Floor Statements

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.

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

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

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

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 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.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) are 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, it seems a little unusual to follow Senator Schumer because usually Senator McConnell is next, and we certainly understand why he is not here today. He is in recovery from a fall that he experienced last week. We wish him the very best and hope he is back very soon.

Mr. President, there is an old saying that there aren't a lot of atheists in foxholes.

In my experience, there aren't a lot of unyielding, uncompromising, fiscally conservative, so-called budget hawks when a disaster hits. It gets personal. When tornadoes rip across your State or hurricanes devastate your community, when a cold snap takes down the electric grid in your State, when blazing heat sets off raging wildfires, when a freight train hauling

toxic chemicals derails and explodes into a raging fireball, you don't find a platoon of Ayn Rand-quoting ideologues that really come to the scene and want to be heard.

People want to see FEMA and other government Agencies on the scene helping as quickly as possible. They want to know that their government is there to help when it is needed.

When it gets right down to it, we Americans face a fundamental choice. Do we want a Federal Government that is there when we need a hand or do we want a government that will preach to us: Sorry. You are on your own, Mr. Taxpayer?

Do we want a government that is farsighted enough to plant the American flag on new industries and inventions for the future or do we plan on leaving these transformative discoveries--the Moonshots of this century--to China?

President Biden told us last week where he stands on these basic questions when he proposed his budget to Congress. It is a plan that protects Social Security, strengthens Medicare, and adds 25 years of additional solvency to the Medicare Program.

The President's budget plan gives working families help with the basics--affordable, reliable healthcare coverage, including savings on prescription drugs, which the Democratic leader just noted when it came to insulin.

The President's budget invests in affordable housing and quality childcare. It invests in community colleges to educate skilled workers that our economy desperately needs and helps students land good-paying jobs and get a start on a 4-year degree.

The President's budget restores the enhanced child tax credit, which helped cut poverty among children in the United States in half when we included it during the pandemic. We are, in fact, the richest Nation on Earth, yet, shamefully, we have the highest child poverty rate among all advanced nations. If the superwealthy can claim tax breaks on their yachts, surely we can find affordable tax credits to help working families care for their kids.

President Reagan called another part of the Tax Code--the earned income tax credit--the best anti-poverty program ever invented. President Biden is proposing to make the earned income tax credit for childless workers permanent to lift millions of low-wage Americans out of poverty. Isn't that something that should be our aspiration in this country as a high priority? If you say you believe in the dignity of work, if you say you respect men and women who take the bus early in the morning, working maybe two or even three jobs to make ends meet, here is a chance to show our respect for work--support the earned income tax credit.

President Biden's budget includes continued funding for a Cancer Moonshot to end cancer as we know it. What family in America hasn't known the heartache personally or among friends or family members and frequently the financial devastation of cancer? Not many.

I hope people not only embrace the administration's Cancer Moonshot but will continue the 5-percent real growth in medical research-- including the National Institutes of Health--that this Senate has supported on a bipartisan basis for nearly a decade.

I went out to National Institutes of Health about 10 years ago, and I met with one of the greatest living Americans--and I say that without reservation--Dr. Francis Collins. He was the head of the NIH under Presidents of both political parties and did a remarkable job. Among other things, he was one of the key elements and contributors in mapping the human genome. That has just transformed a whole area of medical research.

I said to Dr. Collins when I went out to see him: I want to help the National Institutes of Health with medical research. I know there was a time when a bipartisan coalition doubled your budget.

That coalition should be remembered on the floor of the Senate. It was Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania; Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa; and John Porter, a Republican Congressman from the North Shore of the State of Illinois. The three of them got together and doubled the budget for the National Institutes of Health.

I said to Dr. Collins: I want to do something that helps you. What can I do?

He said: Work to give us 5 percent real growth every single year.

Do you know why?

He said: Our researchers aren't sure you are going to be there next year, Congress. They are not sure you are going to fund their projects. So they don't follow through to the end, as they should. They lose patience and end up in some other place. If you can give them a reliable budget each year for medical research, they will continue their research and find dramatic breakthroughs.

In the words of Dr. Collins, he said: We can light up the scoreboard if you will make that commitment.

I came back here and talked to a number of my colleagues. I talked to Roy Blunt--now retired--from the State of Missouri. I talked to Patty Murray--of course still serving here and now chairing the Senate Appropriations Committee--from the State of Washington. I spoke to Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee. The four of us got together and put together a bipartisan team, and we achieved that goal of 5 percent real growth for 8 years. We went from $30 billion at the NIH to $40 billion at the NIH, and it makes a big difference. It made a big difference when the pandemic struck.

We are doing things now that really do improve the likelihood of finding cures for many diseases, and I want to continue with that. I am glad to report that President Biden's budget does just that. That is the kind of commitment we need to make in the Senate on a bipartisan basis for at least another decade.

The President's plan also strengths border security and the U.S. immigration system. There is no excuse why we have not rewritten our terrible immigration laws, our broken immigration system, in almost 30 years--30 years, since Ronald Reagan was President. That was the last time we ever agreed on any significant changes in immigration policy.

The world has changed dramatically. America has changed, and we still are laboring under the old laws, which do not meet today's needs. We need to do more. It is not enough to just appropriate money for border security; we need a plan that makes sense, that reflects our values as a nation of immigrants, which reflects the values we share when it comes to our future and recognizes the reality that many of these immigrants seeking to be part of the United States are going to make a significant difference not only in the lives of their families but in the lives of Americans all over.

