Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the confirmation of Judge

Sunil Harjani to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

After receiving his undergraduate degree and law degree from Northwestern University, Judge Harjani began his legal career at Jenner & Block LLP and later clerked for U.S. District Judge Suzanne B. Conlon on the Northern District of Illinois. He subsequently returned to private practice before working at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from 2004 to 2008. In 2008, Judge Harjani joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois as an assistant U.S. attorney, prosecuting a range of cases, including securities and commodities fraud, investment fraud, corporate misconduct, and other business-related crimes. Over the course of his legal career, Judge Harjani tried 13 cases before the district court and argued 14 appeals before the Seventh Circuit.

In 2019, Judge Harjani was selected by the district judges of the Northern District of Illinois to be a magistrate judge, where he presides over civil and criminal cases. He has also served as an adjunct professor, previously teaching at the University of Illinois Chicago Law School and currently at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law. The American Bar Association rated Judge Harjani as unanimously ``well qualified.''

Given Judge Harjani's considerable courtroom experience--as a litigator and on the bench--Senator Duckworth and I strongly support his nomination.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for his confirmation.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, we all know it is Women's History Month; and though this work should be done year round, during March especially, we focus on policies that improve the lives of women in America, including the lives of women veterans.

For most of America's history, America's Armed Forces were made up primarily of men in uniform. Not anymore. Today, more than 17 percent of the Active-Duty Force in America are women. As our Armed Forces better reflect the diversity of America, that means our support system and resources for veterans must also meet the needs of that population.

And one of those resources must be supporting our veterans and servicemembers when they want to start a family. Those who serve our Nation are at an elevated risk for injury. That is part of the reason we owe them such a debt of gratitude. They do risk life and limb to protect America.

But when servicemembers are injured in the line of duty, one consequence can be obstacles to conceiving children. That is why we should pass the Veteran Families Health Services Act immediately. This comprehensive legislation will expand fertility treatments and family- building services that are covered under servicemembers and veterans' healthcare plans. This includes services across the board to safeguard future fertility, adoption assistance, and, most likely, in vitro fertilization.

Access to IVF recently came into the national spotlight when the Alabama Supreme Court ruled last month that frozen embryos are children and that their destruction can be treated like the wrongful death of a child. That decision by the Alabama Supreme Court had major consequences on reproductive rights in Alabama as major healthcare providers stopped IVF procedures out of fear of civil and criminal liability.

Not surprisingly, Republicans across the country started scrambling, fearing that such an unpopular restriction on reproductive rights could hurt their electoral chances in the next election.

In the weeks since the ruling, Republicans have claimed to support access to IVF, and yet many also support so-called fetal personhood bills that codify that life begins at conception and lack carve-outs to protect access to IVF. The simple reality is you can't have it both ways. Although Alabama Governor Kay Ivey signed a law last week that attempted to ensure that IVF treatments continued in her State, many legal experts and fertility doctors are still concerned that the rush to stopgap that measure will do more harm than good.

And when Senator Tammy Duckworth--my Illinois colleague, a veteran herself who relied on IVF to start her family--came to this floor of the U.S. Senate and asked for unanimous consent to pass a bill that would establish Federal protection for access to IVF and other fertility treatments, a Republican Senator blocked it.

If the Republicans are truly pro-family, pro-military, as they claim to be, there should be no hesitation supporting this bill that supports our servicemembers and veterans who want to start a family.

Let me make one thing clear. No one should have to choose between serving our Nation and having a child. We should be expanding these services, not restricting them. Our servicemembers sacrifice much to keep our families safe. The least we can do is to make sure they have the full range of care options they need to start families of their own.

I want to thank the Senator from Washington, Patty Murray, for calling us together for this important stand, one that I think will benefit families across the board and, certainly, benefit veteran families who want to start a family.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Judge Melissa DuBose to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

Born in Providence, RI, Judge DuBose received her B.A. from Providence College and served as a teacher in Rhode Island for 11 years. While teaching high school, she earned her law degree by attending night classes at Roger Williams School of Law. Judge DuBose began her legal career as a special assistant attorney general in the Rhode Island Office of the Attorney General, where she was responsible for prosecuting adults charged with child abuse, felonies committed by juveniles, and violations of probation. She then joined Schneider Electric as a senior legal counsel, assisting and providing legal counsel in litigation involving federal government-related disputes.

