-9999
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the critical role played by U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals in keeping America safe.
Law enforcement is a team effort, and we need officials at the Federal, State, and local levels working together to stop crime in this country and to keep people safe in their homes and in their neighborhoods.
It was only 2 months ago when I came to the floor of this Senate to request unanimous consent for the Senate to take up and confirm five U.S. attorney nominations. Despite the outstanding credentials of all of these nominees, one Senator, the junior Senator from Arkansas, refused to allow the Senate to confirm five nominees for U.S. attorney positions by a voice vote--a tradition in the Senate. That Senator's objections had nothing to do with the nominees. He said so. They had nothing to do with their records and had nothing to do with their qualifications.
Well, after he was confronted on the floor of the Senate, he lifted his objections. We were able to get those U.S. attorneys confirmed and put them to work, and there is work to be done in every State in the Union to make this a safer nation.
We believe in law enforcement--we believe in it at every level--and when there is delay in putting professionals in place, that delay can cost lives. If you stand up and say ``I don't want to defund the police'' but then refuse to fill vacancies when it comes to law enforcement, that is inconsistent.
Sadly, we find ourselves in the same position today, 2 months later, with the same Senator from Arkansas. He is again objecting to the swift confirmation of U.S. attorney and U.S. marshal nominations. In short, this same Senator is making it increasingly difficult for us to prosecute violent criminals, track down fugitives, and protect Americans from gang violence, cybercrime, terrorism, and fraud.
It is worth taking a moment to consider what U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals do. The positions that they hold are nearly as old as the Nation itself. Both U.S. marshal and U.S. attorney positions were created by the Judiciary Act of 1789, passed by the First Congress, and signed into law by President George Washington.
The specific responsibilities have changed over time, but the core function is the same. This is the Federal answer to enforcing the law, prosecuting crimes, and protecting our communities. U.S. attorneys are charged with prosecuting all Federal criminal offenses. U.S. marshals have the responsibility of risking their lives to protect Federal judges and courthouses, tracking down fugitives, and assisting in locating and recovering missing children, just to mention a few. In short, U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals play a critical role in enforcing the law, promoting public safety, and protecting our communities.
So it is sad that this same junior Senator from Arkansas is blocking the confirmations of six U.S. attorneys and two U.S. marshals today. Doing so threatens public safety across America and puts millions of Americans at risk, including the most vulnerable.
Despite all of the tough talk we hear from many of these Senators on the other side of the aisle about their dedication to law and order and keeping America safe, it is a Republican Senator who refuses to take up and confirm these nominations in an expeditious way.
Before I ask for consent for the Senate to confirm the nominees, I would like to yield to the majority leader.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the majority leader. I would like to just add: There must be those following the debate who are wondering, ``What is the basis for the junior Senator from Arkansas opposing these eight nominees? There must be something wrong with them. There must be something in their background that doesn't add up.''
Consider the variety of individuals who are being held up by the junior Senator from Arkansas: Ryan Buchanan, of Georgia, to be U.S. attorney for the Northern District; Jason Frierson, of Nevada, to be U.S. attorney for the District of Nevada; Andrew Luger, of Minnesota, to be U.S. attorney for the District of Minnesota--and the Senator from Minnesota will speak to that in just a moment--Mark Totten, of Michigan, to be U.S. attorney for the Western District of Michigan; Marisa Darden, of Ohio, to be U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Ohio; Delia Smith, of the Virgin Islands, to be U.S. attorney for the District of the Virgin Islands; Eddie Frizell, again of Minnesota, to be U.S. marshal for the District of Minnesota; and LaDon Reynolds, of Illinois, to be U.S. marshal for the Northern District of Illinois.
We looked especially at our own nominees very closely to make sure that they were qualified to take on these Federal positions. Several of my colleagues are going to come to the floor today to speak about the nominees being held up by one Senator, so rather than delving into the records of all of the eight nominees, let me just focus on the one in Illinois--Chief LaDon Reynolds, nominated to serve as U.S. marshal for the Northern District.
Chief Reynolds has served the people of Illinois for nearly 30 years. He joined the Oak Park Police Department in 1994, rising steadily through the ranks until his appointment in 2019 as chief.
In addition to his service at the Oak Park Police Department, Chief Reynolds serves on the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board, the Illinois Commission on Discrimination and Hate Crimes, and the Executive Board of the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police. In short, Chief Reynolds is eminently qualified to serve as U.S. marshal for the Northern District of Illinois. There is simply no valid basis to delay his confirmation.
