-9999

Floor Speech

He said he has heard no explanation for why I am objecting to every Department of Justice nominee moving forward on a fast-track basis. That is false. He has heard my explanation repeatedly. He may not like it, but he has heard it.

I am taking this stance on behalf of four brave U.S. marshals who defended the Federal courthouse in Portland from leftwing street militias associated with the BLM movement and antifa.

The summer of 2020 was part of riots all across our country, but in Portland these riots were particularly dangerous. Marshals were targeted with lasers to blind them, with ball bearings, with fireworks. There were efforts to barricade them inside the courthouse and set it on fire to burn them alive. These marshals are heroes, and they should be celebrated. Anyone who says they support law enforcement should be defending these marshals.

Not surprisingly, leftwing activists and leftwing organizations, like the ACLU, are coming to the defense of the leftwing street militia that attacked these marshals, tried to burn down the Portland courthouse, suing marshals on frivolous grounds.

Many of these marshals are being defended by the Department of Justice, as is the Department of Justice's longstanding custom and practice to either provide representation for its law enforcement officers when they are sued in court or, if there is some conflict, to reimburse them and pay their legal fees. Four marshals are not being defended, though.

These four marshals are GS-11s, GS-13s. They have been serving our country for a lifetime. Many of them are veterans, veterans of foreign wars. They face financial bankruptcy and ruin because the Department of Justice won't represent them; in many cases, won't even give them an answer or explain why the representation was denied.

When I learned of this, I demanded answers. And the Department of Justice had no answers. So if my colleagues think that I am going to just roll out the red carpet for Department of Justice nominees to be confirmed to politically connected positions, while GS-11s and GS-13s are hung out to dry, they have another thing coming.

Now, some of you may say: Well, maybe there are investigations underway. Maybe these officers engaged in misconduct. We don't know. They won't give us answers. But here is what we do know: All four of them--all four--are currently on unrestricted Active Duty--unrestricted Active Duty.

And I would add, all four--all four--are in the Special Operations Group for the Marshals Service, which means to say they are the marshals who are most likely to be deployed nationwide and put in circumstances that risk their lives and call for them to use violence, to include lethal violence.

Now, I don't know the circumstances that led to the denial of representation of these four marshals or why some of them are being strung along, but I have to assume--I have to assume--that if they are on unrestricted Active Duty in the Special Operations Group of the Marshals Service, that Merrick Garland and Vanita Gupta can't have any doubts about their fitness to serve or their actions for all those weeks in Portland when they defended the courthouse from leftwing street militias.

I understand my colleagues want to get their U.S. attorneys or their U.S. marshals confirmed. Maybe there are people at Main Justice they want to get confirmed as well. That is very simple. We could do it today. We could hear from Merrick Garland or Vanita Gupta that they will defend these four U.S. marshals in court or we could hear a satisfactory answer of why they won't defend the marshals in court.

Is it because they were standing up to a leftwing street militia? Is it because they were taking a stance to defend Federal property from antifa? I don't know. We can't get an answer. Maybe my Democratic colleagues could get an answer.

But to think that I am just going to roll over and allow the Senate to fast-track nominees to the Department, when GS-11s and GS-13s, law enforcement officials, are being hung up to dry--sorry.

These are people--and I have talked to them--who were worried about buying Christmas gifts for their children last year because they had to pay legal fees, who are worried about paying the mortgage next month, who are worried about sending their kids to camp. Sorry if your lawyers have to wait for a week or two to get confirmed to the U.S. attorney's position. I am worried about four heroes who defended Federal property from leftwing street militias.

So, yes, I do object.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I am surprised to hear the Senator from Illinois continue to refer to this as a political issue or a political story when we have career law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line to defend Federal property from leftwing street militias. And they are worried if they can put the food on the table for their children, if they can buy them gifts at Christmas, if they can put braces on them, if they can send them to summer camp.

I don't consider that a political issue; I consider it standing up for law enforcement--not just these four but every deputy marshal around the country who forms the backbone of the Marshals Service, the backbone of the Marshals Service all across the country, who have to wonder if maybe they are going to be the next one to be hung out to dry by the Department of Justice if they confront a rioter with the wrong politics.

This is not a political issue.

Now, the Senator from Illinois continues to speak about confidentiality and attorney-client privilege as if this is all information that has been communicated to these four marshals and they just don't want to share it with us here in the Senate. That is not the case. Three of them, I would say, haven't heard anything. In a lawsuit that is almost 18 months old, they have been told nothing yet. That is why they have had to go out and retain their own counsel.

One of them was denied representation with no more basis than saying it is not in the interest of the United States of America. Well, forgive me if I don't trust Vanita Gupta to determine what is in the interest of the United States when it comes to defending law enforcement.

These marshals are told that these determinations are final and there is no appeal and there is no recourse. Well, I am the recourse now.

The Senator from Illinois keeps talking about these urgent law enforcement needs in his own State of Illinois. I would point out that the position that is empty has been empty since 2018. If it was so urgent, the Senator from Illinois could have cooperated with the Trump administration and tried to fill it then. These U.S. attorney positions that are empty--President Biden fired all U.S. attorneys a year ago. If it was so urgent to have Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys in position, he could have asked them to continue to serve until he was able to find suitable replacements.

The Senator from Illinois also said: Well, Senator Cotton got his letter responded to. I am not looking for some courtesy exchange of letters here; I am trying to protect four U.S. marshals who defended the Portland courthouse from a leftwing street militia, who have been hung out to dry, imperiling the confidence of all marshals across the country in whether or not their political leadership at the Department of Justice will back them up when they are in a controversy. The Department still won't answer that. They won't take any steps to answer it. They simply hide behind confidentiality and privilege just like they are hiding behind it with these four U.S. marshals--after 18 months.

