[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 37 (Wednesday, March 5, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1288-S1295]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF DEBO P. ADEGBILE TO BE AN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order the Senate will
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination,
which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of Debo P. Adegbile, of New
York, to be an Assistant Attorney General.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11:45
a.m. will be equally divided between the Senator from Vermont and the
Senator from Iowa or their designees.
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, similar to my Republican leader, I come
to the floor to share my concerns about Mr. Adegbile's nomination, and
I will explain my voting no today.
I begin by saying I believe the nominee possesses high moral
character and personal integrity. I have met him. I am also aware he
has been working on the chairman's staff of the Judiciary Committee for
the last few months. Unfortunately, I have reached the conclusion that
this nominee isn't the right pick to lead the Civil Rights Division.
First of all, it is no secret that I believe the last individual to
lead this office, the current Secretary of Labor, was very political
and extremely committed to a host of political causes. Of course, I
don't expect President Obama to nominate conservatives to his political
appointments, but as we all know, these are very important and powerful
jobs. The individual who holds them wields a tremendous amount of power
on behalf of the Department of Justice.
I expect the President's nominees to be liberal, maybe even very
liberal, and in the vast majority of cases the President is entitled to
have people of his own choosing serving in these important positions,
but the Senate must provide its advice and consent, which is what we
are doing today.
In my view the President's nominees can't be so committed to
political causes and so devoted to political ideology that it clouds
his or her judgment. This is particularly important here, given that
this office, under the leadership of the last Assistant Attorney
General, was marked by controversy, and those controversies, in my
view, were directly linked to that individual's deep commitment to a
host of liberal causes, regardless of how well held they were. At the
end of the day I believe it clouded his judgment.
With that brief bit of background, I would first note there is
bipartisan opposition to this nomination. As I will discuss in a few
minutes, there is also widespread opposition from the law enforcement
community.
Seth Williams, a Democrat and Philadelphia's district attorney,
opposes this nomination. Many of the largest national law enforcement
organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police and the National
Association of Police Organizations, vigorously oppose this nomination
as well. This opposition is based upon the nominee's record--and the
nominee's record, in my view, demonstrates that the nominee has a long
history of advocating legal positions far outside the mainstream. I
believe it is a record which demonstrates he is simply too deeply
committed to these causes to be an effective and fair leader of this
very important Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.
I am not going to mention every aspect of the nominee's record I find
troubling but a few will be mentioned.
His record on First Amendment issues should give us all pause. For
example, in the Hosanna-Tabor case before the Supreme Court, the
nominee advocated for a position which would have infringed on the
free-exercise rights of religious organizations. Specifically, he
argued that a church didn't have the right to freely hire or fire
individuals who were responsible for conveying the church's message and
carrying out its religious mission. This is at the core of what
religious freedom means under our Constitution. The nominee's view was
a dramatic departure from established First Amendment jurisprudence. In
fact, it was so outside the mainstream that the Supreme Court
unanimously rejected it 9 to 0.
Likewise, the nominee's views on the Second Amendment to our Federal
Constitution are out of step with the law. In Heller he argued, ``The
Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to keep and
bear arms for purely private purposes.'' He also argued that ``the
right protected by the Second Amendment are ones that exist only in the
context of a lawfully organized militia.''
The Supreme Court, of course, rejected that view, as we all know, and
the Supreme Court's decision very much strengthened the right of
individuals to bear arms.
I have also been disappointed by the answers the nominee provided to
a number of my questions. For example, I asked whether he believed
voter-ID requirements--which have been upheld by the Supreme Court in
the Crawford case--are the modern-day equivalent of a poll tax. I asked
this question for several reasons.
First of all, according to press reports, this nominee said as much
in 2005 during a discussion in Georgia regarding voter-ID laws.
According to press reports, he called voter-ID cards ``a modern poll
tax.'' But the Supreme Court upheld Indiana's voter-ID law as
constitutional in the Crawford case in 2008.
So, if the nominee continues to believe that voter-ID laws are the
modern-day equivalent of a poll tax and is firmly committed to that
principle, I am concerned--we all ought to be concerned--that he would
look for creative ways to undermine and challenge those laws,
notwithstanding the Crawford case upholding Indiana's voter-ID law.
It goes without saying, of course, a significant part of this job is
the enforcement of voting-rights laws, and that enforcement power
should be entrusted only to someone we are confident will apply the law
in an evenhanded way and, obviously, uphold what the Supreme Court has
already said was constitutional.
I have also repeatedly asked the nominee whether, if confirmed, he
would commit to implementing the recommendations made by the Department
of Justice's Inspector General regarding the hiring process in the
Civil Rights Division. The IG's report exposed a hiring process in that
division which was structured in a way that systematically screened out
conservative applicants. So, evidently, only one point of view is
welcomed in that division. But the nominee will not commit to
implementing the recommendations the IG's report has put out which
addressed those issues so the office has the benefit of an
ideologically diverse group of lawyers. This concerns me, and it ought
to concern my colleagues. Again, this is a division in the Department
of Justice which needs a clean break from the political partisanship
which plagued the office under the last Assistant Attorney General.
Finally, I wish to address the nominee's involvement with and
representation of Mumia Abu-Jamal. To understand why the nominee's
involvement in this case is so concerning to many of us, a bit of
history is in order.
Mr. Abu-Jamal is this country's most notorious cop-killer. The facts
of the Abu-Jamal case are well known and cannot be seriously disputed.
[[Page S1289]]
Back in December of 1981 Abu-Jamal--then known as Wesley Cook--gunned
down Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. Abu-Jamal first shot
Officer Faulkner in the back and then several more times in his chest
at close range. As Officer Faulkner lay dying in the street, Abu-Jamal
stood over him and shot him in the face. At the hospital a short while
later, Abu-Jamal actually boasted he had shot a police officer and said
he hoped the officer would die. Ballistics evidence proved Officer
Faulkner had been shot with a .38-caliber revolver registered to Abu-
Jamal and found at the scene, along with spent shell casings.
