[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 4, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1270-S1272]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ADEGBILE NOMINATION
Mr. CRUZ. I rise today to pay tribute to the men and women across the
country serving as police officers who protect law-abiding Americans.
It is out of this respect for our Nation's police officers that I also
rise to oppose the nomination of Debo Adegbile to be the head of the
Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division.
We must always remember our Nation's fallen police officers who have
bravely given their lives to serve our Nation and to protect us.
Police officers help form the backbone of our country that supports
the rule of law. They risk their lives every day to help keep law-
abiding citizens safe. According to the FBI, in 2012, 95 law
enforcement officers were killed in line-of-duty incidents and 52,901
officers were victims of line-of-duty assaults--52,901.
The New York Times in 2012 observed: ``As violent crime has decreased
across the country, a disturbing trend has emerged: rising numbers of
police officers are being killed.''
In 2008, 41 officers were killed; in 2009, 48 officers were killed;
in 2010, 56 officers were killed; in 2011, 72 officers were killed; and
in 2012, 95 officers were killed.
Unfortunately, as Byron York noted today, the New York Times has not
reported on the controversial nomination of Debo Adegbile to head the
DOJ Civil Rights Division.
It is out of respect for all of our Nation's police officers that I
rise to oppose Mr. Adegbile's nomination. Under Adegbile's leadership
and supervision, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund brazenly politicized the
murder of a Philadelphia police officer, Officer Daniel Faulkner. On
December 9, 1981, 25-year-old Officer Faulkner was murdered by Wesley
Cook, who is widely known as Mumia Abu-Jamal. Officer Faulkner was shot
several times. The fatal shot was when Abu-Jamal pointed the gun inches
from Officer Faulkner's face and pulled the trigger.
During the trial it was made known that Abu-Jamal was a supporter of
the MOVE Organization, an anarchist group that explicitly advocates for
violence against police officers.
In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mrs. Faulkner
described that during the trial, when her husband's bloodstained shirt
was displayed by the evidence handler, Abu-Jamal turned in his chair
and smirked directly at her, the grieving widow. The jury convened for
a matter of hours before they came back with a guilty verdict and a
death sentence. That was 1982.
Fast forward 27 years to the year 2009. Adegbile was at the time the
NAACP's Legal Defense Fund Director of Litigation. In 2009, the Legal
Defend Fund began advocating for Abu-Jamal--first as an amicus and then
as cocounsel. To be clear, every criminal defendant is entitled to an
attorney, but Adegbile's representation of Abu-Jamal was pure advocacy.
Abu-Jamal's guilt was not in doubt. Four eyewitnesses saw the
shooting. Abu-Jamal confessed and stated in front of three witnesses
that he hoped Officer Faulkner died.
There was significant ballistic and forensic evidence. For example,
the murder weapon was registered to Abu-Jamal and found at the scene
with spent shell casings.
Abu-Jamal already had a team of high-priced lawyers working pro bono,
who had filed decades of post-trial petitions and appeals, delaying the
carrying out of his sentence.
Under Adegbile's supervision, LDF lawyers fanned the flames of racial
tension. Through rallies, protests, and a media campaign, all portrayed
Mumia Abu-Jamal, an unrepentant cop killer, as a political prisoner.
For example, a 2011 LDF press release said: ``Abu-Jamal . . . is
widely viewed as a symbol of the racial injustices of the death
penalty.''
That press release also said: ``Mumia Abu-Jamal's conviction and
death sentence are relics of a time and place that was notorious for
police abuse and racial discrimination.''
LDF lawyers under Adegbile's supervision went farther than that. They
held rallies and protests.
This is advocacy. This is political advocacy. This is extreme and
radical advocacy. This is not legal representation. They even went so
far as to travel to France to hold multiple rallies for Abu-Jamal. The
French had already named a street after Abu-Jamal in a suburb of Paris.
This prompted the House of Representatives in 2006 to vote 368-31 to
condemn the murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner and to urge the French
town to change that street name.
After fanning those flames of racial tension in the court of public
opinion, Adegbile pressed aggressive arguments on race in our courts of
law. Thankfully, the State and Federal courts rejected those arguments.
Under Adegbile, the LDF initially argued in court that Abu-Jamal's
death sentence should be overturned because he believed there should
have been more African Americans on Abu-Jamal's jury.
During his Senate confirmation on January 8, Adegbile said the LDF
filed a legal brief regarding merely jury instructions about the death
penalty. LDF did make those arguments eventually, but Adegbile's
initial arguments had nothing to do with jury instructions. They were
arguments that Abu-Jamal's jury was unconstitutional because it didn't
have, he argued, a sufficient number of African Americans serving in
the jury.
The courts rejected those arguments. The jury that convicted Abu-
Jamal had two African Americans serving on it. It would have had a
third African American serving on it but Abu-Jamal instructed his
lawyers to strike that person.
