-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to strongly oppose the confirmation of Rachael Rollins to be U.S. attorney in Massachusetts.

Many Americans have probably never heard of Rachael Rollins, but they are becoming very familiar with the kind of lawlessness and dangerous crime that radical, leftwing district attorneys like her have generated. Under their watch, we have seen looting and larceny and violent crime rates rise in cities all over the country the past couple of years.

Ms. Rollins is part of a web of leftwing district attorneys across the country who see it as their job not to prosecute crime; rather, to protect criminals. There is Ms. Rollins in Boston, Chesa Boudin in San Francisco, Kim Gardner in St. Louis, Kim Foxx in Chicago, Larry Krasner in Philadelphia, and John Chisholm in Milwaukee, among others.

What has happened with these prosecutors who refuse to prosecute crime?

Well, all too predictably, crime rates have skyrocketed.

Last year, the murder rate went up nearly 30 percent overall, and it went up 40 percent in cities with populations between 100,000 and 250,000.

We have seen horrific crimes and tragedies that could have been prevented if these DAs had simply done their jobs.

Take John Chisholm, the DA in Milwaukee, who released Darrell Brooks, a repeat and dangerous criminal, on $1,000 bail.

What was the crime he was charged with?

Using his vehicle--a red SUV--to run down a woman, the mother of his child.

Released on $1,000 bail, what happened?

Brooks, as we all know, drove that same red SUV through a Christmas parade, murdered six people, including an 8-year-old boy.

That man should not have been on the streets, should not have been behind the wheel. The DA knew he was a violent criminal who used that SUV as an instrument of violence and, for $1,000, the leftwing DA let him go. Had Brooks not been out on such a low bail, this horrific tragedy wouldn't have occurred; that 8-year-old boy would still be alive.

Our communities don't need prosecutors who endanger the very communities they are supposed to serve by refusing to prosecute or detain criminals. They don't need leftwing prosecutors who let violent criminals walk the streets.

The damage that these so-called prosecutors can do has, thankfully, been somewhat limited by the fact that, when they choose not to prosecute criminals, the Federal Government has the ability, in many instances, to step in and charge criminals federally.

But Joe Biden and Senate Democrats are working to change that by elevating one of these radical, leftist, soft-on-crime district attorneys, Rachael Rollins, to be the U.S. attorney in Massachusetts-- the chief Federal prosecutor in the entire State of Massachusetts.

Let's talk a bit more about what exactly Rachael Rollins believes prosecutors should do and what her record is.

Rachael Rollins has been vocal and aggressive against prosecuting crime. She has been very clear that she came into the job of district attorney as a crusader.

She has said--and these are her words:

If you want to change the criminal legal system, become a prosecutor [because they have the] power to determine charges, what crimes to decline to prosecute or divert, [and] how to fashion bail hearings.

She has been quite open in what her intentions are. Ms. Rollins tells us that what matters about a prosecutor is not taking bad guys off the street; it is not seeking justice for the victims of crime. No. It is the power to say: ``I won't prosecute these crimes.''

(Ms. ROSEN assumed the chair.)

And with Ms. Rollins, it is not hypothetical because she is a district attorney. And as the Boston DA, she went so far as to write down in ``The Rachael Rollins Policy Memo,'' a list of 15 crimes whose prosecution should ``always be declined'' or ``dismissed without conditions.''

Charges on this list of 15 crimes should be declined or dismissed prearraignment without conditions. The presumption is that charges that fall into this category should always be declined.

So you have a DA saying these are the crimes we don't prosecute, ``always be declined,'' ``dismissed without conditions.''

So you may say: ``OK. Maybe this is like some sort of criminal justice reform. Maybe this is low-level, nonviolent marijuana possession. A teenager got caught with a joint; we are not going to prosecute them.'' Reasonable people can actually disagree on that. We can have an intelligent conversation back and forth about that.