No serious observer of this case can question the overwhelming
evidence of his guilt. Based on the evidence, he was tried. A jury--
including white and African-American jurors--convicted him and
sentenced him to death.
Nonetheless, over the course of the next 25 years, opponents of
capital punishment and other critics of our justice system have
elevated Mr. Abu-Jamal to celebrity status. Those critics have charged
that the conviction was tainted by racial discrimination. They
slandered police officers and prosecutors and they have leveled
accusations of police abuse. They have even organized rallies which
portrayed this murderer as the victim.
Amazingly, Mr. Abu-Jamal's campaign has been somewhat successful. He
has actually convinced a lot of people he is a political prisoner--if
you can imagine that--and his fame isn't confined to the borders of
this country. The French went so far as to name a street after him in
the suburbs of Paris. In fact, it became such a high-profile issue that
in 2006 the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan
resolution 368 to 31 condemning the murder of Officer Faulkner and
urging the French town to change the name of its street.
I must say the disgust with Mr. Abu-Jamal's celebrity status isn't
defined by partisanship. In fact, five of today's Senate Democrats were
in the House of Representatives in 2006 when that resolution was
passed. Four of those five voted in favor of that resolution, rejecting
the political celebrity of a murderer.
In short, this case is about much more than hyper-technical legal
challenges to the imposition of the death penalty. It has become, quite
plainly, a cause. So it is with that background that I would like to
discuss the nominee's involvement in that matter.
In 2009, Mr. Adegbile was Director of Litigation for the NAACP's
legal defense fund, and it was in that role that he worked as an
advocate on Abu-Jamal's behalf. The nominee and the legal defense fund
first got involved when they volunteered as an amicus and then later as
lead counsel for Abu-Jamal's post-conviction proceedings.
In this first phase, the legal defense fund alleged that Philadelphia
prosecutors discriminated against African-American jurors in the jury-
selection process during the trial. After the Third Circuit rejected
that argument, the nominee submitted an amicus brief to the U.S.
Supreme Court urging the Court to take the case and hear the same
arguments. The Court declined to hear that case.
After this effort failed, in 2011 the legal defense fund signed on as
Abu-Jamal's lead counsel for his post-conviction challenges. It was at
this point the nominee again challenged the conviction in the Third
Circuit but this time under a different theory.
The nominee argued that the jury instructions were constitutionally
infirm. The Third Circuit agreed, and the Supreme Court refused to hear
further argument.
Now, keep in mind that Abu-Jamal never ran the risk of lacking
adequate legal counsel. Highly motivated attorneys, highly motivated
law professors, and legions of activists have represented him for
years. They have filed literally hundreds of motions and briefs on his
behalf. So this isn't a case of the nominee and the legal defense fund
intervening to vindicate the rights of an indigent defendant who has
been denied due process, nor is this a case of a lawyer stepping in to
defend an unpopular client who couldn't otherwise find a lawyer. Abu-
Jamal has enjoyed the zealous representation of some of the country's
best lawyers for almost three decades.
In short, this is not John Adams defending the British soldiers after
the Boston Massacre. That is not what is happening. The first attempt
to challenge the conviction was unsuccessful, so the nominee and the
legal defense fund redoubled their efforts and mounted a second
challenge under a different theory. This was a cause in search of a
legal justification.
We know this, of course, because the statements and press releases
that the legal defense fund made at the time confirmed the
understanding that this was a cause.
The nominee's colleagues and co-counsels explained the legal defense
fund's motivations for getting involved in this case at a rally for
Abu-Jamal in 2011. A lawyer with the legal defense fund said:
There is no question in the mind of anyone at the legal
defense fund that the justice system has completely and
utterly failed Mumia Abu-Jamal, and in our view, that has
everything to do with race, and that is why the legal defense
fund is in this case.
In fact, when the legal defense fund signed on as lead counsel in
2011, their press release declared:
Abu-Jamal's conviction and death sentence are relics of a
time and place that was notorious for police abuse and racial
discrimination.
Again, this is, in fact, a cause. It was a cause premised on the
notion that this country's most notorious cop killer, Mumia Abu-Jamal,
was a victim rather than a murderer, and the police officers and
prosecutors and the entire judicial system were to blame, not the
person who did the killing.
At bottom, this is why the law-enforcement community is so staunchly
opposed to this nomination. That is why the Fraternal Order of Police
calls this nomination a ``thumb in the eye of our Nation's law
enforcement officers.''
That is why Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams wrote this
in his letter of opposition:
Despite the overwhelming evidence of guilt, his lawyers
have consistently attempted to turn reality on its head,
arguing that Abu-Jamal was framed, and that it was he, rather
than Officer Faulkner, who was the victim of racism.
District Attorney Williams went on to say:
Aside from being patently false, moreover, these claims are
personally insulting to me. As an African-American, I know
all too well the grievous consequences of racial
discrimination and prejudice. I also know that Abu-Jamal was
convicted and sentenced because of the evidence, not because
of his race.
Finally, that is why Maureen Faulkner, whose husband was murdered by
Abu-Jamal, wrote two letters to the Judiciary Committee, and why she
wrote this:
Officers who knew Danny and who, like him, put their lives
on the line every day, must now witness Adegbile, a man proud
to have chosen to aid the murderer of their friend, singled
out for honors and high office by the Government of the
United States. It is an abomination to now reward Adegbile as
if he had done something wonderful.
So to my colleagues and to the President of this body, for the
reasons I have outlined here, I cannot support this nomination. I don't
believe he is the right nominee to lead this office at this time. I
will oppose this nominee, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Madam President, I would suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The clerk will call the role.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the time spent in quorum
calls this morning be divided equally between the two sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. TOOMEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S1290]]
Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I rise this morning to speak on the
nomination of Debo P. Adegbile as the candidate to serve as the
Director of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. He
would be the assistant attorney general in the Justice Department if he
were to be confirmed.
It was 3:55 a.m. on December 9, 1981, when 25-year-old Philadelphia
police officer Daniel Faulkner was brutally murdered in the line of
duty.