And I have yet to hear the Senator from Arkansas come forward with a bill of particulars of why he has decided to single out the people whom I just mentioned, to deny them an opportunity to make communities safer across America. At a time of high crime and the need for a coordinated effort at every single level, there is absolutely no valid explanation of why these individuals are being withheld from their responsibilities in these communities.
We need to have law enforcement taken seriously and respected. Holding up nominations for no particular reason other than a political issue that may bother the Senator is certainly no reason for us to jeopardize the safety of innocent people living in these communities who depend on these Federal law enforcement officials to do their job.
At this point, I would like to make a unanimous consent request.
660, 661, 662, 663, 739, 740, 741, and 742; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that any statement related to the nominations be printed in the Record and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, try to follow that logic, if you will. The Senator is so committed to law enforcement, he is so committed to U.S. marshals, he won't let us appoint people to fill vacancies.
He takes the case in Portland, OR, where he wrote a letter to the Department of Justice within the last 2 weeks asking for the status of their defense of these 74 individuals. Now, he knows, and we all know, that before we can take any action for anybody, we need a confidentiality waiver, a privacy statement. That is routine in all of our offices.
Each one of these individuals, despite the interest of the junior Senator from Arkansas, has their own legal right to determine whether or not they want to waive any privacy so that they can tell the public or discuss even with the Senator their plight and how they want to address it.
There is also something called the attorney-client privilege, which the Senator, I am sure, is aware of. That, too, is a privilege which allows the individual to deny ordinary access to information if they so choose. It is their decision.
So the complication of the situation is ignored by the Senator from Arkansas. He is valiantly standing for U.S. marshals that he won't appoint. He believes they are important and that they give their lives to their country--and many have--and yet he won't let them stand up and do that on behalf of our communities.
He wants an answer to his letter, and until he gets an answer to his letter, then we are not going to be able to put law enforcement in place to deal with crime in this country. We can make all the statements, run all the ads, make all the speeches on the floor about a concern for safety in our communities, and then the junior Senator from Arkansas says, ``I want you to be safe in your community, but you can't have a U.S. attorney to prosecute those would-be terrorists. You can't have a U.S. marshal for pursuit of fugitives from justice. You can't have a U.S. marshal to protect the courthouse for men and women who go to work there every day and risk their lives for the administration of justice.''
This is upside down. We are talking about 74 individuals. The Department of Justice has said they are going to defend 70 of them. One is a question, I assume, whether he was acting in the scope of his employment, and three are under review. And for that reason, this Senator has decided to stop the administration of justice in these jurisdictions or at least slow it down. That makes no sense whatsoever.
The basis for objecting to these individuals has nothing to do with their individual qualifications. He didn't raise a single question. All he said is, ``Your lawyers are going to have to wait,'' as if these were just lawyers waiting for a fee.
These are men and women willing to serve, as he serves, in public service. It is more than just lawyers--not that there is anything wrong with that category of Americans--but it is individuals who are willing to engage in public service.
And why are we in such a hurry? We are in the second year of this President's administration. It is time to fill these vacancies.
As Senator Schumer said earlier on the floor, there are several on the Republican side who just want to drag this out interminably in the hopes that they can stop the Biden administration from filling these vacancies.
My colleague from Arkansas asked whether the DOJ is representing Federal law enforcement personnel who protected the Federal courthouse in Portland. The FOX News headline about his letter said: ``Cotton places hold on DOJ nominees after refusal to defend US Marshals involved in Portland Antifa riots.''
Here is the reality. The Department of Justice often represents or pays private counsel to represent Federal employees sued in their individual capacity, but there are some constraints, and I have mentioned them. For example, regulations require that the Department of Justice can only represent employees for actions within the scope of their employment; for example, protecting the Portland courthouse, which clearly is within the scope. And the Department of Justice can only represent them if doing so would be in the interest of the United States. It clearly would be if they are defending against terrorists.
The Senator knows this. Do you know why he knows it? Because the Department of Justice responded to his letter. He just didn't like the response--it didn't go far enough.
The Department said, ``The Department of Justice strongly supports the provision of representation to federal officers acting in the line of duty.'' The Department also told him that it represents or has paid for private counsel to represent 70 of these employees who have been sued in connection with the events in Portland, while denying only a single request for representation.
I don't know the facts of that denial. I don't know if there has been a privacy waiver signed. I don't know if this individual said, ``I have an attorney-client privilege, and I don't have to tell the Senator from Arkansas or anyone what the circumstances are.'' The Senator from Arkansas is now demanding to know why the Department of Justice denied this one request for representation and why it is still reviewing three others. That is right--he is blocking the confirmation of critical law enforcement officials across the United States until he gets an answer that he likes.
