Floor Statements

Madam President, today, yet another American community is in shock and grief after yet another American mass shooting. This morning, a shooter entered the Covenant School in Nashville, TN, reportedly armed with two assault rifles and a handgun.

This is an elementary school for students in preschool through the sixth grade. The children are as young as 3 and 4 years old.

Upon entering the school, the shooter opened fire, killing at least three staff members and three students.

I cannot begin to imagine what the families and school community are feeling at this moment. We send our prayers and condolences, and we are certainly grateful to the first responders who were dispatched to the school within minutes and ran toward the sound of gunfire.

But, once again, thoughts and prayers are not enough. These mass shootings, especially targeting little children, are happening with sickening regularity in this Nation. This could be the 129th mass shooting since this year, 2023, began--129 mass shootings in America, and we are fewer than 90 days into this calendar year. That is more than one mass shooting a day.

What is a mass shooting? Four victims either shot or killed in an incident.

Last year, Congress took some important steps on gun safety reform with the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization. The Judiciary Committee that I serve on has done a lot of work on those measures, and I am happy to support both of them.

But as today's shooting in Nashville, TN, demonstrates, there is more work to be done. The fact that this is a daily occurrence in America is unconscionable.

We are going to learn more details in the hours and days ahead about what actually happened in Nashville, but we already know what must be done to keep our children and communities safe from deadly shootings. I strongly--strongly--support bills that ban assault weapons from civilian use and close gaps in our background check system.

I cannot imagine the Founding Fathers would even envision what we are allowing today in the name of words that they wrote in the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights. To think that these weapons--the one that was used in Highland Park, in my home State of Illinois, on the Fourth of July, last year--the man discharged 83 rounds in 60 seconds. Tell me that the Founding Fathers had that in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment. I don't believe it.

Today, the early reports are that assault weapons may be involved again. We will wait until we see the actual facts coming in, but it would be no great surprise if that is the case. It would be a grave disappointment.

I urge my colleagues to come together on a bipartisan basis. We can't say that we have solved this problem or even addressed it seriously when the incidents like the one that happened today in Nashville, TN, continue in America.

We need to pass more reforms to keep guns out of dangerous hands and keep our children safe.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), and the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, since 1987, we have recognized March as Women's History Month. It is an opportunity to honor the women who have served our Nation throughout our history.

This March, I want to commend one woman who has devoted her life to serving my home State of Illinois: Colleen Callahan. After nearly 4 years of service, Colleen recently stepped down from her role as the first-ever female director for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. Throughout her tenure, Colleen was a dedicated steward of our State's natural wonders, all while navigating a once-in-a-century pandemic. While this was an historic challenge, it was far from the first she has faced in her career. Time and again, Colleen has stood up in the face of adversity and persevered.

Colleen has a record of breaking down barriers. As a young woman living on a family farm near Milford, IL, she took a keen interest in agriculture, which, back then, was something of a boy's club. But that didn't stop her from pursuing her childhood passion. She participated in livestock shows and even achieved the title of Youngest Exhibitor of a Grand Champion at the International Livestock Exhibition in Chicago at just 9 years old. Despite her talent and success, Colleen was unable to join the Future Farmers of America, not because of merit, but because women were not yet eligible for consideration. But she pressed on.

After high school, Colleen attended the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and pursued a degree in agricultural communications, at a time when very few women were represented in broadcast journalism. As a freshman in college, she became the first woman to join the Illinois State 4-H Livestock Judging Team, a true full-circle moment. By the time she graduated with honors in 1973, she had already accepted her first job as an agribusiness reporter for WMBD-TV in Peoria. For the next three decades, Colleen made her dream of becoming a broadcast journalist a reality.

And her record of accomplishment was just beginning. After years as a successful reporter, Colleen became the first-ever female agribusiness director for WMBD-TV. Shortly after, she served as the first female president of the National Association of Farm Broadcasting. Being the ``first'' is never easy, but, as evidenced by her remarkable career, Colleen has never been afraid to venture into new territory. And, because of her determination, she has opened many doors that have previously been closed to women in agriculture.

In addition to her passion for broadcasting and agriculture, Colleen also has answered the call to public service. Really, she was born for it. Colleen comes from a family of true public servants: Her uncle, Gene Callahan, was a dear friend of mine, and a lifelong Democrat whom I worked alongside under former U.S. Senator, and my mentor and friend, Paul Simon. And Gene's daughter--Colleen's cousin--is former Congresswoman Cheri Bustos, who represented Illinois' 17th Congressional District from 2013 to January of this year--not to mention her father, Francis Callahan, who was chair of the Iroquois County Democrats, and her grandfather, Joe Callahan, who was vice chairman of the Iroquois County Democrats and a member of the Illinois State House of Representatives.