A few weeks ago, Officer Faulkner's widow Maureen Faulkner pleaded
with the Senate Judiciary Committee to listen to her story. It is a
heartbreaking story. It is a story about how 32 years ago a coldblooded
killer murdered her husband and how political opportunists then seized
the chance to deny her justice and propagate a very pernicious set of
lies.
It is also a story about how President Obama's current nominee to
head the Civil Rights Department, this fellow, Debo Adegbile, joined in
this gross abuse of our legal system. Unfortunately, our colleagues on
the Senate Judiciary Committee--our Democratic colleagues--did not
allow Maureen Faulkner to testify when the committee was considering
this nominee. I think Maureen Faulkner deserves to be heard. I think
she has a right to be heard. We have heard a lot of voices and a lot of
arguments in this discussion. I think Maureen Faulkner's voice deserves
to be heard.
Since she was not permitted to testify before the committee, I wish
to read to my colleagues in the Senate the letter she sent to all of
us, and I will begin now. Maureen Faulkner writes:
Dear Senators, while I would have preferred to do so
personally, I'm writing this letter appealing to your sense
of right and wrong, good and evil, as you consider the
nomination of Debo Adegbile to be the next head of the Civil
Rights Division of the Department of Justice.
Thirty-three years ago my husband, Philadelphia Police
Officer Daniel Faulkner, was violently murdered by a self-
professed ``revolutionary'' named Mumia Abu-Jamal.
I was 24 years old.
While most of my friends spent their summer at the Jersey
Shore, I sat in a hot steamy courtroom and watched in horror
and disbelief as the man who murdered my husband tried to
turn the courtroom into a political stage where he could spew
his hatred and contempt for this country and our judicial
system.
At the moment my husband's blood stained shirt was
displayed by the evidence handler, Mumia Abu-Jamal turned in
his chair and smirked at me; demonstrating his contempt for
law enforcement.
Thankfully, a racially mixed jury that was selected by Abu-
Jamal while representing himself, found him guilty.
The following day they sentenced him to death for the
brutal act he committed.
That's when my second nightmare began.
For three decades, my family and I endured appeal after
appeal, each rooted in lies, distortions, and allegations of
civil rights violations.
And year after year, judge after judge, the conviction and
sentence were unanimously upheld.
Then, thirty years after the fact, my family, society and I
were denied justice when three Federal District Court judges
who have found error in every capital case that has come
before them, overturned the death sentence.
Today, as my husband lies thirty-three years in the grave,
his killer has become a wealthy celebrity.
He pens books and social commentaries critical of our
country.
He regularly uses his nearly unlimited access to the prison
telephone to do radio programs, has cable TV in his cell and
is permitted to hold his wife, children and grandchildren in
his arms when they visit.
Old wounds have once again been ripped open and additional
insult is brought upon our law enforcement community in this
country by President Obama's nomination of Debo Adegbile.
While publicly demonstrating that he doesn't even know my
husband's name, Mr. Adegbile feigns sympathy and caring for
my family and me.
In reality, Mr. Adegbile was a willing and enthusiastic
accomplice in Mumia Abu-Jamal's bid to cheat us of the
justice we had waited so many years for.
Mr. Adegbile freely chose to throw the weight of his
organization behind Mumia Abu-Jamal, and he has publicly
stated that he would get Mumia Abu-Jamal off death row.
Mr. Adegbile holds Mumia Abu-Jamal, a remorseless
unrepentant cop killer, in high esteem.
We know this because attorneys working under Mr. Adegbile
stood before public rallies held in support of my husband's
killer and openly professed that it was ``an extreme honor''
to represent the man who put a hollow based bullet into my
husband's brain as he lay on the ground, wounded, unarmed and
defenseless.
And while Mr. Adegbile and those who support his nomination
will undoubtedly argue that he did not personally make such
statements, he did nothing to counter or stop them.
In the end, like so many attorneys before him, Mr.
Adegbile's allegations of civil rights abuse rang hollow.
Mumia Abu-Jamal's death sentence was overturned not because
of civil rights abuse as alleged by Mr. Adegbile, but because
three judges with a personal dislike for capital punishment
conveniently determined that the wording in a standard form
given to a jury might have confused them.
While Debo Adegbile may be a well-qualified and competent
litigator, through his words, his decisions and his actions
he has clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that he is not the
best person to fill this important position.
Certainly there are others with similar qualifications that
would be better choices.
I would argue that Mr. Adegbile's decision to defend a cop
killer should preclude him from holding any public position.
Your decision means a lot to me personally.
The thought that Mr. Adegbile will be rewarded, in part,
for the work he did for my husband's killer is revolting.
Throughout my long ordeal I have frequently been labeled a
racist by many who support my husband's killer simply because
he is black and I white.
I have also been asked to throw my name, my voice and my
support behind political candidates from both parties.
In each case I have declined.
I have always believed that my husband's death and my quest
for justice transcends politics and race.
From my heart, I'm asking you to do the same thing.
Set aside any partisan feelings you have and do the right
thing today when you vote on Mr. Adegbile's confirmation.
Please spare my family and me from further pain.
Sincerely,
Maureen Faulkner.
To conclude, as the Justice Department's Web site explains, the Civil
Rights Division ``fulfills a critical mission in upholding the civil
and constitutional rights of all individuals.'' This requires the head
of the Civil Rights Division to have an absolute commitment to truth
and justice.
There are many highly qualified Americans who can carry out this
critical mission--and it is a critical mission. Mr. Adegbile's record
and what he actually has done create serious doubt that he is one of
them.
For these reasons I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture on the
nomination of Mr. Adegbile to serve as Assistant Attorney General for
the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the nomination of
Debo Adegbile to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil
Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. As a representative
of the city of Philadelphia, the Philadelphia police, and the family of
slain officer Daniel Faulkner, I feel compelled to voice my concerns
about this nomination for the record.
In 2009, while Mr. Adegbile was serving as director of litigation for
the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal
Defense and Education Fund, that organization took on the defense of
Mumia Abu-Jamal. Mr. Abu-Jamal had 27 years earlier been convicted of
the first-degree murder of Daniel Faulkner, a Philadelphia police
officer. The political theatrics surrounding this case have deprived
Officer Faulkner's widow Maureen Faulkner and others of the orderly
process of justice they should have received as victims of a heinous
crime.