In 2019, then-Governor Gina Raimondo appointed Judge DuBose to serve as an associate judge on the Rhode Island District Court, where she has presided over approximately 250 to 300 bench trials that have gone to verdict or judgment. The American Bar Association rated Judge DuBose as ``qualified'' to serve on the district court, and she has the strong support of her home State Senators, Mr. Reed and Mr. Whitehouse.

Judge DuBose's deep ties to the Rhode Island legal community, combined with her significant courtroom experience, will make her an excellent addition to the Federal bench.

I urge my colleagues to support her nomination.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, the Lee amendment has such good language that it is already in law. The Justice Manual already establishes a standard with virtually verbatim language as in the Lee amendment.

Furthermore, the Justice Manual reflects the express prohibitions against discrimination by law enforcement, enacted by Congress in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and in title VI of the Civil Rights Act. It also reflects consistent holdings by the Supreme Court on due process and equal protection.

The only time they believe this has been successfully implemented was during the Trump administration,

when there was fear that they were going to weaponize the Department of Justice, and this standard, which is already in the law, at least discouraged many from participating in that exercise.

The good news is this language is redundant, and it is unnecessary. The bad news is, if we adopt it, we are going to stop the process of appropriating and avoiding closing the government this evening. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Lee amendment.

Mr. President, is there any time remaining?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I have an extraordinary responsibility as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee--important legislation and, probably more important, the filling of vacancies in our Federal judiciary.

Under article III of our Constitution, we create judges, and there are approximately 890 of these Federal judges across the United States. As vacancies occur, as they often do, the Senate Judiciary Committee, working with the White House and Members of the Senate, has to do background checks on these individuals, submit them to the FBI for further background checks, do our own due diligence, consider them in an open hearing before the committee, and ultimately vote in committee before they come to the floor for advice and consent.

So far this year--I should say in this term--under President Biden, we have had 181 Federal judges who have gone through this process--been cleared on the floor, reported out of the Senate--and are now serving their Nation in this capacity.

I can tell you that it is not an easy process. Lengthy questionnaires are given to each nominee to identify so many details of their lives, I find it hard to believe they kept track and record of it, but they did. Then, of course, Agencies call to verify the contents and answers in those questionnaires. Then they go through close scrutiny by the staff of the Judiciary Committee on both sides, Democrats and Republicans. Then comes the day of reckoning when they have their hearing in a public setting. Many of these nominees are questioned extensively by members of the committee. I will tell you, politics ain't beanbag, and when it comes to the questions asked of judicial nominees, it is a serious process.

We have gone through more than 200 under the Biden administration in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Some of them have had a tough time of it, many of them had an easy time of it, but they all go through the same process.

One of the most important accomplishments of this administration has been the confirmation of highly qualified, I believe evenhanded judges to the Federal bench.

As I mentioned, to date, we have confirmed 181 lifetime judges, including a number of firsts--the first Black woman and public defender on the Supreme Court of the United States, the first Muslim-American judge on a district court, the first Asian-American judge on the Seventh Circuit. We should add another first to that list--Adeel Mangi to the Third Circuit.

Mr. Mangi is a highly qualified nominee with incredible credentials and more than two decades of litigation experience. He would be the first Muslim American to ever serve on a Federal appellate court.

Nevertheless, he is going through scrutiny unlike anything I have ever seen. He has been criticized and questioned in a way that I have never seen before in the committee. Unfortunately, many of the questions that have been raised about Mr. Mangi and his background have created suspicions in people's minds that his religion is the reason for the questioning.

Treatment of this highly qualified nominee has sometimes reached an alltime low. At the hearing in December, committee Republicans subjected Mr. Mangi to combative lines of questioning about the Israel- Hamas war. This is a man who is seeking to serve on a Federal bench in appellate court. The questions that are asked of him were more appropriately asked of the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense.