The Fraternal Order of Police vehemently opposes this nomination.
According to a letter written by the president of the FOP, Adegbile's
nomination only exacerbates the ``growing division and distrust''
toward local law enforcement agencies--a trend that has continued from
the time now-Labor Secretary Thomas Perez was leading the Department of
Justice's Civil Rights Division.
Peter Kirsanow, a member on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,
wrote:
Responsible people should agree that going out of your way
to defend a convicted cop-killer long after it has become
unequivocally clear that he was guilty and had suffered no
violation of his civil rights disqualifies one from serving
as the head of a division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The Obama administration's message with the nomination is clear: It
wants even more politicization of the Department of Justice. This is
insulting to law enforcement officers everywhere. I stand with the
Fraternal Order of Police and oppose Adegbile's nomination, and I urge
my Democratic colleagues to join the Democratic senior Senator from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Bob Casey, and vote no on this nomination.
This is not a matter of leftwing or rightwing. We all should agree
that violent criminals should be punished, and we all should agree that
those who go out of their way to advocate for, to celebrate, to lionize
convicted cop killers are not suitable for major leadership roles at
the U.S. Department of Justice.
I urge every Member of this body to oppose that nomination.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FLAKE. I rise to discuss the nomination of Mr. Debo Adegbile to
[[Page S1271]]
head the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.
I attended Mr. Adegbile's hearing in the Judiciary Committee and
submitted additional written questions after the hearing.
Unfortunately, after hearing testimony and reviewing his responses to
questions, I remain concerned with Mr. Adegbile's ability to set aside
more than a decade of advocacy on behalf of this and other liberal
causes to serve as a neutral enforcer of our Nation's civil rights
laws. And it appears I am not the only person who has reached this
conclusion.
His nomination is opposed by numerous law enforcement officers,
including those represented by the Fraternal Order of Police, National
Sheriff's Association, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the
National Association of Police Organizations, the New Jersey State
Policeman's Benevolent Association, and the National Narcotics
Officers' Association.
This widespread opposition is clearly not driven by partisanship but
by a heartfelt concern that this nominee is not suited for the
position.
I have no doubt Mr. Adegbile is an intelligent and hardworking lawyer
with a commendable record of advocacy, but that does not mean he should
head the Civil Rights Division.
One of the responsibilities of the Department of Justice's Civil
Rights Division is to handle civil rights violations by law enforcement
officers from across the country. However, serious questions have been
raised about Mr. Adegbile's ability to apply the law fairly in these
cases, given his advocacy on behalf of a convicted cop killer.
As the Fraternal Order of Police stated in its letter of opposition,
in the decades Mr. Adegbile pushed this effort, he ``falsely disparaged
and savaged the good name and reputation of a lifeless police officer''
in order to further his case.
The National Narcotics Association shares this analysis of Mr.
Adegbile's advocacy, noting that he:
. . . fabricated a baseless and unproven defense while also
defaming the victim, Police Officer Daniel Faulkner, which
raises serious questions about the nominee's judgment,
especially considering the important position to which he has
been nominated.
There is no doubt as to Mumia Abu-Jamal's guilt. Afterward, he
bragged about shooting Daniel Faulkner, and four witnesses saw the
shooting. After being convicted and sentenced, Mumia's lawyers filed
dozens of appeals on his behalf, which would suggest he had more than
adequate legal representation. However, almost 28 years after his
conviction, Mr. Adegbile decided to volunteer his time to assist Mumia.
In a series of appeals and press events, Mr. Adegbile's organization
called into question the motivations of the law enforcement officers
responsible for Mumia's conviction and distorted the record, calling
his conviction and sentence a ``relic of a time and place that was
notorious for police abuse and racial discrimination.''
As the Philadelphia district attorney's opposition letter states, Mr.
Adegbile's work on this case ``sends a message of contempt to police
officers who risk their lives every day to maintain the peace.''
The district attorney concluded that Mr. Adegbile ``is ill-suited for
a pivotal role in the Justice Department.''
The appalling facts of this case are well known. In fact, in 2006,
the House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning the history
of this case and recognizing the culpability of Mumia by a vote of 368
to 31. There are others, such as myself, now serving in this Chamber
who voted in favor of that resolution.
It is deeply troubling that we are faced with voting on this nominee
now, after Senate rules have been broken and the minority has no say in
executive or judicial nominations. Requiring the support of at least
some minority Senators discourages both the nomination and appointment
of fringe or problematic nominees, something which benefits the country
as a whole. Those rules ensure the Senate was the cooling saucer that
George Washington and the other Founders intended. They also ensured
heads of executive agencies were responsive to both the majority and
minority parties. That is no longer the case.