I believe strongly that people should have the right to criminal
defense no matter what the circumstances. However, I am troubled by the
legal defense fund's involvement in Mr. Abu-Jamal's defense at a time
when he was ably represented by other counsel. The facts in the murder
of Officer Daniel Faulkner while in the line of duty are not in
dispute. The events and theatrics that surrounded this trial and that
were fueled by the defense team here took an incredible toll on the
Faulkner family, the law enforcement community, and the city of
Philadelphia. From as early as the pretrial stage, Mr. Abu-Jamal
disrupted the court proceedings by demanding representation by a
nonattorney, refusing to accept judicial rulings on his motions and
reportedly threatening the judge with violence. Since his conviction,
Mr. Abu-Jamal and his supporters have engaged in an effort to discredit
the judges, the Philadelphia police, Maureen Faulkner, and Officer
Faulkner in this case.
[[Page S1291]]
For many of my constituents, a vote for this nominee would have
validated the activities of the supporters of Mr. Abu Jamal.
Mr. Adegbile has had a long and accomplished career as a civil rights
advocate, including arguing twice before the Supreme Court in defense
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a landmark piece of civil rights
legislation. For years he has been actively working to defend voting
rights and recently has been engaged in efforts to restore the
protections of the Voting Rights Act for millions of Americans
following the Supreme Court's ruling in Shelby County v. Holder. Mr.
Adegbile's work on the Voting Rights Act is commendable, and all
Americans benefit from his commitment to ensuring equal access to the
ballot. I take very seriously my duty to advise and consent, and I have
considered Mr. Adegbile's history of public service as well as my
concerns about his involvement in the Abu-Jamal case.
Pennsylvanians and citizens across the country deserve to have full
confidence in their public representatives--both elected and appointed.
The Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights is one of the top law
enforcement positions in our Nation, and the full faith and confidence
of the law enforcement community is an important consideration for a
nominee for this position. The vicious murder of Officer Faulkner in
the line of duty and the events that followed in the 30 years since his
death have left open wounds for Maureen Faulkner and her family as well
as the city of Philadelphia. After careful consideration and having met
with Mr. Adegbile as well as the Fraternal Order of Police, I decided
to vote against this nomination.
I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, Debo Adegbile has the keen intellect,
life experience, and knowledge sufficient to be an excellent assistant
attorney general. What an American story we find in his life.
The son of Nigerian and Irish immigrants, he worked his way up from
poverty--including periods of homelessness and reliance on welfare--to
the top of the legal profession. He graduated from Connecticut College
and NYU Law School and spent the early years of his career in one of
the most highly regarded law firms in New York. Then he decided to
start working at the NAACP legal defense fund, ultimately becoming the
organization's acting president and directing counsel. For those who
don't know the NAACP legal defense fund, I would commend to them a book
called ``Devil in the Grove.'' It is a Pulitzer Prize-winning story of
the work of Thurgood Marshall in the 1940s and 1950s when the fund was
literally the only voice for those who were poor and Black in America.
Time and again, Thurgood Marshall would journey to parts of America and
risk his life to defend someone accused of a crime. They were the only
ones who would stand and speak for the poor and those who were in
minority status.
Mr. Adegbile joined the NAACP legal defense fund, and during his 20-
year career he has gained experience and perspective on a wide range of
issues, certainly qualifying him for this job with the Civil Rights
Division. He has widespread enthusiastic support from a broad spectrum
of civil rights groups, law enforcement organizations, police officers,
prosecutors, business leaders, government officials, and prominent
members of both political parties.
Mr. Adegbile has twice been called on to defend the constitutionality
of the Voting Rights Act in oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme
Court. In the year 2013, he was the only--only--African-American
attorney to argue before the Supreme Court. There is no question about
his competency.
He led the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund's legislative
outreach and public education efforts on the Voting Rights
Reauthorization Act of 2006 which was passed by a unanimous 98-0 vote
in the Senate and 390-33 in the House.
He has represented minorities in case after case involving employment
discrimination. He led the efforts to repeal the proposition 36
initiative, California's overly punitive three strikes law, and it
passed with 70 percent of the votes of Californians.
In his private practice he has successfully represented pro bono
clients. His is an extraordinary legal resume.
As these select career highlights demonstrate, he is an effective
advocate who can lead the Civil Rights Division. Don't take my word for
it though.
The Bush administration Solicitor General Paul Clement stated:
I've litigated both with and against Debo and have heard
him argue in the Supreme Court. I have always found him to be
a formidable advocate of the highest intellect, skills and
integrity.
Mr. Adegbile's representation of Mumia-Abu-Jamal does not mean he
lacks respect for the rule of law, and it certainly should not
disqualify him from this important civil rights job.
In fact, his willingness to represent an unpopular defendant in an
emotionally charged case demonstrates his appreciation for the rule of
law, as well as his respect for the criminal justice system.
His critics have attempted to characterize him as someone who
actively sought out this case, someone who disparaged the officer who
was cut down in the line of duty, Officer Faulkner, and someone who is
responsible for Abu-Jamal's death sentence being overturned.
Each of these characterizations is wrong, inaccurate, and unfair.
The NAACP legal defense fund was not involved in the Abu-Jamal case
until 2006, nearly 25 years after the trial of this individual and his
conviction and 5 years after the death sentence was overturned, being
converted to life in prison.
LDF's president, not Mr. Adegbile, made the decision for the
organization to be involved in the case. Moreover, as Adegbile stated
before the committee, the briefs he signed ``made no negative comments
[whatsoever] about the tragic loss of Officer Faulkner.''
I see the chairman of the committee is in the Chamber, and I know my
time is short. Let me just say this. Time and again in the history of
the United States people have stood, understanding the Constitution and
the responsibility of the bar, to represent unpopular defendants.
John Adams set the standard when he made the unpopular decision to
represent British soldiers on the eve of the Revolutionary War.
