Floor Statements

Madam President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Judge Ana de Alba to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Born and raised in California's San Joaquin Valley, Judge de Alba attended the University of California, Berkeley as an undergraduate and law student, receiving her B.A. with highest honors in 2002 and her J.D. in 2007.

Judge de Alba began her legal career as an associate at Lang, Richert & Patch, PC. There, her practice spanned business, employment, construction, and personal injury law. Within just 5 years, she became a partner. While at the firm and in honor of the challenges her own family faced while working as migrant farmworkers, Judge de Alba established a monthly worker's rights clinic to help low-wage workers understand their employment rights.

In 2018, she began her service on the bench as a superior court judge for the Fresno County Superior Court. Last year, after this body confirmed her by a vote of 53-45, Judge de Alba joined the Federal bench as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The American Bar Association unanimously rated Judge de Alba as ``qualified,'' to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The late Senator Feinstein strongly supported her nomination, as does Senator Padilla. With significant judicial experience and an unwavering dedication to equal justice under law, Judge de Alba will serve honorably on the Ninth Circuit.

I am proud to support her nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Monica Ramirez Almadani to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Born in La Mirada, CA, Ms. Ramirez Almadani received her A.B. from Harvard University in 2001 and her J.D. from Stanford Law School in 2004. She then clerked for Judge Warren J. Ferguson on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 2004 to 2005. Ms. Ramirez Almadani began her legal career in 2005 at the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, practicing immigration and civil rights litigation for 4 years, including successfully arguing before the Ninth Circuit. She then served the Justice Department for 6 years in a variety of roles, including counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, deputy chief of staff to the Deputy Attorney General, and assistant U.S. attorney--AUSA--in the U.S. attorney's office for the Central District of California. As an AUSA, she prosecuted child pornography, human trafficking, narcotics, immigration fraud, public corruption, and other serious crimes.

In 2015, then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris appointed Ms. Ramirez Almadani Special Assistant Attorney General to oversee the California Justice Department's Criminal Division and the Division of Recidivism Reduction and Reentry. Then, in 2017, she joined a large law firm as special counsel, focusing on white collar criminal defense, internal investigations, and complex commercial litigation, in addition to pro bono immigration work. She then became codirector of the University of California, Irvine School of Law's Immigrant Rights Clinic from 2019 to 2021. She currently serves as the president and CEO of Public Counsel, the largest public interest law firm in the country.

The American Bar Association rated Ms. Ramirez Almadani ``well qualified'' to serve on the Central District of California. The late Senator Feinstein strongly supported her nomination, as does Senator Padilla.

I will be supporting this outstanding nominee, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote on the nomination of Ms. Brandy McMillion, who has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Born in Dayton, OH, Ms. McMillion received both her bachelor's and master's degrees in engineering from the University of Michigan and her law degree from George Washington University Law School. She then began her career as an associate, working for Pepper Hamilton LLP, Perkins Coie LLP, and Bryan Cave LLP, where she gained experience in labor and employment matters, intellectual property claims, and corporate financial services transactions.

Following her 9 years in private practice, Ms. McMillion joined the U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District of Michigan in 2015, where she has served in a variety of roles, most recently as the chief of the general crimes unit. In that position, she is responsible for prosecuting firearms offenses, carjackings, and drug trafficking offenses in addition to supervising and training AUSAs and support staff. The American Bar Association rated Ms. McMillion as unanimously ``well qualified,'' and she enjoys the strong support of Senators Stabenow and Peters.

Taken together, Ms. McMillion's courtroom experience, management credentials, and knowledge of the district to which she is nominated make her an excellent addition to the Federal bench. I urge my colleagues to support her nomination.

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

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, over the past 2 years, something profound has taken place on this Senate floor. We have been building one of the most important accomplishments of the Biden era's administration: the confirmation of highly qualified, independent, evenhanded judges to the Federal bench.

This week, the Senate will confirm the 150th lifetime judge since President Biden took office. This is a historic slate of judges who I believe will rule with reason and restraint. These judges respect the rule of law, adhere to precedent, and, above all, answer only to the U.S. Constitution.