What is so complicated? As the Senator from Illinois said, they are representing 70 others. What makes these four so different? Maybe they engaged in misconduct. Is that possible given the fact that they are all on unrestricted active duty in the Special Operations Group, the element of the marshals most likely to have to use violence, to include lethal violence? Would Merrick Garland and Vanita Gupta really send them back out on the streets if they had engaged in misconduct in Portland?

These marshals deserve better, and they could get better if the Department of Justice would just agree to represent them or if they would give a satisfactory, fact-based answer about why they are not representing them. Maybe some of my Democratic colleagues could call Merrick Garland or Vanita Gupta and ask them for such an answer or maybe just call them and say: Why don't you represent these four marshals? That seems like the obvious, satisfactory outcome for everyone here: U.S. marshals are represented in court, as they should be, and we can go back to fast-tracking Department of Justice nominees. But until we get to that outcome, we won't be fast-tracking Department nominees because I will continue to stand up for these brave men of law enforcement who deserve better from this Department of Justice.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I feel like we are ships passing in the night here. I could go on and on about the exploits of these deputy marshals when they were Rangers and Green Berets and what they did in combat. But my Democratic colleagues aren't getting the heart of the matter: why they are being denied representation for defending the courthouse in Portland.

So I will direct a question to the Senator from Minnesota through the Chair: Does she believe that these four U.S. marshals should be represented in court like all other marshals are being represented?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, again, I feel like we are ships passing in the night, not getting to the point here. So I will address a question to the junior Senator through the Chair, slightly differently than when I spoke to the Senator from Minnesota.

If officers are returned to unrestricted Active Duty on the Special Operations Group, does the Senator believe that they should be represented for past incidents of alleged misuse of force?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COTTON. Unfortunately, they don't have any information to divulge. That is part of my point. The Department of Justice won't tell them why they are not being represented.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COTTON. If that is a question for me, I reject the premise of your question. I am not harming law enforcement; I am standing up for law enforcement.

Once again, if you deny four U.S. marshals legal representation because they stood up to leftwing street militias--which may be unpopular in certain quarters of your party--then you cause every marshal across the country and, for that matter, every law enforcement official across the country to doubt whether their political superiors are going to defend them in the future.

Look, if you want to have a broader debate about law enforcement, I can, but we are going to be here for a long time.

It is your party that voted in lockstep for the FIRST STEP Act that let thousands of violent felons back on the street who have now committed innumerable violent crimes. It is your party that marched and chanted in the streets for defunding the police. It is the Democratic floor leader who blocked my resolution in the summer of 2020 to condemn the ``defund the police'' movement. You all voted in lockstep to confirm Vanita Gupta, the Associate Attorney General, who is responsible ultimately for these decisions, even though I and other Republicans cautioned you she would use her position to wage a war on the police from the Department of Justice. That is what is happening now.

I am standing up for law enforcement.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COTTON. To respond to the Senator from Illinois, it is true that President Trump signed the FIRST STEP Act. The FIRST STEP Act was the worst mistake of the Trump administration. Yes, it is true that a number of Republican Senators voted for it. They were wrong. They didn't start demanding that we defund the police in the summer of 2020. They condemned that. They stood up for law enforcement.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COTTON. We keep hearing that this is unrelated, as if I am upset with something the Coast Guard did or the Corps of Engineers wants to improve some water project in Arkansas. These are Department of Justice nominees, and right now, the Department of Justice is not standing up for law enforcement officers by hanging these four marshals out to dry. That is why I am not agreeing to fast-track these nominees. I am not going to agree to fast-track political nominees while the Department of Justice hangs out to dry career law enforcement officers.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, so contrary to what the Senator from Ohio says, I am not offended by the lack of a letter or offended by something someone said. I'm offended that four U.S. marshals--four U.S. marshals had to decide whether they are going to have enough money to buy Christmas gifts for their kids, pay their mortgage next month, put braces on their kids, send them to summer camp because that is the position that the Department of Justice has put them in.

To recap, four U.S. marshals were among dozens deployed to Portland last summer to guard the courthouse from leftwing street militias. They were targeted with blinding lasers, ball bearings, fireworks. There was an effort to barricade them into the courthouse and set it afire to burn them alive.

Now leftwing activists in leftwing organizations like the ACLU are suing them, and the Department of Justice won't provide them representation, won't even tell them why they are not providing them representation.

Maybe they engaged in some kind of misconduct? Maybe it was excessive force? That would be strange, because all four of these deputy marshals are now back on unrestricted active duty with the special operations group of the Marshal Service, the element most likely to be sent into the most dangerous circumstances and have to use violence, including lethal violence.

It would be pretty strange to send them back to the special operations group with no restrictions if they engaged in some kind of misconduct in Portland. That is what this is about and what it does to undermine the faith and confidence of every career law enforcement professional in the Department of Justice.

So, no, I will not agree to fast-track political nominees to the Department when the Department leadership is hanging out to dry career law enforcement officers.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COTTON. No, I have not. But I know that the response that that marshal received was that the denial of representation was not in the interest of the United States. No more----

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COTTON. No more facts, no more explanation, just like the three who are waiting for a determination and have been waiting for more than a year do not have any fact-based explanation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COTTON. This is exactly the point. Privacy waiver or not, what does it matter? Here is what we do know. Here is what we do know. That none of these four know why they were denied representation or why they haven't had a determination. We know that. And we know that they were sent back on unrestricted active duty to the special operations group.

I think the Department of Justice political leadership owes these brave law enforcement officers an answer before it hangs them out to dry and exposes them to risk of financial ruin and bankruptcy.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COTTON. I yield back.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source