The Senate recalled that example in 2003 when it confirmed John
Roberts to the DC Circuit. At the time, not one single Senator raised a
concern about then-Judge Roberts providing pro bono representation to a
man who had been convicted of killing eight people and was awaiting
execution on Florida's death row.
What John Roberts did--now the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court--
was entirely consistent with our Constitution and the responsibility of
those of us in the legal profession.
I would say at this point we have an extraordinary man, with an
extraordinary background, who has offered his services to this
government in an important division where he can serve in a capacity
that few can match.
The full scope of his life experience and his distinguished record
make him well qualified, and I will support his nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I so strongly concur with the statement
of the senior Senator from Illinois, the deputy majority leader. It is
similar to statements he has made not only here but in private and in
public. He has been one of Mr. Adegbile's strongest supporters
throughout this matter.
Both he and I know this nominee well. We know he is qualified to be
the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division in the
Department of Justice. More than that, we know Debo Patrick Adegbile as
a real person and not as the caricature we have heard from some on the
other side. I think all of us have a responsibility to vote yes or no
on any issue, and at least to deal with the facts as they are, not with
distortions like some of the ones we have heard about this wonderful
person.
The Civil Rights Division was created in 1957 in the wake of the
landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education,
[[Page S1292]]
and is charged with enforcing Federal laws prohibiting discrimination,
and upholding the civil and constitutional rights of the most
vulnerable members of our society. From protecting voting rights to
combating human trafficking to protecting against religious or racial
discrimination, we all know that more work needs to be done. The Civil
Rights Division plays a pivotal role in protecting the civil rights of
all Americans.
Debo is a man of the highest character and the utmost integrity. He
is the kind of proven leader we need at the Civil Rights Division. He
is a superb lawyer, to begin with. He has a compelling personal story
of triumph over adversity.
He is the son of immigrants from Ireland and Nigeria. He was born in
the Bronx. He grew up in poverty, amidst periods of homelessness, but
he overcame all these obstacles to attend Connecticut College and the
New York University School of Law. He then litigated for 7 years at one
of the Nation's top law firms--picked because he was the best of the
best of the best.
He then served as legal director of the NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, the LDF. This is a civil rights organization founded
nearly 70 years ago by the great Thurgood Marshall, who recognized the
need for people to stand up for the constitutional right of all
Americans to fair, honest, and competent legal representation. During
his time at LDF, Debo argued two landmark cases on voting rights before
the U.S. Supreme Court. The nominee is widely regarded as an expert on
civil rights law. He has received an outpouring of support from the
civil rights community.
Think of some of the people who support him. Congressman John Lewis
has expressed his ``unwavering support'' for Debo's nomination, stating
that his ``intelligence, legal acumen, experience, and commitment to
his craft, reflect deeply on his ability to offer the Civil Rights
Division outstanding leadership into the future.''
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and 83 other
civil rights organizations called Debo ``a tireless advocate, a skilled
litigator, and a well-respected member of the legal community who is
extraordinarily qualified for and suited to this position.''
And the Congressional Black Caucus stated that he is ``one of the
preeminent civil rights litigators of his generation,'' and ``offers
precisely the type of experience, professionalism, and leadership
skills necessary to run the Division.''
Support for Debo's nomination extends from the civil rights community
to supporters business and law enforcement. Kenneth Chenault, chairman
and chief executive officer of American Express, wrote that he has been
``continually impressed by his skills and professionalism--along with
his steadfast commitment to upholding civil rights.''
The National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives gave
its ``unwavering support'' to his nomination. We have letters of
support from Detective Terrance Daniels, a retired member of the New
York City Police Department; the New York State Attorney General; and
several district attorneys and Federal prosecutors.
Paul Clement, the Solicitor General under President George W. Bush,
said: ``I have litigated both with and against Debo and have heard him
argue in the Supreme Court. I have always found him to be a formidable
advocate of the highest intellect, skills and integrity.''
We have a huge list of his supporters, and I ask unanimous consent
that the whole list be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Letters of Support for the Nomination of Debo Adegbile to Be Assistant
Attorney General, Civil Rights Division
(As of March 5, 2014)
Current and Former Public Officials
Drew S. Days, III, Former Assistant Attorney General for
the Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice; Congressman
Hakeem S. Jeffries, Member of the House of Representatives
for the 8th District of New York; Congressman John Lewis, 5th
District, Georgia; Governor Deval L. Patrick, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and Former Assistant Attorney General for the
Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice; Seth P. Waxman,
Former Solicitor General of the United States, Department of
Justice.
Current and Former Prosecutors and Law Enforcement Community
John I. Dixon, National President, National Organization of
Black Law Enforcement Executives; David Godosky, former
Assistant District Attorney, Bronx County; former Criminal
Court Judge, City of New York; David Raskin, former Assistant
U.S. Attorney, Southern District of New York; New York State
Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman; Kenneth P. Thompson,
District Attorney, Kings County, Brooklyn, New York;
Detective Terrance Daniels, Retired, New York City Police
Department.
Civil Rights Organizations
A. Philip Randolph Institute; Advancement Project; AFL-CIO;
African American Ministers In Action; Alliance for Justice;
American Association for Affirmative Action; American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education; American
Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD); American
Federation of Government Employees; American-Arab Anti-
Discrimination Committee; Americans for Financial Reform;
Anti-Defamation League; Asian American Legal Defense and
Education Fund; Asian Americans Advancing Justice--AAJC;
Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote (APIAVote); Asian
Pacific American Labor Alliance; Asian Pacific American
Institute for Congressional Studies; Bazelon Center for
Mental Health Law; Black Women's Roundtable.
Campaign Legal Center; Center for APA Women; Center for
Community Change; Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law; Children's Defense Fund; Colorado Lawyers'
Committee; Communications Workers of America; Congressional
Black Caucus; The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities
Rights Task Force; Demos; Disability Rights Education &
Defense Fund; Earthjustice; Fair Elections Legal Network;
FairVote; Freedom to Work; Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education
Network (GLSEN); Hindu American Foundation; Hispanic National
Bar Association; Hmong National Development, Inc.; Human
Rights Campaign; International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW;
Iota Phi Lambda Sorority, Inc.; Japanese American Citizens
League.