Some Senate Republicans, including their leader, have not been shy in criticizing these nominees. According to the minority leader's retelling of history, under the former President, Senate Republicans ``spent 4 years confirming staggeringly qualified and incredibly brilliant men and women to the courts.'' I would like to set the record straight.

For each judicial nominee who comes before the Senate, the American Bar Association conducts a nonpartisan peer review and ranks their qualifications. Those rankings are based on integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament.

During the Trump administration, Senate Republicans confirmed eight-- eight--Trump nominees who were

found unqualified to serve on the Federal bench by the American Bar Association. Compare that to President Biden's record.

During the Biden administration, not one--not one--of the 150 judges we have confirmed had an unqualified rating--not one. So when I hear some Senate Republicans waxing about the glory days of judicial nominees under President Trump, I can't help but wonder what they are talking about.

Are they talking about that district court nominee who had never tried a case but had instead worked as a ghost hunter and written blog posts defending the Ku Klux Klan?

What about another Trump trial court nominee who had never tried a case, never examined a witness, never taken a deposition, never argued a motion?

Or the Sixth Circuit nominee who likened abortion to slavery?

How about the Ninth Circuit nominee whose colleagues called him ``arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to- day practice'' of law?

In addition, Senate Republicans relied on increasingly absurd criticism in an attempt to undermine President Biden's nominees. Some Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee criticized one of Biden's nominees as soft on crime because she had dedicated her career to exonerating wrongfully imprisoned individuals, mainly using DNA evidence. That is right. Senate Republicans argued that releasing people from prison who did not actually commit the crime is somehow dangerous for society.

Just last week, one of my Republican colleagues criticized a nominee who had served as a Federal prosecutor for 16 years because he did not ask a judge to impose a sentence that was higher than the maximum sentence allowed by law in one case.

Let me be clear. This nominee would have been asking a Federal judge to violate the law if he had made such a request. Those types of attacks are simply not credible.

President Biden's nominees are qualified, and they have demonstrated impeccable temperament.

Something that stands out about these nominees, aside from their exceptional qualifications and loyalty to the rule of law, is the professional and demographic diversity they bring to the bench. When you go into a Federal courthouse today and look at the judges who are likely to be trying or deciding a case, you are going to find more diversity than ever before.

Under President Biden, in fact, we have made history, confirming more Black women to the Federal circuit courts than all prior Presidents combined. Of course, we also confirmed the first-ever Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, and we have confirmed historic numbers of Asian-American judges, Latino judges, and LGBTQ judges.

It is not just demographic diversity that we have seen under President Biden. It is also professional diversity. In the past 2 years, we have confirmed more circuit judges with experience as public defenders than all prior Presidents combined.

For the record, I voted over and over again for former prosecutors-- White males. The bench is made up of a lot of people whom I have voted for in the past, and I believe that they were ready for the job and competent to handle it. But we believe now that there should be more diversity, and this President is making sure the nominees sent our way meet that standard.

We have confirmed State court judges, Federal magistrates, bankruptcy judges, and prosecutors who have made significant and critical contributions to this country's justice system. One of President Biden's nominees served as a special prosecutor in the trial of Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd. And we have confirmed jurists with experience protecting the rights of voters, the rights of workers, civil rights, women's rights, and LGBTQ rights.

Another notable aspect of this record--and this, I am very happy to report--is that the vast majority, nearly 90 percent, of all these judicial confirmations have been bipartisan. Even on the appellate courts, over three-quarters of President Biden's nominees have received support from both sides of the aisle. This focus on qualified, consensus nominees goes a long way toward restoring trust and faith in our judiciary.

Let me also remind you that, in the first 2 years of the Biden administration, we had a 50-50 Senate and a 50-50 Judiciary Committee. We needed bipartisanship for anything to work.

The American people deserve Federal judges who not only look like America but understand what it means to be an American. That is an important part of our work that we began under President Biden. It is a work we must finish.