The DOJ has already explained that it cannot comment further--here is what they said--``in light of significant confidentiality interests and applicable privileges.'' As I mentioned earlier the privacy laws and attorney-client privilege.
``DOJ's regulations make it clear that communication about an employee's requests for representation are protected by the attorney- client privilege, and the Privacy Act prevents DOJ from disclosing the personnel record of an employee,'' and that is as it should be.
Let me be clear. These privileges protect the privacy of the very law enforcement personnel whose interests the Senator from Arkansas claims to represent.
My Republican colleagues frequently claim to be the party of law and order, but in this matter and others, they are the ones playing politics with law enforcement because the Department of Justice will not snap to the Senator's request and violate standing Federal laws; because they won't ignore and violate those laws of privacy and attorney-client privilege, he is prepared to endanger the communities and law enforcement until he gets his way.
I have heard my Republican colleagues time and again claiming that the Biden administration and Democratic mayors in big cities are responsible for violent crime. They claim that the increase in violent crime has nothing to do with the fact that America is awash in guns, that the reality is that the increase in violent crime started during the last administration, under President Trump. It is affecting communities led by both Republican and Democratic officials. And it is being driven by gun violence.
FBI statistics show that 77 percent of homicides in 2020 were committed with guns. In Chicago, that number is higher. Ninety-three percent of homicides last year in Chicago were committed by gun.
We face a gun violence crisis. The Judiciary Committee held five hearings last year on ways to reduce it. I am going to continue it this year. But if we are going to address this crisis, we are going to need Senators from both parties to show some courage and to admit that gun violence in America is a real problem.
We also need Republicans to stop defending the violent insurrection that took place right in this Chamber on January 6, 2021. The Senator was present. All of us were. We will never forget that day as long as we live. Five brave police officers lost their lives as a result of what the Republican National Committee in its official policy position calls ``legitimate political discourse.''
This is nothing new. Last year, Congress passed the American Rescue Plan--$350 billion for State and local governments. We made sure that funding was going to hire good law enforcement officials and invested in community violence intervention. Not a single Republican Senator approved it.
There are areas where we are working together on bipartisan legislation, and I hope we will continue to. Last year, President Biden signed three laws in that area.
I hope my Republican colleagues will take a lesson from today. If we are going to stand together, then let us all stand behind the Federal law enforcement team.
When President Trump asked for his team, Democrats in the Senate cooperated and gave those people to him. They weren't the people we would have chosen, but he was President and had the right to do his best to protect this Nation. So does President Biden.
President Biden has called for significant increases for our police in the Byrne Justice Program and the COPS Hiring Program, but this important funding has been delayed by debate over appropriations. We shouldn't delay the appointment of these key law enforcement officials either.
Again and again, Democrats are working to support law enforcement and to keep Americans safe. Sometimes we are joined in these efforts by Republicans and other times not, but there is no benefit to law enforcement when Senators block the confirmation of well-qualified U.S. attorney and U.S. marshal nominees, as we see today.
I urge the Senator from Arkansas to stand up for law enforcement. A political story on FOX is not worth undermining the lives of innocent Americans. We have to end this obstruction and let these nominees protect and serve.
I now yield to Senator Klobuchar.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator from Nevada yield for a point?
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Yes.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. The FIRST STEP Act--the Democrats did the FIRST STEP Act, the Republicans were in the majority. It was a bill sponsored by Senators Grassley, Durbin, Lee, and many others. Who signed it into law? Donald Trump signed it into law, this so-called Democratic measure.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question? I ask the question through the Chair.
Has the Senator been given a privacy waiver by the one marshal that the Department of Justice is not going to defend?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. How much time do we have? I am sorry. Go ahead.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, how much time do we have remaining?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, that last admission by the Senator from Arkansas tells the whole story. He doesn't even know why the Department is turning down representation of 1 person out of 74. They have agreed to represent 70 of these U.S. marshal employees, and they said they will represent them; and three are under review. One has been turned down; and he hasn't received a privacy waiver, so he doesn't know why. I don't know why either. But you know who is paying the price for it?
Millions of Americans who are asking for Federal law enforcement to be adequately staffed to do their job. The U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals that want to keep us safe and be part of the team to do that. And because this Senator suspects there may be something suspicious about this, he doesn't have a privacy waiver, he is going to hold up those officials throughout the United States and put their communities in peril. Tell me that that is devotion to law enforcement.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. I yield back.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source