LatinoJustice PRLDEF; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law of
the Boston Bar Association; Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights Under Law of the San Francisco Bay Area; The
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; League of
United Latin American Citizens; Legal Momentum; MALDEF;
Mississippi Center for Justice; NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense &
Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF); NALEO Educational Fund;
National Action Network; National Association of Human Rights
Workers (NAHRW); National Association of Social Workers;
National Bar Association; National Black Justice
Coalition; National Center for Lesbian Rights; National
Center for Transgender Equality; National Coalition for
Asian Pacific American Community Development; National
Coalition on Black Civic Participation; National
Conference of Black Mayors, Inc.; National Council of
Jewish Women; National Council of La Raza; National
Council on Independent Living.
National Disability Rights Network; National Education
Association; National Employment Law Project; National
Employment Lawyers Association; National Fair Housing
Alliance; National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund;
National Immigration Law Center; National Latina Institute
for Reproductive Health; National Legal Aid & Defender
Association; National Organization for Women; National
Partnership for Women & Families; National Senior Citizens
Law Center; National Urban League; National Women's Law
Center; Native American Rights Fund.
People For the American Way; PFLAG National; Poverty & Race
Research Action Council; Prison Policy Initiative; Project
Vote; Public Counsel; Public Interest Law Center of
Philadelphia; Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund
(SALDEF); South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT);
Southern Coalition for Social Justice; Southern Poverty Law
Center; United Food and Commercial Workers International
Union; United Steelworkers International Union; Vera
Institute of Justice; Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights And Urban Affairs; Wider Opportunities for Women.
Members of the United States Supreme Court bar
Lisa S. Blatt, Arnold & Porter LLP; Stephen B. Bright,
Southern Center for Human Rights; David W. DeBruin, Jenner &
Block; Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford Law School; Jeffrey T.
Green, Sidley Austin LLP; George H. Kendall, Squire Sanders
LLP; Peter J. Neufeld, Innocence Project; Andrew H. Schapiro,
Quinn Emanuel; William F. Sheehan, Goodwin Procter LLP; Paul
M. Smith, Jenner & Block.
Other Supporters
Paul Lancaster Adams, Philadelphia Managing Shareholder,
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.; Abed A.
Ayoub, Director of Policy & Legal Affairs, American-Arab
Anti-Discrimination Committee; Ken Chenault, Chairman and CEO
of American Express; Donna B. Coaxum, Vice President, General
Counsel & Secretary, OSI Group, LLC; Alan Dial, Partner, King
& Spalding; Randy Hertz, Professor of Clinical Law, New
[[Page S1293]]
York University School of Law; Frederick R. Nance, Regional
Managing Partner, Squire Sanders; LaFonte Nesbitt, Partner,
Holland & Knight; John E. Page, Vice President, General
Counsel & Secretary, Golden State Foods Corporation.
Nicholas J. Panarella; Christopher C. Panarella; Former NYU
Classmates Anthony T. Pierce, D.C. Managing Partner, Akin
Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld; Hilary O. Shelton, Director, NAACP
Washington Bureau & Senior Vice President for Advocacy and
Policy; James R. Silkenat, President, American Bar
Association; Theodore V. Wells, Jr., Co-Chair of the
Litigation Department at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP; Kwamina Williford, Partner, Holland & Knight;
Benjamin F. Wilson, Managing Partner, Beveridge & Diamond,
P.C.; Pamela D. Zilly, Former President of the Connecticut
College Board of Trustees Current and Former Presidents of
Connecticut College.
Mr. LEAHY. I have been privileged to work in civil practice, where I
defended people, and also to have spent 8 years as a prosecutor. I
stand behind nobody in my support of law enforcement. I was picked as
one of the three outstanding prosecutors in this country when I was a
prosecutor. But I believed throughout all that time that everybody who
was prosecuted deserved the best of representation.
Despite Debo's expertise, some are opposing his nomination based on a
single case: Mumia Abu-Jamal's appeal of his death sentence for the
1981 murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner. I condemn that murder. I
condemn the murderer for it. But, just as the British in the Boston
Massacre deserved representation, and got it from John Adams; just as
the man who murdered a number of people, including a couple of
teenagers, deserved representation from John Roberts, a Republican who
is now Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; so, too, did Mumia Abu-
Jamal deserve legal representation.
The murder of Officer Faulkner was a horrific tragedy, and my heart
goes out to Mrs. Faulkner and all family members who have lost a loved
one in the line of duty. Officer Faulkner served bravely to protect our
community and to defend our system of justice and our Constitution. We
are trying to defend it too.
It is officers like Officer Faulkner that drive many of us to support
programs like the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant program. I might
point out to some of my friends who stand here in righteous indignation
against this nomination, saying they are standing up for law
enforcement, that former Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I began a
bulletproof vest program that has bought bulletproof vests for officers
all over this country. It is up for reauthorization. It has saved the
lives of police officers. Not a single Republican has joined me in the
effort to reauthorize what was a bipartisan piece of legislation that
actually saves the lives of police officers. But, they will come down
here and wax eloquently and misleadingly against this good nominee.
If you listen to them or you listen to FOX News, you might think the
nominee himself is a criminal. Of course he is not. These attacks
launched against this nominee demonstrate a fundamental
misunderstanding of the role of a lawyer and the very constitutional
system of justice that law enforcement officers all swear an oath to
protect. It is time to clear the record.
First, the assertion that Debo made the decision for LDF to take on
Abu-Jamal's case is simply not accurate. That decision was made by the
previous president of LDF. The nominee we are considering today has
testified under oath that it was not his decision. But once the
decision was made, and he was appointed to do it, he had a duty, as an
officer of the court, to do his best to represent his client, no matter
how distasteful or unpopular.