So it was no surprise when Colleen announced she was running for Illinois' 18th Congressional District in 2008. While she may have come up just short in that race, Colleen speaks fondly of the experience. She once said, ``Not winning doesn't mean losing!''

But still, Colleen went on to win countless victories for the people of Illinois. Shortly after her run for Congress, then-President Barack Obama appointed her to serve as the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Illinois State Director of Rural Development.

And in March 2019, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker appointed her as director of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, making her the first woman in Illinois history to hold this position. The Illinois Department of Natural Resources helps manage our more than 400 State parks, historic sites, wildlife, and water resources. Colleen had about a year to get her bearings as director until the COVID-19 pandemic hit. And during this unprecedented and tumultuous time, she certainly rose to the occasion. She preserved and expanded our State's invaluable natural resources at the exact moment they were needed. During the darkest days of the pandemic, Illinoisans sought comfort and quality time outdoors. So our State parks, historical sites, and natural areas became a sanctuary for many--and Colleen was there for our families every step of the way.

In 2021, she spearheaded the effort to re-name an invasive species of fish--previously known as Asian carp--to ``Copi,'' short for the word ``copious,'' given how abundant the carp is in Illinois rivers and streams.

And, after a consistent, decades-long decline in general revenue funding for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Colleen secured the department's largest State budget in more than 20 years, which is now funding long overdue improvements at sites across our State. Today, Colleen's hard work is paying off. With these new funds, she has played a hand in reopening the Rend Lake Resort, located in Wayne Fitzgerrell State Park in Franklin, IL. For a long time, the Rend Lake Resort served as Franklin's economic powerhouse, but after years of neglect and financial troubles, the resort had no option but to prepare for permanent closure. Its future seemed bleak until Colleen stepped in and saved the day. And later this year, the department will break ground on a $17.5 million renovation that will revamp the facility and breathe fresh life into Rend Lake Resort.

This investment, along with Colleen's efforts to reduce Illinois' carbon footprint and mitigate the effects of climate change, has and will make a difference in the lives of every Illinoisan. While Colleen has closed this chapter of her distinguished career, she, thankfully, has no plans to fully retire from public life. For her, there is still much left to be done.

I want to thank Colleen for her dedication to public service and for never

being afraid to shatter a few glass ceilings along the way. She is a trailblazer and a role model to many. Illinois is truly grateful for her contributions to our great State. Loretta and I wish Colleen and her husband Dick much happiness in their next chapter.

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.

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 was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 67, on the Lee amendment No. 22, to provide for the termination of authorizations for use of military force after 2 years. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted nay.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 68, on the Rubio amendment No. 4, to require a certification. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted nay.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 69, on the Risch amendment No. 43, to provide for a delayed, conditional repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted nay.

Madam President, today, the Senate voted to confirm Judge Gordon Gallagher, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

Judge Gallagher earned his B.A. from Macalester College and his J.D. from the University of Denver College of Law. After graduating from law school, he began a litigation career focused on criminal work. He spent a year with Underhill & Underhill, P.C., and then joined the Mesa County District Attorney's Office, where he prosecuted a wide range of felonies and misdemeanors. Judge Gallagher later entered solo legal practice, focusing on criminal defense work. During this time, he served as a contract attorney with Alternate Defense Counsel, which provides representation to indigent defendants when the local public defender is conflicted out of a matter. In total, he has tried approximately 275 cases to verdict, including 250 jury trials.

While remaining a practicing attorney, Judge Gallagher also serves as a part-time Federal magistrate judge for the District of Colorado, a position he has held since 2012. In this role, Judge Gallagher has presided over approximately a dozen criminal misdemeanor and petty offense bench trials. He also supervises the District's pro se intake division, helping to expedite consideration and resolution of pro se matters. Judge Gallagher was unanimously rated ``well qualified'' by the ABA and received a bipartisan vote in committee. He has the strong support of his home State Senators--Mr. Bennet and Mr. Hickenlooper-- and the Colorado legal and law enforcement community.

Given his significant trial experience and deep knowledge of Western Colorado, I strongly support the nomination of Judge Gallagher and am glad to see him confirmed.

(At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Madam President; I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 63, motion to proceed to S.316, a bill to repeal the authorizations for use of military force against Iraq. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yea.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 64, Confirmation of the nomination of Gordon Gallagher to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yea.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 65, on the Paul Amendment No. 2, to repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted nay.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 66, on the Graham Amendment No. 14 to provide for more targeted authority under the Authorizations for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted nay.