At one point, a Republican Senator asked this Muslim American the following question: Do you celebrate the anniversary of 9/11 in your home? Think about that for a second. Because he is Muslim, this Senator thought it was appropriate to ask him whether he celebrated 9/11 in his home. He, of course, said no. He was a resident of New York and thought it was a tragedy that occurred in our Nation, and he had friends and family who were affected by that tragedy.

During his hearing, under oath, Mr. Mangi unequivocally condemned anti-Semitism in all forms and condemned any acts of terrorism no fewer than 10 times. Think of that. Because he is a Muslim American, he was asked 10 different times whether he was anti-Semitic. He, of course, said no on each occasion. He also repeatedly denounced any form of hatred or bigotry in his answers to written questions.

Any insinuation that Mr. Mangi is anti-Semitic is rooted in prejudice that has no place in our country, and claims that were made are false. As he explained, ``I have [ ] worked extensively to advance religious liberty, which I consider to be a fundamental American value, and to combat religious bigotry against any religious group. I have been proud to represent a unique and massive coalition that I built over many years involving major Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, and other religious groups on matters of common interest.''

Mr. Mangi has also been unfairly attacked for his nominal affiliation with the Alliance of Families for Justice. Critics have falsely claimed that because of his minimal involvement with this organization, he has somehow associated himself with violent criminals and supports ``cop killers.'' That charge was made on the floor of the Senate against Mr. Mangi.

Nothing could be further from the truth. As a longtime corporate lawyer, Mr. Mangi has never said or written anything--anything--that suggests he supports individuals who have murdered members of law enforcement. He has never--never--represented or otherwise provided legal counsel to anyone accused of killing a police officer.

During the Trump administration, Republicans voted unanimously to confirm two judges who had personally represented individuals who had killed police officers.

Let me add quickly that everyone in America has the right to counsel. The crimes they may be charged with could be horrendous, but they still have the right to legal representation.

But to think that they would accuse Mr. Mangi of somehow supporting cop killers when he has never been involved with a client charged with that crime--the treatment of Mr. Mangi by some Republicans puts their hypocrisy on full display. There cannot be one standard for Republican appointees and another for Democratic appointees.

Mr. Mangi is eminently qualified. He is a graduate of Oxford and Harvard Law School. He spent more than two decades in private practice at a preeminent law firm, focusing on complex commercial litigation. He has served as counsel of record in more than 30 matters before Federal appellate courts, as well as eight amicus briefs submitted to the Supreme Court.

Throughout his career, Mr. Mangi has also demonstrated a deep commitment to pro bono work. In fact, he has devoted more than 4,000 hours to representing clients in religious discrimination, employment discrimination, and asylum cases.

Given Mr. Mangi's record, he has earned the support of a wide range of organizations, including organizations representing more than 1 million Jewish Americans.

Listen to what the National Council of Jewish Women had to say about Mr. Mangi:

He is highly qualified to serve on this court, bringing a

wealth of professional and personal experience in addition to

extraordinary legal qualifications.

Yet some of the Republican Senators on the committee suggested he was anti-Semitic, prejudiced against Jewish people. This endorsement by the National Council of Jewish Women clearly says otherwise.

Following Mr. Mangi's hearing, the Anti-Defamation League, an organization which is dedicated to rooting out prejudice against Jewish people, sent a statement to the committee, unsolicited by me, in which they said:

Berating the first American Muslim federal appellate

judicial nominee with endless questions that appear to have

been motivated by bias towards his religion is profoundly

wrong.

Mr. Mangi also has the support of a number of law enforcement organizations, from the New Jersey chapter of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives to the Hispanic American Law Enforcement Association.

Mr. Mangi stated:

I am ready and prepared to be held accountable for any

statement that I have ever made, any word that I have ever

written, or any action that I have ever taken.

He went on to say:

I am not and should not be held accountable for statements

made by people I do not know at events that I was not

involved [in].

Mr. Mangi is right. He should be judged based on his record, not on dishonest, bad-faith insinuations.

I urge my colleagues to dismiss the smear campaign against Mr. Mangi and support his nomination.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.