Debo's role in the Abu-Jamal case was limited to two Supreme Court
briefs and one Third Circuit brief. Attempts to attribute more to Debo,
including the out-of-court statements by other LDF attorneys, are
unfounded. These remind me of the attacks that were made against
Thurgood Marshall when he was nominated to the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals. At the time, Republican Senator Keating provided an articulate
response of why such attacks are unreasonable and unfair:
If counsel is suggesting something that Judge Marshall must
have the responsibility for every little action that is taken
by any lawyer who has been appearing in an NAACP case, he is
imposing a standard of responsibility which certainly goes
beyond any point of reasonableness. Judge Marshall's conduct
and his ethical standards have not been questioned in these
hearings. It is ridiculous to suggest that he may be
disqualified for judicial service because some other lawyers
who appeared in an NAACP case may or may not have done things
which counsel considers questionable and where there is
absolutely no showing that Judge Marshall has anything to do
with the conduct at issue.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, even if it had been Debo's
decision to represent Mr. Abu-Jamal, that should not disqualify him
from public service. Our legal system is an adversary system,
predicated upon advocacy for both sides. Without this, our justice
system would be a sham. We do not criticize John Adams; we do not
criticize John Roberts. Now-Chief Justice Roberts said at his
confirmation hearing in 2005:
[I]t's a tradition of the American Bar that goes back
before the founding of the country that lawyers are not
identified with the positions of their clients. The most
famous example probably was John Adams, who represented the
British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre. He did that
for a reason, because he wanted to show that the Revolution
in which he was involved was not about overturning the rule
of law, it was about vindicating the rule of law . . . [T]hat
you don't identify the lawyer with the particular views of
the client, or the views that the lawyer advances on behalf
of the client, is critical to the fair administration of
justice.
It is for this reason that as a nominee before the Senate John
Roberts was not criticized for choosing to provide pro bono assistance
to John Errol Ferguson, a prisoner in Florida who had been sentenced to
death for killing eight people, including two teenagers, in the late
1970s.
I agree with what John Adams did. I agree with what John Roberts did.
I agree with what Debo did, too. Whether it is John Adams or John
Roberts, the principle that all sides deserve an effective counsel is
at the bedrock of our constitutional system. We cannot equate the
lawyer with the conduct of those we represent if we want our justice
system to endure. After Debo's confirmation hearing in early January,
the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee himself expressed the
same sentiment when he said: ``You always have to take into
consideration that everybody under our constitution is entitled to a
defense.''
Some have argued that the Abu-Jamal case is somehow different because
it became a ``political cause'' and was no longer just a case about
defending an unpopular client. But regardless of who the defendant
might be, the constitutional right to a fair trial has nothing to do
with politics and cannot be dismissed as merely a ``political cause.''
In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to accept the district
attorney's appeal of the lower court decisions, thereby affirming the
decisions to vacate the death sentence. However unpopular LDF's
decision to represent Abu-Jamal might be, these decisions by
independent Federal judges affirm that this case was about defending
the rights guaranteed by our Constitution and not merely some political
stunt.
Finally, while criticism of a nominee's qualifications is certainly
part of the appointment process, some attacks are--by any measure--out
of bounds. Last month, while Debo's nomination was still in the
Judiciary Committee, the Washington Times published an editorial
caricature of Debo that was racially-tinged, offensive, and beyond the
pale. I have spoken out against the insulting attempts to defame the
nominees of Democratic and Republican Presidents, and I do so again
today. I would also hope that those who are opposing Debo's nomination
would similarly distance themselves from them.
Debo Adegbile is one of the Nation's leading civil rights lawyers.
Those of us who have worked with him cannot recognize the caricature
that some are trying to paint. I have seen him testify before a crowded
Senate hearing room. I have heard him quietly give counsel in a private
meeting room. I know him to be a thoughtful, respectful, and competent
person, a good family man, a good husband and father.
I regret these attacks. I have been here 40 years. I do not know if I
have ever heard a time in those 40 years when a person was so
misrepresented in the attacks against him. I hope now some of those who
attack him, saying they are standing up for law enforcement, would do
things like join on the bulletproof vest bill and others they refuse
to.
[[Page S1294]]
I see the majority leader. I ask unanimous consent that the majority
leader have whatever time he needs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, Debo Adegbile is the President's nominee
to lead the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. He is a
man who renews my faith in the American dream. He is the son of Irish
and Nigerian immigrants.
To say he grew up in poverty is an understatement. There were times
when he and his mom--he was raised mostly by a single mom--were
homeless. Despite these challenges, he worked his way through the
educational system and to the top of the legal profession.
He graduated from prestigious New York University Law School. He
argued two of the most important civil rights cases of his generation
before the U.S. Supreme Court. He has received numerous awards for his
legal prowess and his commitment to civil rights.
He is one of the Nation's foremost civil rights attorneys. He is
eminently qualified to lead the office that enforces Federal laws
prohibiting every type of discrimination, including discriminatory
voting practices.
His job--the job of that person who is in the Civil Rights Division--
is to do everything they can do to make sure people have the
opportunity to vote. We know what has happened around the country. We
know how Republican Governors and other Republican officials have done
everything they can to stop voting. Early voting they eliminate or they
shorten the time period. They take away voting places that make it
easier for people to vote.
This is an important position. The person that is best qualified to
do that is going to have a vote in just a few minutes. Despite all this
nominee has achieved, Republicans have not given this man a fair shot
at confirmation. His time at the NAACP, where he worked for 12 years,
involved many different things. But one of the things he did not do, he
did not step foot into a courtroom representing that violent murderer
in Philadelphia that occurred in 1981 when he was 13 years old.
Although the condemned man was undoubtedly a very bad man, as I
understand the facts: 3 o'clock, 3:30 in the morning a cab is stopped;
the murderer's brother is in the cab, just by coincidence. So there
were a lot of problems in Philadelphia at the time. The murderer gets
out of the car and shoots a police officer viciously and wantonly, for
no reason, in the head--terrible murder.
He was a bad man who was convicted of a heinous crime and given the
death sentence. When the nominee got into this case, the murder had
taken place 25 years earlier. Five years before he got into the case,
the death penalty had already been overturned, was already gone. Where
did the death penalty overturn come from? That is pretty interesting.