These are people who have amazing energy and determination. I have yet to meet one of these new immigrants in my State of Illinois who is asking me where the welfare office is. They are asking me where they can go to work, and they are ready to roll up their sleeves and start working immediately. They are wonderful, ingenious, innovative, hard- charging people, and we need them in our future. It is time to wake up to the reality.

Having a system of orderly immigration in this country is the best thing to make sure we keep our labor pool strong and the best innovation available in entrepreneurial pursuits.

The President's budget also increases defense spending to ensure that we can deter any threats from China, Russia, Iran, or any other country that threatens us. It maintains our commitment to the brave fighters and people of Ukraine who are on the frontline of freedom in today's world.

I just read over the weekend where the Governor from the State of Florida really questioned whether we ought to be doing anything to help the people in Ukraine. I couldn't believe it when I read it, but I guess in politics, almost anything can happen.

To think that we would turn our backs now on these brave Ukrainians who for more than a year have fought off Vladimir Putin and his thugs invading their country in an unprovoked invasion is just, in my mind, mindless. If we can't stand up for the values of the Ukrainian people and stop this kind of ruthless, war-crime behavior by Vladimir Putin, shame on us. The United States needs to stand with the people of Ukraine, who are literally giving their lives on a daily basis for the future of their nation.

I might add, the President's budget honors Americans' commitment to our

military veterans, boosting investments in veterans' health and funding the PACT Act, which is going to allow those who were injured in service to our country by burn pits, for example, an opportunity to get the best quality medical care and to care for veterans sickened by service- connected exposure to toxic hazards.

This is important: According to the White House, if you earn less than $400,000 a year, the President's budget won't raise your taxes one dollar. That bears repeating. If your family earns less than $400,000 a year, your taxes under the President's budget will not go up one penny. He made that promise when he ran, and he has stuck with it.

The President pays for this plan by making the ultrawealthy, over $400,000, and big corporations finally pay their fair share. When 55 of the largest corporations in America paid no taxes--zero--last year, that is not a conservative precept; that is a big con, and it is not fair.

Now, we know the President's plan is just an opening bid of what promises to be a long, complicated budget process. We will undoubtedly see alternative proposals from both sides of the aisle. That is the nature of negotiations and debate. But it does take two sides.

I have to join with the Democratic leader in the Senate to say: Speaker McCarthy, where is your plan? Where is your budget? You talk big, but you don't produce anything. We want to see it.

During the last administration, our Republican colleagues voted to add nearly $8 trillion to the national debt. From the last administration was the single-largest increase in America's national debt than any other previous President. That is nearly one-quarter of all the debt accumulated since the beginning of this Nation. It happened in the last 4 years under the previous President. Most of the $8 trillion in new debt was piled on before the pandemic. A lot of it was spent on tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America and the corporations they own.

Now they say they want to eliminate the deficit in a decade. As Senator Schumer said earlier, it just doesn't pass the laugh test, let alone the math test.

What is the plan to do that? Put it on paper. Put it on the table, and let's see it, Speaker McCarthy. Are you going to cut education? healthcare? medical research? aid for veterans? FEMA?

The President's plan is on the table. Republicans have a responsibility to come up with a credible, serious counteroffer, not just bumper sticker slogans.

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

Mr. President, yesterday, I joined Leader Schumer, Senators Baldwin, Blumenthal, and Murray and a number of my colleagues in introducing a piece of legislation that is urgently needed. It is entitled the Women's Health Protection Act of 2023.

This bill would protect the right to obtain and provide reproductive healthcare--as basic as anything in America--as well as the freedom of Americans to seek this care free of medically unnecessary restrictions or limitations as to where a patient can receive it.

It has been about 9 months since the Thomas-Alito Court ripped away this fundamental right in America and put a target on the backs of women and healthcare providers across the country. Since then, we have heard one horror story after another--stories of rape victims as young as 10 years old who have been forced to travel across State lines to receive critical healthcare, stories of women who were suffering miscarriages but still have been denied care by doctors in red States where the doctors are afraid of being charged with a crime, stories of women who have been abandoned by their State's leaders, many of whom have found refuge in the State of Illinois.

Despite these stories of girls and women who have been denied critical healthcare because of partisan politics, Republicans are continuing to push dangerous abortion bans and restrictions. These politicians think they know better than the women who are affected by these decisions and their doctors.

Beware of the moment when legislators start playing doctor. They are doing it all across America on this issue. They are wrong.

We need to respect the freedom and right of women and the expertise of their medical professionals, period, and we need to recognize that politicians have no business in the hospital room or in the doctor's office. There should be a matter of privacy and respect that should be guiding our policy.

If we want to defend freedom and fundamental rights in America, we need to pass the Women's Health Protection Act.

The debate has even gone so far as to affect the corner drugstore.

This week, I was on the phone with the CEO of Walgreens, an Illinois- based company, one of the largest pharmacy companies in the United States of America. They are torn currently by an announcement of policy earlier this week which generated a lot of controversy: whether or not they will dispense medications which are used to end a pregnancy.

I begged them to at least wait until this issue has become clearer in the courts before taking a corporate position. The other major pharmacy chains are making the same decision themselves. We will find out what they conclude.

But it is an indication that this debate has gone far beyond the floor of the U.S. Senate in Washington--it is on your street corner; it is in your mall; it is in the shopping center that you have been going to all your life--as to whether or not you can have access to a drug that was judged safe and effective 20 years ago by the Federal Government.

That is what happens when legislators decide to be doctors.