But the beauty of it is that we don't have to speculate because she put it in writing. These are the 15 crimes. They are upside down, as are her policies. These are the 15 crimes where charges should be dismissed prearraignment without conditions:

No. 1, trespass. Now, I want you to think about it. If you don't want to see people trespassing on your property, well, under Rachael Rollins, the Democrats' U.S. attorney, we don't prosecute trespass.

What else?

Shoplifting. Has anyone watched the videos of the people breaking into stores and stealing and stealing and stealing and looting? Do you know what? Joe Biden and Senate Democrats--they are bringing that to a neighborhood near you.

Shoplifting, we don't prosecute. That is what she said. Shoplifting, olly oxen free. If you see a TV you like, pick that damn thing up and run out of the store because your friend, the fake prosecutor, is not going to charge you.

Larceny. Really, larceny? Larceny, we don't prosecute.

Disorderly conduct. You are a single mom coming home at night. A drunk vagrant is yelling, screaming, cursing at your kids. Do you know what? Not a crime here. We don't prosecute that.

What else?

Receiving stolen property. OK. This is at least intellectually consistent. If you are going to legalize shoplifting, rob the hell out of the stores, at least the fence can be on the back end. You can steal that TV and go straight to the fence. By the way, I guess you can do it in a parking lot. Set up a van right there. ``We fence stolen property.'' You run in and grab it, I will fence it right here. DA? ``All good by us.''

Driving with a suspended license. Well, sometimes that might be OK.

What was it suspended for? Was it suspended for DWI? Was it suspended because you are a drunk who has killed people? Were you suspended because you are this homicidal maniac in Milwaukee who murdered six people?

Do you know what? This DA says: ``Hey, driving with a suspended license, no problem at all, no longer a crime.''

Breaking and entering into a vacant property without property damage. So any property that is vacant, you can break in, and you are fine. Locks don't matter. Burglar alarms don't matter. By the way, if a burglar alarm goes off, what the hell do you do? You show up, ``Hey, you don't prosecute it. I'm staying right here.''

You may say: ``Well, at least it is something reasonable, without property damage, right?'' Well, now, except the problem is No. 8 on the list: breaking and entering into a vacant property with property damage.

So it doesn't matter. Break into the place, loot it, trash it, destroy it. All is good in Joe Biden's criminal-friendly America.

No. 9, wanton or malicious destruction of property. By the way, don't believe the Democratic talking point: ``This stuff isn't violent.'' Really, wanton or malicious destruction of property? Not a crime in Joe Biden's America.

Threats, threats of violence. I want you to imagine right now you have got an angry vagrant making threats of violence against your children. You call the DA and say: ``My family is being threatened. Protect our safety.'' And what does she say? ``Not a crime.''

Oh, well, stinks to be you. Threats are just A-OK.

Minor in possession of alcohol. Hey, great. Kids, drink up. Actually, the beauty of it is, in Joe Biden's America, the kids can get drunk; they can drive; they can have their license suspended; and apparently they will get a gold star at the end of it. Minors in possession of alcohol. We have got Senate pages here. Just go down to the U.S. attorney's office. They are serving margaritas.

Marijuana possession. OK. As I said, we can debate marijuana possession. Reasonable people can disagree on that. Now, it doesn't specify the quantity. A teenager with a joint? You can say that that may be a good candidate for diversion to something else. Drug dealer with several kilos of pot in the back, maybe you ought to be prosecuting that.

Oh, and, by the way, how do we know she doesn't just limit it to kids with a joint? Well, what is No. 13 on the list? Possession with intent to distribute.

So, drug dealers--in Joe Biden's America, drug dealers, it is legal. You can sell booze to kids. You can sell drugs to kids. You can sell stolen televisions to kids. She doesn't prosecute drug dealers.

But look, at least it is just pot and come on, we know--you know, in States--in a lot of States pot is not that bad, right? It is just pot.