It came from a Reagan appointee. Then the circuit court affirmed what
the district court had done. They got rid of the death penalty. That
district court decision was upheld by President Bush's appointees. I am
sorry. The district court opinion was issued by an appointee of the
first President Bush, H.W. Bush. The Third Circuit opinion that upheld
it was composed of two Ronald Reagan appointees, including one of the
most famous jurists of all time, John Sirica.
It is interesting. A person who wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall
Street Journal not long ago--who is the district attorney--chose not to
reseek the death penalty even though he is writing op-ed pieces about
what a bad guy this is, a man who had nothing to do with the case.
The defendant in 2001 was resentenced to life in prison without
parole. The death penalty was gone. How can we engage in guilt by
association? I repeat, the nominee did not step into a courtroom, a
courtroom for the murderer. He did not write one word in a brief for
the murderer. He worked at the NAACP and oversaw the litigation and
signed the brief third down the row. He had nothing to do with the
appeal as far as arguing it.
Even the Philadelphia Inquirer, the hometown newspaper where this
murder of the police officer who was so tragically slain took place,
said: ``It would be hard to find a better candidate for the position.''
I agree with that.
To argue that [the nominee], one of the country's foremost
legal scholars--especially when it comes to civil rights
law--should be disqualified from the Justice post because he
participated in [these] appeals is an affront to what it
means to live in America. This country allows every convict
to exhaustively appeal a verdict, even when all the prior
evidence appears to have assured his guilt.
I have met with this man on several occasions. I spent the morning in
my office with him. He is a fine man. What a story of the American
dream. He has devoted his life to public service. He could be like a
lot of other lawyers--nothing wrong with that--go out and see how much
money he can make, but he decided not to do that. He believes in public
service. He is married, has two beautiful girls.
But I am afraid he is treated by the Republicans kind of like
Congressman Watt, Mel Watt, Jeh Johnson, Todd Jones, Circuit Court
Judge Wilkins. They have distorted this man's good name in an attempt
to score points politically and block confirmation of a faithful
defender of voting rights, which the Republicans do everything they can
to not prevent. They want fewer people voting. They do not want people
to vote. They especially do not want poor people to vote.
The NAACP, we know their record. So much has changed in America
because of their legal defense fund. Thurgood Marshall is the most
famous of all, but there have been great lawyers who have been part of
that program. The organization stands for the constitutional right of
every American to a fair trial regardless of the nature of the crime or
the content of their character. I think that is what the legal
profession is all about. That is what I thought it was about when I
practiced law.
I represented some very bad people. I did it a lot of time for no
pay. The NAACP also advances the cause of civic engagement, economic
opportunity, education, health care, freedom from discrimination. That
is for all Americans. They are not out representing just African
Americans--all Americans. But there is no question Mr. Adegbile
actually specializes in voting rights issues.
He has worked for years at the NAACP and every other thing he has
done to safeguard the right of every American to cast a ballot without
discrimination or intimidation. That is how the legal defense fund got
involved in this case. He did not step into a courtroom. He did not
write one single word of any brief. He did not make the decision to
represent the Philadelphia defendant, who was a very bad guy, nor did
he appear in court or write a word in this case.
They have attempted to paint him as sympathetic to the convict. The
man is still in jail. That is where he should be. The truth is
lawyers--not all of them but lawyers represent unpopular clients at
some point in their cause and in their careers. John Roberts, he is not
known as a great trial lawyer, but he is known as a great lawyer. Chief
Justice Roberts provided pro bono assistance, for example, to the
defense of a prisoner on Florida's death row who was convicted of
killing eight people. That was not brought up during his confirmation
hearing by us because he had a job to do.
As he said, advocacy on behalf of a client is not about overturning
the rule of law, but it is vindicating the rule of law. This nominee
has strong support from groups all over America. I cannot express
strongly enough what a fine man he is. The President of the American
Bar Association wrote the Judiciary Committee. Here is what he said to
Chairman Leahy and other members of the committee. He was ``alarmed to
learn . . . [about] opposition to [his] nomination based solely on his
efforts to protect the fundamental rights of an unpopular client.''
That is all it was about this murderer. He was a bad guy, but he is
entitled to a lawyer. I repeat for the fourth time: The nominee did not
step into a courtroom for this guy. He did not write a word of any
brief. He has constantly--this nominee stood for the constitutional
rights as well as Americans' fundamental right to participate in our
democracy. He is exceptionally well qualified for the job for which he
is nominated.
Opponents have used his defense of the Constitution as a political
weapon
[[Page S1295]]
against him. He deserves an affirmative vote, to be judged on the body
of his work and the admirable qualities of his character. I thought
that is what we did here. It is a real shame that people are
questioning whether he deserves this vote.
I ask unanimous consent that following the cloture vote on the
Hernandez nomination, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly
caucus meetings; that at 2:15 p.m. the Senate proceed to legislative
session and a period of morning business until 3:30 p.m. with Senators
permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each; that at 3:30 p.m. the Senate
resume executive session and the consideration of the Hernandez
nomination with the time until 4 p.m. equally divided between the
chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee; that at 4 p.m.
all remaining postcloture time be yielded back on the Hernandez
nomination and the Senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of the
Hernandez nomination; that upon disposition of the Hernandez
nomination, the Senate proceed to the votes on the remaining motions to
invoke cloture which were filed Thursday, February 27, on Executive
Calendar Nos. 569, 565, 571, and 636; that if cloture is invoked on any
of the nominees, with the exception of the Gottemoeller nomination, all
postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate proceed to vote on the
confirmation of the nominations; that there be 2 minutes equally
divided in the usual form prior to each cloture vote; finally, all
after the first vote be 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I would close by saying I sure hope we get enough votes for
this good man. If we do not, maybe it is time America had a good
discussion on civil rights. If this man who is defending the right of
the Constitution--that is what he has done. Does the Constitution mean
anything? Should a man who has had nothing to do with the case of a
violent murderer be used as a scapegoat for the Republicans to try to
stop people from voting? I hope not.
We will have a discussion if this good man does not have the votes.
We will have a discussion on civil rights. I think he will have a lot
to do with the direction the discussion will take.