw things differently, with incredible results. Through his Grameen Bank, he proved that microlending could be done collateral-free and investing in poor women actually paid off. In fact, most of Grameen Bank's loans have gone to poor women who rise from terrible poverty to become small business people.

I have seen the results of that innovative approach all over the world now, including a visit to a ramshackle hut in Uganda, where I met three mothers who were working in a local market. I asked them, through an interpreter, how microcredit had changed their lives. One woman said: ``My knees have gone soft.'' I didn't understand what she meant. I asked her to explain.

She said: Before I got my microcredit loan, which gave me a chance to go to the market and make a little money, I used to have to crawl on my knees to beg my husband for money to feed the children. I don't have to crawl anymore. My knees have gone soft.

I will never forget that exchange.

In recent decades, more than 140 million people on 5 continents have received microloans with incredible repayment rates and success. Quite simply, Dr. Muhammad Yunus's ideas changed the World and helped to earn him that Nobel Peace Prize.

Tragically, his ideas also earned him the wrath of the Bangladeshi Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, whose government harassed Dr. Yunus for years with questionable legal charges and threatened jail time.

So imagine my surprise last month--just a few weeks ago, during this break. Hasina finally resigned as Prime Minister of Bangladesh amidst massive public protest, and the students who were leading the protest demanded that the leader of their country be none other than Dr. Muhammad Yunus, the same economics professor I met more than 20 years ago. They asked him to create a caretaker government and hold new elections, which he is in the process of doing.

I called him on the phone when I heard of his good fortune and the fact that he is now the leader of that nation. I asked him what I could do to help, and he said: We need so much help to stabilize the economy and move forward with this poor nation. I will be coming to the United Nations in the next few weeks.

I hope to get the chance to see him. I hope he can make it down here to Washington.

He was upbeat. He believes the people of that country are prepared now to rise to this historic opportunity.

I am going to offer my full support to him today. I believe in him. I did 20 years ago, and I do today. I urge President Biden to support him as well. I know Dr. Yunus has the best interest of the Bangladeshi people at heart and will do his utmost in this challenging time.