Uh-oh. No. 14, nonmarijuana drug possession. So for any Democrats ready to go home, saying, ``Hey, we just like pot because we are Democrats,'' nope. Heroin, cocaine, LSD, fentanyl drug dealers who are poisoning our kids, in Joe Biden's America, we don't prosecute you.

And No. 15 is really the crowning jewel of this--resisting arrest. So I want you to envision what this says. You can break and enter into a vacant property and do damage. You can have a homeless person trespass on your front lawn, set up a tent, threaten your children, sell them drugs, and if a police officer shows up and tries to arrest them, they can violently resist arrest. And what does the DA say? ``All good by me. Not a crime.''

Madam President, this is, in a word, nuts. This is crazy.

And do you know what? This is what the Democrats support.

I will tell you why. The Democrats are counting on the news media refusing to cover this. The Democrats are counting on ABC, NBC, and CBS--this is not news. The Democrats are counting on CNN will not cover this.

Every single Democrat in this body has voted for Rachael Rollins. They had to bring Vice President Harris out to break the tie.

And, you know, Democrats, when they go home, they like to say: ``We are not for abolishing the police.''

No. Do you know what? When you vote to confirm a lawless so-called prosecutor who says ``I won't prosecute crime,'' you have abolished the police. Cops can arrest them, but the DA will let them go. And what does she say? ``Dismissed . . . prearraignment . . . without conditions.''

This is radical and extreme, and I want to make a challenge to Senate Democrat colleagues. Some of you are in purple States. A few of you are in red States. Some of you are in bright blue States. I challenge any of you in the bluest State of the Union to go home to your constituents, get any gathering in a townhall, and put this chart in front of them. Ask your constituents: Do the people of Nevada agree that we shouldn't prosecute trespassing or shoplifting or drug dealing or resisting arrest or violent threats? Do the people of Virginia agree that these are not crimes and shouldn't be prosecuted?

And I promise you, in all 50 States, there is not a State too blue where your constituents would agree on this. And so what our Democratic colleagues are counting on is that people won't know.

You know, before the vote, I spoke with several Democrats. I tried to tell several Democrats, this is a bad vote. This is a vote you are going to regret. This is a vote your constituents are going to be mad at you for. One of those Democrats said: ``Well, the majority leader asked me to do it.''

You know, crack the whip, party unity, party discipline. The order from the Democrats in the White House is this is the chief Federal law enforcement officer in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. God help you if you don't want violent criminals robbing your store. God help you if you don't want drunken homeless people setting up tents in your front yard. God help you if you don't want drug dealers selling drugs to your children because Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have said those are all A- OK. And if you don't believe me--because in this bizarre partisan world nobody believes the other side--read the memo, ``The Rachael Rollins Policy Memo.'' She wrote it. She put her name on it in writing. This is what it says.

If we lived in a time of sanity--Senators on both sides--Democrats listening to this would say: ``Hold on a second. That doesn't make any sense at all. Let's tap the brakes.''

By the way, one Democrat could stop this nomination--one. Every individual Democrat, you had the choice. It means every one of you is also the deciding vote. So when you go back to your home State, you singlehandedly decided this lawless, so-called prosecutor should be confirmed.

I will tell you this, you can never again claim you oppose abolishing the police because this vote is front and center: trespassing, not prosecuted; shoplifting; larceny; disorderly conduct; receiving stolen property; driving with a suspended license; breaking and entering with property damage; loss and malicious destruction of property; threats; minors in possession of alcohol; marijuana possession; possession with intent to distribute; nonmarijuana drug possession.

I don't ever want to see a Democrat standing up here talking about fentanyl: Fentanyl is terrible. I don't want to see another Democrat talking about the opioid crisis, saying: ``People are dying in New Hampshire. People are dying in my State.'' They are, and you are about to vote for a prosecutor who won't prosecute the drug dealers selling those opioids and poisoning our children and won't prosecute resisting arrest. So, if a cop comes, take a swing.

To my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle, there is still time for you to stop this nomination. I implore of you: Listen to your constituents and do the right thing.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source