Floor Statements

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

Mr. Subramanian attended Case Western Reserve University and Columbia Law School. After graduating, he went on to clerk at all levels of the Federal judiciary--first for Judge Dennis Jacobs on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, then for Judge Gerard E. Lynch on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and finally for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr. Subramanian then entered private practice in Manhattan, where he has focused on complex civil litigation. His work has covered a wide variety of issue areas, including State and Federal false claims, commercial and employment contract disputes, tort actions, securities, antitrust, fraud, and patent litigation. Mr. Subramanian has also dedicated hundreds of hours to his pro bono work, and he also coordinates his law firm's pro bono activities.

He was unanimously rated ``well qualified'' by the ABA and received a bipartisan vote in committee. In addition, he has the strong support of his home State Senators--Mr. Schumer and Mrs. Gillibrand--and his Supreme Court co-clerks. His fellow clerks emphasized that they had witnessed Mr. Subramanian's ``collegial, candid, and fair-minded temperament.''

Given his significant litigation experience and strong ties to the Southern District of New York, Mr. Subramanian will make an excellent addition to the District Court bench. I strongly support his nomination and urge 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 Arizona (Mr. Kelly) are necessarily absent.

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

Mr. President, today, the Senate voted to confirm Judge Robert Ballou to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia.

Born in Roanoke, VA, Judge Ballou received both his bachelor's degree and J.D. from the University of Virginia. After clerking for Judge Peter H. Beer on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Judge Ballou began his legal career at Christian, Barton, Epps, Brent & Chappell as an associate, where he worked on a variety of matters, including insurance defense, products liability, and traffic and misdemeanor offenses. He then went on to work for Johnson, Ayers & Matthews, PLC as an associate, where he tried more than 50 cases to verdict before a jury, including matters involving personal injury, products liability, and construction defects. In 2011, Judge Ballou was appointed to serve as a U.S. magistrate judge for the same district to which he is now nominated. As a magistrate, he has presided over approximately 300 cases.

The American Bar Association rated Judge Ballou unanimously ``well qualified,'' and he has the strong support of Senators Warner and Kaine. Judge Ballou's deep ties to the Virginia legal community, combined with his significant courtroom experience, will make him an excellent addition to the Federal district court bench.

I was pleased to support his nomination.

Madam President, I have a few statements I would like to make this morning, but I would like to respond to the Republican leader's statement that he just completed.

I am not naive when it comes to Iran. I know what is happening there from press reports. Their treatment of women is abominable. There is no excuse for it. And the protests in the streets of Tehran and all across that country really are an expression of human dignity which the United States--at least I as a Senator in the United States--supports publicly.

Secondly, there are no excuses for the assistance Iran is giving to Vladimir Putin and his ruthless attack on the people of Ukraine. I won't make excuses for that or any other terrorist conduct by Iran.

But for the record--for the record--it was President Obama who moved forward with the notion that we ought to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. They are guilty of bad conduct in many quarters, but we didn't want them to have a nuclear weapon. We didn't think it made America any safer, the Middle East safer, or our allies like Israel any safer either.

So President Obama pushed for an arms control when it came to the development of nuclear weapons, and Iran had put together a coalition which sounds amazing today. To think that he could gather at one table in this effort--Russia, China, Great Britain, France, the European Union, and the United States in this effort to stop the Iranians from developing a nuclear weapon was nothing short of a political miracle.

It was resisted every step of the way by the Republicans. They didn't want to have this. We did it anyway. And with this nuclear effort was an inspection team--an international inspection team--on the ground in Iran to make sure they didn't violate it. We were safer--not by much, but we were safer then. And then who came along but President Donald Trump who said his approach would be just the opposite.

We are going to eliminate the whole program to stop Iran from developing a nuclear program, and he did.

So for the Republicans to come before us today and argue that we are not being tough enough on Iran, I would like to tell them that I am not going to make excuses for Iran and its foreign policy. But there are nuclear weapons we had a chance to do something about, and some of us voted for it, some of us voted against it. I think that ought to be a matter of public record.

Madam President, on a separate subject matter, the city of Chicago, which I represent, is a city in mourning today.

Last Thursday, Chicago police officer Andres Vasquez-Lasso was killed while responding to a domestic violence 911 call that ended in a chase and an exchange of gunfire with the suspect. Officer Vasquez-Lasso was 32 years old. He had been on the police force for 5 years. He is married. The man accused of killing him is 18 years old.