We celebrate these 150 judges, and we will continue elevating jurists who are qualified, principled, and committed, above all, to protecting our constitutional rights. The American people deserve nothing less.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today the Senate will vote to confirm Ramon Reyes to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Judge Reyes received his B.S. from Cornell University, his J.D. from Brooklyn Law School, and his LL.M. from NYU Law School.

Judge Reyes began his legal career with the New York City Council as a legislative attorney. After taking a year to clerk for Judge David Trager on the Eastern District, he spent 3 years in private practice before joining the U.S. attorney's office in the Southern District of New York as an assistant U.S. attorney. While in the U.S. attorney's office, Judge Reyes handled a wide range of civil and criminal matters, including cases involving civil rights violations, healthcare fraud, false claims, and environmental issues. In 2004, he was appointed deputy chief of appeals.

In recognition of his broad experience and legal acumen, including three jury trials and three bench trials as an AUSA, Judge Reyes was appointed in 2006 to serve as a Federal magistrate judge in the Eastern District of New York. Since taking the bench, he has presided over 33 trials that cover a range of issues including criminal matters, employment suits, and civil rights cases.

The American Bar Association unanimously rated Judge Reyes as ``well qualified,'' and he has the strong support of Senators Schumer and Gillibrand.

I will be supporting his nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do so, as well.

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.

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

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Judge Kenly Kato to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Born in Los Angeles, CA, Judge Kato received her B.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles and her J.D. from Harvard Law School. She then clerked for Judge Robert M. Takasugi on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Judge Kato began her legal career at the Federal Public Defender's Office for the Central District of California, where she served for 6 years. She then entered private practice and spent 10 years as a solo practitioner, representing clients in both civil and criminal cases. During this time, she tried approximately 15 cases to verdict. In 2014, she was appointed to serve as a magistrate judge on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Judge Kato currently handles both a civil and criminal docket, and she has presided over several cases that have gone to verdict. In addition, she is heavily involved with diversionary programs within the Central District of California that focus on treatment, rehabilitation, and reentry issues for justice- involved individuals.

The American Bar Association unanimously rated Judge Kato ``well qualified'' to serve on the district court. The late Senator Feinstein strongly supported her nomination, and Senator Padilla does as well. Judge Kato has the experience, temperament, and qualifications to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. I will be supporting this outstanding nominee, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, you are aware of the fact that I announced last week in the committee that we would vote to authorize subpoenas to Harlan Crow, Robin Arkley, and Leonard Leo as part of the Judiciary Committee's continuing investigation into the ethical situation at the U.S. Supreme Court.

I do not make this decision lightly. Seeking authorization to issue subpoenas is a relatively rare occurrence in the committee. So today I come to the floor for a few minutes to explain why we have taken this significant step.

Over the last several months, it has become clear that the Supreme Court is in desperate need of a binding code of ethics as we learned of lavish gifts and luxury travel that certain Supreme Court Justices have accepted from a gaggle of fawning billionaires.

Let's start with Justice Clarence Thomas. The sheer number and value of gifts accepted by Justice Thomas is staggering, and the shamelessness with which he accepted them is stunning. For decades, Justice Thomas has accepted lavish gifts from Harlan Crow, a conservative billionaire with business before the Supreme Court. These gifts have ranged from a $19,000 Bible once owned by Frederick Douglass to a $15,000 bust of Abraham Lincoln. Justice Thomas also accepted private jet trips and free lodging at Bohemian Grove, an exclusive all- male, invitation-only retreat in the redwoods of California. And these are only examples of what Justice Thomas disclosed.

After the Los Angeles Times reported on these disclosures, Justice Thomas, in 2004, 19 years ago, promptly stopped disclosing gifts as required by law.

We learned this year that he continued to accept expensive gifts for the past 19 years and that these billionaire benefactors have been part of a growing list.

There isn't time to detail all of the undisclosed gifts, which the press has discovered, and luxury travel that Justice Thomas has accepted, but for the sake of a record, I am going to give a few examples.

In 2019, Justice Thomas and his wife flew to Indonesia on Harlan Crow's private jet and boarded Crow's 162-foot superyacht, the Michaela Rose, to island hop with Harlan Crow and his wife.