Madam President, when the Constitution was written, there were some fundamental principles which were included, and one of them said that any declaration of war in the United States had to have the approval of the American people through their elected representatives in Congress. It was an awesome responsibility and an important one. I think it was the right responsibility given to the people through their elected representatives.

After World War II, there were several engagements by the American military without such declaration of war. Those were, of course, controversial and debated, but I am sure you recall and I do, too, October of the year 2002, when this Senate was called on, with the House of Representatives, to consider the invasion of Iraq and the authorization of use of military force for that purpose.

We may have forgotten by now, 20 years later, but I remember very vividly the fearsome national debate over whether this Nation, having been hit by 9/11, needed to invade Iraq.

The rationale was weapons of mass destruction were present in Iraq, threatening not only nations in the Middle East, which were our friends and allies, but even threatening the United States of America.

That threat, weapons of mass destruction, was beaten into our heads day after day. But many of us were skeptical, and the vote came on the floor of the Senate, I recall, in October of 2002. It happened late at night. And at the end of the day, there were 23 of us--1 Republican and 22 Democrats--who voted against that authorization for the use of military force in Iraq.

I look back on it, as I am sure others do, as one of the most important votes

that I ever cast. It was not only a decision about going to war, but it was a false argument that weapons of mass destruction were threatening anyone.

After invading and after making the commitment of the American military force, along with our allies, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq. It was a lie perpetrated by those who wanted to drag the United States into the Middle East for a long-term commitment and a dubious threat to our country.

The repeal of this authorization of use of military force does not mean the United States has become a pacifist nation. It means that the United States is going to be a constitutional nation, and the premise of our Founding Fathers will be respected.

If there is cause for us to use military force in the future, we should properly follow that Constitution and let the American people have their own voice in this process through their elected representatives in Congress. I am cosponsoring and fully support removal of this authorization of use of military force and believe it is consistent with the vote many of us cast in 2002 against that premise.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Jessica G.L. Clarke to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Born in Akron, OH, Ms. Clarke received her B.A. from Northwestern University in 2001 and earned her J.D. from The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law in 2008. She then clerked for Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr., on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio from 2008 to 2010.

Ms. Clarke began her legal career in 2010, as a trial attorney at the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section. During her 6 years investigating and litigating civil rights violations, Ms. Clarke gained significant litigation experience, including successfully trying a ``first-of-its-kind'' housing discrimination case and also securing the largest settlement of its kind in another housing discrimination matter. In 2016, Ms. Clarke went into private practice in New York City for 3 years, focusing on commercial litigation and affirmative civil rights work. Since 2019, she has served as the chief of the Civil Rights Bureau at the New York State Office of the Attorney General, supervising the Bureau's attorneys and staff in enforcing Federal, State, and local civil rights laws in New York.

The American Bar Association has unanimously rated Ms. Clarke ``qualified'' to serve on the Southern District of New York. Senators Schumer and Gillibrand strongly support her nomination as well.

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

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

Madam President, behind the scenes of our Nation's courtrooms and jails, we will find some of our most dedicated public servants. They are America's public defense lawyers. They work long hours for low pay, and even less attention and acclaim, to protect the most American ideal: equal justice under the law. It is thanks to their service that every single citizen in this country is guaranteed the right to legal counsel.

Well, this Saturday, we have a chance to honor them. It is National Public Defender Day. This year, National Public Defender Day also marks a major milestone in legal history. It is the 60th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in the landmark case Gideon v. Wainwright.

As hard as it is to imagine, there were days before the Gideon decision when the constitutional right to legal counsel was not protected. That means, in some States, if you were charged with a crime but couldn't afford a lawyer, you were on your own.

That is exactly what happened to a man named Clarence Gideon in the summer of 1961. At the time, he was down on his luck, struggling with the disease of addiction on the streets of Panama City, FL.

Early one morning in June, he was arrested for a burglary. The evidence against him: A witness claimed that they saw him steal from a local pool hall. The police arrested him based on that accusation alone.

When Mr. Gideon appeared in court, he told the judge he couldn't afford a lawyer, and he asked for an appointed attorney. The judge denied his request. He told Mr. Gideon the court could only appoint counsel to defendants facing the death penalty. In other words, Mr. Gideon was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, which has been enshrined in our Constitution since the enactment of the Bill of Rights, because he wasn't accused of a very serious crime.

Well, Mr. Gideon didn't need a law degree to know something was wrong here. So he picked up a pen and a sheet of paper and wrote a letter to the U.S. Supreme Court, and with that letter, he changed history.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear his case and finally appointed him an attorney--and not just an average attorney--future Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas.