Officer Vasquez-Lasso had chased this man a short distance on foot when the man reportedly turned on him, pointed a gun at him, and killed him. That chase ended on the playground of an elementary school in the city of Chicago where neighborhood kids were playing. As the bullets flew, the children took cover under slides and other playground equipment. Officer Vasquez-Lasso was shot three times--in the arm, leg, and head.

He was the first Chicago police officer killed in the line of duty since Officer Ella French was murdered 18 months ago during a traffic stop. They had a memorial service for Officer French. My wife and I went to it. It was at St. Rita High School in the Beverly section of Chicago. I have never seen a larger outpouring of men and women in uniform come and pay tribute to this officer who was killed in a traffic stop.

I was there with my wife, and we had a personal feeling about the occasion once we went inside, saw her family, and heard more about her life. I got to know her mom. And when the time came, we picked a program to help police across the United States, and we are working to name it after her in her honor for serving not only the city of Chicago but the country in protecting us. Sadly, here we are again.

Officer Vasquez-Lasso just didn't protect the Southwest Side neighborhood where he served. He actually lived there. He and his wife had bought a home only 2 and a half miles from where he was killed about a year and a half ago. And I want to say clearly for the record something that needs to be said: Officer Vasquez-Lasso was an immigrant to this country. He came here from Colombia. He became a citizen and became a police officer, and he gave his life for the people who live in this country.

On this Wednesday night, police officers, other first responders, and community members lined the streets to salute the ambulance carrying his body as it drove slowly from the hospital where he died to the county medical examiner's office.

On Thursday, black bunting draped the entrance to the 8th district headquarters where Officer Vasquez-Lasso was assigned. Several vigils have been held around the city of Chicago since his death. The largest was a candlelight prayer vigil Thursday evening in Hale Park, attended by the officer's wife and mother. Hundreds of police officers, community members, and friends came out to pay their respects. A friend at the prayer vigil recalled that Officer Vasquez-Lasso was ``always a proper man.'' A fellow officer said, ``He was always smiling.''

Today, a memorial stands on the block where he was shot down. People drop off flowers and notes and other tributes. A rosary hangs on the fence. Illinois Governor J.P. Pritzker has ordered all flags in our State to fly at half-staff until Officer Vasquez-Lasso is laid to rest on Thursday.

These are especially difficult times to be a member of law enforcement. A growing arsenal of high-powered guns in the hands of criminals and domestic abusers makes policing more dangerous than it has ever been. Domestic violence calls are always fraught with danger for police, victims, and innocent people standing by.

At the suspect's bail hearing, Judge Mary Marubio noted that danger when she said:

This case, from start to finish, it begins in violence and

it ends in violence.

The director of a local domestic violence prevention organization said, ``Your heart breaks because it was all so preventable.''

Madam President, for the sake of law enforcement officers who protect our communities and the victims of violence, we must do more to break the cycle of violence that kills far too many and leaves many more scarred. We must--must--do more to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who flatly should not have them.

The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that Congress passed last year in the wake of the horrific Uvalde school shooting made important progress, but more is needed to protect our communities and our law enforcement officers.

In closing, I want to offer my condolences to Officer Vasquez-Lasso's family, especially his wife Milena Estepa, his mother Rocio Lasso, his sister, and niece, as well as his fellow officers in the Chicago Police Department, and his many, many friends.

Officer Vasquez-Lasso gave his life protecting his community. He was protecting the children on that playground and the families living in the community that he personally called home.

We join the city of Chicago in saluting his courage and mourning his loss.

Madam President, last week, pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly announced that it was going to lower the price of its insulin product. It is called Humalog. They are going to lower it dramatically by 70 percent and cap the out-of-pocket costs for insulin at $35 a month. After two decades of price gouging, this is a major relief for more than 7 million patients--more than 200,000 living in my State of Illinois--who depend on insulin every day to stay alive.

But, despite the importance of this announcement, I won't be sending thank-you cards to the executives of this pharmaceutical company. You see, it was a century ago--100 years ago--when basic forms of insulin were discovered. The Nobel Prize-winning researchers who pioneered that discovery surrendered the patent rights--their property rights--in this new discovery for $1. Why? To prevent profiteering on this lifesaving medication.