The total cost of that trip alone could have exceeded half a million dollars if Justice Thomas had chartered the jet and yacht. Lucky for him, Harlan Crow was happy to cover the costs.

Justice Thomas also continued to join Crow on trips to Bohemian Grove in California. He visited Crow's ranch in East Texas, spent summers at Crow's private resort in the Adirondacks.

But there is more. Crow paid thousands of dollars to cover tuition for Justice Thomas's grandnephew. He purchased real estate owned by Thomas and his relatives, including Thomas's mother's home, where she continues to live rent-free. And Crow donated half a million dollars to a conservative advocacy group founded by Justice Thomas's wife.

I could go on and on and on because the list of gifts Justice Thomas has chosen to accept and failed to disclose goes on and on and on.

Justice Thomas is not the only Supreme Court Justice who has accepted lavish gifts from billionaires and refused to disclose them. In 2008, Justice Samuel Alito boarded a private jet bound for Alaska to enjoy a luxury fishing trip, a trip that should have cost him over $100,000, but it didn't cost him one penny because of the man who organized the flight and joined Alito on the luxury fishing trip, Leonard Leo.

Mr. Leo arranged Justice Alito's free flight to Alaska and his free lodging once he arrived. Their host at the luxury fishing lodge was a gentleman named Robin Arkley. Over the next few days, Justice Alito and his travel companions enjoyed guided fishing trips, flights on bush planes, meals of Alaskan king crab and Kobe beef, and wines costing upward of $1,000 a bottle.

Justice Alito did not disclose any of this, and when challenged, for example, on the jet ride--why that should be disclosed--he said he didn't view it as a gift because if he didn't go, the seat on the plane would have gone empty.

That is an interesting analysis of a gift from a strict constructionist.

This kind of scandalous behavior cannot continue. One former Federal judge who served for years on the judicial committee that reviews the Justices' financial disclosures had this to say about the gifts to Justice Thomas:

In my career, I don't remember ever seeing this degree of

largesse given to anybody.

When referring to the cascade of gifts from Harlan Crow to Justice Thomas, the former chief White House ethics lawyer for Republican President George W. Bush said:

This is way outside the norm. This is way in excess of

anything I've seen.

And renowned conservative jurist, Judge J. Michael Luttig, stated in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

The Supreme Court should want to lead by the example that

only it can set. It should want to conduct itself in its non-

judicial activities in all ways such that it is beyond

reproach.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not lived up to this expectation. That is why our Senate Judiciary Committee is exercising its constitutional authority to investigate. Months ago, I, along with my Democratic colleagues on the committee, sent letters to Crow, Arkley, and Leo, among others, seeking details about what exactly

has been provided to Supreme Court Justices. Our goal has been to understand how specific individuals and groups with business before the Court have used undisclosed gifts to gain private access to Justices-- access not afforded to others.

For months, Crow has refused to fully comply with the committee's requests, and Leo has completely stonewalled the committee. Only now, under threat of subpoena, Mr. Arkley has stepped forward, and we are looking forward to continuing our conversation with him this week.

The fact that we have to go to this length is unacceptable but necessary. The Senate and the American people deserve to know the full extent of how billionaires with interests before the Court use their immense wealth to buy private access to our Supreme Court.

That is why, on Thursday, the Judiciary Committee will vote to authorize subpoenas for these individuals. The vote is a critical step in the committee's exercise of its constitutional right and duty to conduct oversight of the Federal judiciary. It is critical to the committee's effort to restore the Court's reputation. The highest Court in the land should not have the lowest standard of ethics.

This is not a fight I wanted, but now that it has come to this, the Judiciary Committee will not back down.

Most Americans are shocked to know or to learn that the nine Justices on the Supreme Court are the only high-ranking Federal officials in the United States of America who are beyond the reach of a code of ethics. How do you explain that?

How can you explain that every Federal judge in America is bound by a code of ethics except for the nine Supreme Court Justices?

What is so special about them? The Constitution makes it clear that we don't have royalty in this country. They are acting like they belong to some legal fraternity or sorority. That has got to come to an end.