I do not think we would be moving forward on such a divisive
nominee--one who elicits widespread opposition from across the
political spectrum--if the majority had not employed the nuclear option
last November. I hope we don't move forward with this nomination. I
hope my colleagues will join me and others in voicing opposition to
this nomination moving ahead.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be
rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
join me in opposing the nomination of Debo Adegbile to head the Civil
Rights Division of the Department of Justice.
The Constitution grants to the President the power to nominate
individuals to head the various Federal agencies and departments, but
it falls to us in the Senate to ensure those nominees are worthy of the
honor and are ready for such responsibility. I don't make it a practice
of opposing nominees. In fact, I generally give the President
discretion there. I have voted to give him wide latitude in filling the
executive branch with individuals of his choice when I believe they are
qualified. I have voted along with the minority Republicans who
endorsed and confirmed a number of the President's nominees. But when
it comes to a nominee who lacks the essential qualifications to fill
one of these high offices, those of us charged with providing advice
and consent cannot remain silent. Unfortunately, this is one of those
cases.
It takes more than a law degree from a prestigious school and an
impressive resume to head an agency to support the Civil Rights
Division at the Department of Justice. Most importantly, I think it
takes judgment which cannot be measured by test scores or diplomas. It
can only be measured over time through someone's actions.
If we look at Mr. Adegbile's record, it is obvious to me and so many
of us in the Senate and around the country, including the Fraternal
Order of Police, who have not opposed an executive branch nomination,
by the way, in 17 years, who are taking a strong stand against this
confirmation.
First, as some of his colleagues and my colleagues on the Senate
floor have noted, Mr. Adegbile has a history of taking positions on
some of our fundamental constitutional rights that I think are out of
step with the views of the American people, the judgments of our
judiciary, and our Nation's history.
In the case of Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, Mr. Adegbile argued that
religious institutions do not have the right to hire or fire
individuals responsible for conveying a church's teachings, a view
that, were it to become law, would severely undermine religious
liberty. Mr. Adegbile was so out of step with the Constitution on that
issue that his view was rejected by the Supreme Court 9-0, which in
today's typical 5-4 split in the Supreme Court is quite an
accomplishment.
Mr. Adegbile's view on the First Amendment is troubling. So too are
his views of the Second Amendment. He has repeatedly asserted that the
Second Amendment does not ``protect an individual's right to keep and
bear arms.'' If Mr. Adegbile had his way, millions of Americans would
lose one of their most cherished rights, just like that. Whenever a
piece of gun control legislation comes to the floor of this Chamber, my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle--and, in fact, my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle--assure us they will always respect a
fundamental right to bear arms. It is unfortunate that despite the
words of the Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court,
Mr. Adegbile cannot give us those same assurances.
There is the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Abu-Jamal is a murderer. In
1981 he gunned down a police officer named Daniel Faulkner on a
Philadelphia street. In an act of unmatched brutality, Mumia Abu-Jamal
stood over Officer Faulkner as he lay dying and shot him in the face. A
mountain of evidence from eyewitness accounts, forensics, to his own
words makes it clear beyond any doubt that Abu-Jamal killed Officer
Faulkner on that day in December 1981.
[[Page S1272]]
Still, Abu-Jamal deserved his day in court as would any other
American accused of a crime. He got his day in court. He deserved
competent counsel, and he got that too. He deserved an opportunity to
appeal, and he got it. In fact, after the matter turned from a criminal
matter to an issue of justice and to a political cause, he received
some of the best counsel in the country and they filed appeal after
appeal, all of which were rejected.
But that didn't stop Mr. Adegbile from claiming that Abu-Jamal was a
victim of racism and a corrupt judicial system. For Mr. Adegbile, Abu-
Jamal's case was apparently an opportunity to focus more on a political
agenda than the case at hand. Abu-Jamal's guilt or innocence was not
really the concern.
Debo Adegbile is free to make any arguments he sees fit about the
First and Second Amendments. He is free to turn the murder of a police
officer into a cause to advance a political agenda. When he does so, I
think it says something about his judgment and it says something about
his fitness to lead the Civil Rights Division of the Department of
Justice.
The Department of Justice and police forces around our country should
be working together to ensure that minority rights are respected and
that civil rights abuses are punished. In my view, this nominee would
only make that work more difficult. As the Fraternal Order of Police
wrote in a letter to President Obama, if Mr. Adegbile is confirmed it
will serve to ``exacerbate growing division and distrust'' between the
Civil Rights Division--which is charged with securing our most basic
freedoms--and the men and women of law enforcement who defend those
freedoms by putting their lives on the line every day.
I think we can and should do better with a nominee who can work with
the Fraternal Order of Police and other law enforcement around the
country in ensuring that our most basic freedoms are secured through
the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division.
For these reasons I oppose the nomination of Mr. Adegbile to this
position, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the
same.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
____________________