Now fast-forward almost 100 years to 1996. Eli Lilly introduces its insulin drug Humalog. They set the price of a vial of this insulin at $21. It made sense, as it only cost a few dollars to manufacture. But in the years since 1996, Eli Lilly prioritized profits over patients. The same vial of insulin that Eli Lilly first sold for $21 was now being sold for $300. Eli Lilly raised the price more than 30 separate times.

What happened to the same drug, made by the same company, sold in Canada? It was only $40. But it was $300 in the United States. Is it any wonder that Eli Lilly generated more than $22 billion in revenue from insulin alone in 2014 and 2018?

Let me repeat that. There was $22 billion in revenue during that 4- year period.

Let's be clear. During the same time, Eli Lilly spent $1.5 billion on sales and marketing for insulin. Try to turn on the television set and get away with not seeing a pharmaceutical commercial from this company and so many others. Eli Lilly spent four times more than it spent on research for marketing this product and others.

The company's profit-taking on this life-or-death drug has had deadly consequences. When the price went up to $300 a month, many people just couldn't afford it. More than 1 million Americans report having to ration or cut back doses of insulin--an extremely dangerous gamble.

I received a letter from one of my constituents from Palos Park, who faced that. His name is Phil. He is 73 years old. Phil told me he has had to skip insulin injections because of the cost. He wrote that he was ``anxiously awaiting lower prescription prices.''

Well, there is good news for Phil and a lot of other Americans. You don't have to wait any longer. Last year, the Democrats lowered the cost of prescription drugs.

Why didn't I say that the Senate lowered the cost? Because not a single Republican would vote for it--not one.

We enacted a new penalty to stop Pharma's outrageous price hikes. We enabled Medicare to finally negotiate lower prices. We also made vaccines, like the shingles vaccine, which costs nearly $400 a course, entirely free for seniors under Medicare. We have said that no senior on Medicare will pay more than $2,000 out-of-pocket for medications in a year. Finally, we capped the price of insulin at $35 a month.

All of these measures were part of the Inflation Reduction Act, which President Biden signed into law and Republican Members of the House are now saying they want to repeal in its entirety. Clearly, our legislation put Big Pharma on notice. It let them know their days of price gouging are numbered.

We are not finished. There are now two very different visions of healthcare in America: the Democratic vision and the Republican vision. Instead of voting to cap insulin prices, Republicans blocked our proposal that would have applied the $35 premium to all Americans and not just senior citizens. We needed 10 Republican votes on the floor. We got 7. And get this. Now many Republicans are talking about repealing the whole law and raising drug prices--exactly what America does not need.

As long as we are in charge in the Senate and have a President in the White House, we won't let it happen. In fact, we want to work with Republicans, if they are willing, to do more. Let's extend the $35 insulin cap to all other diabetic patients in America. Is that a radical idea? Senator Warnock of Georgia has a bill to do this. The question: Are the Republicans willing to join us? That is what it takes to pass it.

While we are at it, let's put an end to Pharma's scheme to unjustifiably extend monopolies and harm patients' access to drugs. Last month, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I chair, reported out five bipartisan bills to address patent abuse and other tactics that prevent generic drugs from coming on the market, keeping prices high for American families.

The full Senate should take up and pass these bills, and we should pass the bill that I have introduced with the Republican from Iowa, Senator Grassley, to address the outrageous direct-to-consumer drug ads that we all see on television.

We all see them. On average, every American who watches TV is going to see nine drug ads every single day. How many countries allow the advertising of drugs on television? Two, the United States of America and New Zealand. Go figure. Pharma spent $6 billion a year flooding the airwaves so that the average American sees all of those ads that promote the most expensive drugs in the world. Pharma thinks, if they bombard you enough with ads so that you finally get to the point you might be able to spell Xarelto, you will insist to your doctor that that is the blood thinner you want even though there may be less expensive alternatives that are just as effective.

Well, Senator Grassley and I have a radical idea. If they can put all of those disclaimers on those ads and give you all the information and say things that sound nonsensical on their face--if you are allergic to this drug, don't take this drug--how do I know I am allergic? Well, if you put all of that on there, they ought to be able to put for 5 seconds on every ad the cost of the drug--the cost of the drug.

You would be amazed. Some of these drugs cost $9,000 and $10,000 a month, and they are peddling them on the air like they are just pretty common, pretty affordable. They are not. If they are advertising a drug and rattling off side effects, they should disclose the price up front. It is a basic step toward transparency for patients. Even former President Trump agreed with us on this one. He supported our efforts.