When you look at the situation, Members of Congress are held to standards--and I am not complaining. I knew what I was getting into when I signed up for this job--held to standards of disclosure and limitation on gifts.

I cannot tell you how many times I have said to a person: Is this worth more than 50 bucks? If they answer: Well, maybe, it might be, I say: Well, keep it and thanks for thinking of me.

That is the kind of thing that just becomes a routine part of public service. These lavish gifts, particularly from individuals who have business before the Court, are just unacceptable and inexplicable.

It is important for us to have a response when people ask: What are you doing to clean up things at the Supreme Court?

The first thing we did, I think, was the responsible and respectable thing to do. We invited the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to appear before our committee and tell us his thoughts on the subject and what he believes should be done to deal with this bad publicity and these disclosures. He declined the invitation. I don't hold it against him. He explained, in my presence, a few weeks ago why he did. I understand it. I disagree with it, but I understand it.

But 11 years ago, was the first time I contacted the Chief Justice and said: This has got to come to an end. Tell us what you are going to do about establishing a code of ethics on the Supreme Court. Eleven years ago and nothing--nothing--has happened since.

I want to salute and commend my colleague Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of the State of Rhode Island. He has been a leader on this topic in the subcommittee which he chairs on the Judiciary Committee, and we have cooperated in this effort.

We will meet this week. This is not the first time the Judiciary Committee will be asked to issue subpoenas. They happened before under Republican leadership as well in a much different type of case. But the fact of the matter is, we have tried carefully and studiously to come up with this information the right way, and, unfortunately, we have not gotten the kind of results we wanted. A subpoena, we hope, will jar loose the information to explain exactly what happened with the gift- giving by several individuals.

Mr. President, here is the situation reported from the hospital in Gaza: They will be out of fuel and electricity in 24 hours. Dr. Hussam told Dr. Sahloul that at this point, five children will die. The ventilators that are keeping them alive will be turned off. They cannot be transported to a better or a safer place. Turning off the electricity in some areas of the hospital will cause great hardship and pain. There is no fuel at the other hospitals either. In the north, they have basically been cut off from any assistance. It is impossible to transfer to the south because they don't have transportation, and they don't have the wherewithal--the ambulances and such--to do so. The desperate situation they have reached includes performing amputations with no anesthesia--performing amputations with no anesthesia.

I asked Dr. Sahloul: What do they use?

He said: Tylenol.

Can you imagine? Tylenol? They use vinegar because they don't have any access to iodine to be able to clean the wounds before the operations. Vinegar.

Every day, 200 people show up at their hospital, sick from the contaminated water which they are forced to drink. They are begging for help. They are asking for a pause so that basics can be provided: food, electricity, fuel, medicines--the basics. I don't think that is an unreasonable request, and I am sorry that they have been turned down in their efforts to get this kind of help. There are 150 patients in this hospital--twice the number as usual--with many of them sleeping on the floor. And surgeries are performed on the floor.

I read this article last Friday and kept a copy of it. Now I will enter it into the Record for others to read as well.

At one point, Dr. Abu Safiya said:

We wish for death. It is easier than seeing the horrific

scenes we're witnessing.

Twice now, this refugee camp, Jabalia, has been attacked by the Israelis as a site of Hamas terrorism. Unfortunately, on the first day of the attack, 40 people did not survive and 250 others were brought to the hospital. Then the attack took a second day but, basically, was the same as the last.

The doctor said: I've never in my life seen injuries this bad. He added: We saw children decapitated as a result of these attacks.

Asking for a pause in the war for the purpose of humanitarian relief is not unreasonable; it is humane and civilized. The United States is begging both sides to take that step. I will join that effort. I hope that this ends well and soon.

In the meantime, these innocent, helpless victims need to have a helping hand from the rest of the world. We need to provide the basics so they can survive. I will do my best to follow this closely. I encourage the United States to continue its efforts to ask for this pause in the actions for relief of the victims. This sort of situation in any part of the world cannot be ignored.

I yield the floor.

(Mr. MARKEY assumed the Chair.)