[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.

                          ____________________