I am glad we capped the price of insulin, but there is a lot more to do. I hope it will be bipartisan. If it isn't bipartisan, it is going nowhere. I hope the Republicans join us as people across America celebrate the affordability of prescription drugs for Medicare recipients.

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, I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 37, confirmation of the nomination of Colleen Lawless to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of Illinois. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yea.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 38, motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Gordon P. Gallagher to be a 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. 39, Confirmation of the nomination of Jonathan James Grey to be a U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yea.

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

Madam President, today, the Senate voted to confirm Colleen Lawless to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in my hometown of Springfield.

Born in Joliet, IL, Judge Lawless received her bachelor's degree from Illinois Wesleyan University and her J.D. from Northern Illinois University College of Law. After graduating from law school, Judge Lawless joined the Springfield, IL, firm Londrigan, Potter & Randle P.C., where she represented plaintiffs and defendants in State and Federal courts, including the court to which she has now been nominated. In this role, she handled matters ranging from employment discrimination to medical malpractice to family law and tried four cases to verdict before a jury.

In 2019, the judges of Illinois' Seventh Judicial Circuit appointed Judge Lawless to serve as an associate circuit judge, and she is currently assigned to the domestic relations division. Since her appointment to the bench, Judge Lawless has presided over 125 domestic relations bench trials and many more proceedings implicating mental health commitments, small claims, evictions, and emergency protection orders. Notably, she has never been reversed or significantly criticized by a reviewing court.

Judge Lawless received a rating of ``well qualified'' from the ABA and a bipartisan vote in committee. She was also highly recommended by a judicial screening committee that Senator Duckworth and I established to consider judicial candidates for the Central District of Illinois.

Judge Lawless will fill the Springfield-based seat that has been occupied over the past decade by Judge Sue Myerscough. I want to thank Judge Myerscough for her outstanding service to the people of the central Illinois. She leaves big shoes to fill, but I am confident that Judge Lawless is more than up to the task. Given her significant trial experience and deep knowledge of the Central District, Senator Duckworth and I strongly support Judge Lawless. I was glad to see her confirmed.

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

Madam President, today the Senate confirmed Judge Jonathan Grey to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Born in Poplarville, MS, Judge Grey attended Morehouse College and the Georgetown University Law Center before serving as a law clerk to both Judge Damon J. Keith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and Judge W. Louis Sands of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. He then began his career in private practice as an associate at Seyfarth Shaw, LLC, a role in which he focused on labor and employment matters in Federal, State, and local courts, as well as before administrative agencies. As an Assistant United States Attorney for both the Southern District of Ohio and the Eastern District of Michigan, Judge Grey briefed and argued dozens of dispositive and nondispositive motions and also led several substantial investigations in cases that spanned multiple States and countries. In 2021, Judge Grey was appointed to serve as a magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, where he has written opinions in approximately 40 cases.

The American Bar Association rated Judge Grey as unanimously ``well qualified,'' and he enjoys the strong support of Senators Stabenow and Peters. Judge Grey's experience as both a litigator and a jurist in the Eastern District of Michigan demonstrates his deep knowledge of the district to which he has been nominated to serve, and he will make an outstanding addition to the Federal bench. I was glad to see him confirmed.

Mr. President, today the Senate will vote to confirm Judge Margaret Guzman to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Judge Guzman has had a lengthy and distinguished career in public service and is highly qualified to be a district court judge. Judge Guzman received her B.A. from Clark University and her J.D. from Boston University Law School. She then served as a public defender for 13 years and later as a solo practitioner for 4 years. Throughout her legal career, she tried more than 175 cases to verdict, judgment, or final decision. In 2009, Judge Guzman was appointed to be an associate justice of the District Court on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Trial Court. Since 2017, she has been the first justice and a district court judge on the Ayer District Court in Middlesex County, MA. While on the bench, Judge Guzman has presided over more than 1,000 cases that have gone to verdict or judgment.

In addition to bringing professional diversity to the courts as a former public defender, Judge Guzman would also bring demographic diversity to the bench as the first Hispanic judge to serve on the District of Massachusetts. The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary rated Judge Guzman ``qualified,'' and she has the strong support of her home State Senators, Mr. Markey and Ms. Warren.

I urge my colleagues to support Judge Guzman's nomination.

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

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

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