Fast-forward to March of 1963. The Court issued its decision. All nine Justices ruled unanimously in favor of Mr. Gideon. In the majority opinion, Justice Hugo Black said, ``Lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries,'' and he concluded that the ``noble ideal . . . [of] . . . fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law . . . cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him.''

In the six decades since Gideon, generations of public defenders have stepped up to ensure that no one is denied their right to legal counsel, and for our most vulnerable neighbors in particular, public defenders are an indispensable protection. They have protected the rights of low-income and indigent Americans. They have helped defendants access resources and services to get their lives back on track, and they have worked day in and day out to secure sentences that are humane and proportional.

Moreover, public defenders provide a service to all of us by strengthening the integrity of our system of justice. Think about this: The United States has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world. So when defendants are denied adequate legal representation, they could end up behind bars for crimes they did not commit or receive excessive or even inhumane sentences for those that they did commit. That is a subversion of justice that wastes resources, violates fundamental values, and, worst of all, treats humans as if they are disposable objects. So all of us owe a debt of gratitude to the public defenders fighting against these injustices.

But we also need to show that gratitude by providing public defenders with the resources they need to advocate for their clients. While the legal profession may be lucrative for attorneys working in big, corporate boardrooms, the reality is very different for lawyers who dedicate themselves to public service. One recent study indicates that--when accounting for the cost of overhead--public defenders can earn as little as $5.16 an hour.

With meager salaries for long hours of work, it is really no wonder that we are currently facing a shortage of public defense lawyers. And that shortage is having a detrimental impact across the country. Criminal cases are going unresolved, defendants in need of medical and mental services are not being treated, and justice is being delayed-- and therefore--denied. This is a problem that effects every part of the country. And right now, States like New Mexico and Oregon have a third of the number of public defenders they need to clear their criminal caseload.

Today, Senator Booker and I will be introducing two bills to underscore the value of public defenders and provide them with greater funding and resources. One of these bills is a piece of legislation we first introduced in 2021: the Sentencing Commission Improvements Act. We wrote this bill for a simple reason. Public defenders not only provide an invaluable service to our country, they also offer an invaluable perspective.

These legal professionals spend countless hours with vulnerable defendants, as well as their families. They see firsthand how the disease of addiction can lead people down the wrong path and understand how to best support them, so they can get on the road to recovery.

Public defenders help console children who are coming to terms with the fact that they may not hug a parent for years because they are behind bars. And they are there to hold a parent's hand when they find out their son or daughter has received a lengthy sentence. Public defenders understand the sobering--and sometimes grim--reality of our justice system better than anyone. So to build a system that actually prepares incarcerated people to reenter society and become productive citizens, we need to give public defenders a seat at the decision- making table. The Sentencing Commission Improvements Act will achieve that by adding an ex officio member to the U.S. Sentencing Commission who is a public defender. It is exactly the perspective the Commission needs to develop fairer sentencing guidelines.

Our other bill is the Quality Defense Act. It will create a grant program to help fund data collection, hiring, increased compensation, and loan assistance programs for public defenders. This bill also directs the Justice Department to study and develop best practices and recommendations on appropriate public defender caseloads and levels of compensation. These measures will provide public defenders with resources that reflect the importance of their service and encourage attorneys to pursue careers as public defenders.

I believe our justice system is stronger when it incorporates the insights of experts who have worked across the legal spectrum. That is why, as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have worked to confirm Federal judges who have served as public defenders. These perspectives have long been excluded from the Federal bench, which is a disservice to the American public. Thankfully, we are finally changing course. Last year, this Senate confirmed the first former public defender to ever serve on the Supreme Court: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

And in the past 2 years, we have confirmed more circuit judges with experience as public defenders than all prior Presidents combined. One of them is Judge Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, who serves on the Seventh Circuit in my home State of Illinois. Back in 2017, Judge Jackson- Akiwumi reflected on her time as a public defender--and how it tested her as a legal professional.

She wrote that, as a public defender, ``I am a counselor, helping clients to navigate difficult choices. . . . I am a teacher, introducing clients and their families to the federal court system . . .

``[and] I am a lay social worker: many of our clients have disadvantaged backgrounds, extensive mental health histories, substance abuse issues, and other everyday challenges.''

When you work as a public defender, the job demands a lot more than a simple attorney-client relationship. It is a job that demands resourcefulness, thoughtfulness, and quick, strategic thinking. These are the same qualities we need in the judges who serve on our Nation's Federal courts. And they are the same qualities people look for when they enter the courtroom as a plaintiff or defendant.

So as we honor National Public Defender Day this weekend, I want to thank all of our courageous and dedicated public defense attorneys across America. We are grateful for your commitment to defending equal justice under law.

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.