[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 21, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3210-S3211]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                            Green Nomination

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, the Senate is about to proceed to 
several votes on important nominees, and I wanted to put in a strong 
word of support for James Walter Green, who has been nominated by the 
President to serve as U.S. attorney for the Middle District of 
Louisiana.
  I was very pleased to recommend Mr. Green to the President for his 
consideration. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote with me to confirm 
him today. He has served our country in a variety of capacities, most 
notably 20 years of military service. He has been involved in multiple 
deployments, is the recipient of numerous military awards, including 
the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Navy and Marine Corps 
Commendation Medal, the Combat Action Ribbon, and the Iraq Campaign 
Medal.
  Not only is he a strong patriot who has been of extraordinary service 
to our country, he has also served for an additional 15 years in a 
variety of capacities in this office and supported their work through 
Republican and Democratic administrations.
  He comes highly recommended by a broad cross section of individuals 
in my State, and I am pleased I was able to recommend this kind of 
high-caliber person to continue to serve in the full capacity as U.S. 
attorney.
  Mr. Green will bring a wealth of legal experience to his role as U.S. 
Attorney for the Middle District of Louisiana. He has served in a 
variety of roles within the U.S. Attorney's office in both the Baton 
Rouge and Las Vegas offices, including as a trial attorney, trial 
section supervisor, acting criminal chief, acting administrative 
officer and first assistant U.S. attorney.
  He is currently the acting U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of 
Louisiana and a member of the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves.
  I have every confidence that James Walter Green will be exceptional 
in his role as the chief Federal law enforcement official in the Middle 
District of Louisiana.
  I thank Senator Durbin for his courtesy. I wanted to put in a strong 
word for this nominee. He is supported by both Senator Vitter and 
myself, and I hope to get a strong vote on him today.
  I ask that the time be equally divided between the majority and 
minority.

[[Page S3211]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. 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. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. Madam President, before we vote on the Barron 
nomination, I want my colleagues to know the White House continues to 
keep the Senate in the dark. Yesterday I called upon the White House to 
state once and for all whether it has provided to the Senate any and 
all materials written by this nominee on the drone program. The White 
House refuses to answer that simple question.
  One hour after I spoke, the White House Press Secretary refused for a 
third time to confirm that the Senate has been provided all of this 
nominee's writings on the drone program. Why is that? Why will this 
White House not give us a simple, straightforward answer? We still 
don't know how much more is out there on this subject that this nominee 
has been involved with.
  After this vote, my colleagues still will not be able to tell their 
constituents that the White House has provided all of this nominee's 
materials on the drone program because we simply don't know that is 
true.
  Finally, I wish to emphasize one more point about that court order 
requiring the administration to make a redacted copy of one memo 
public. Senators should know the court also ordered the trial court to 
take a second look at the other additional secret documents to see 
whether any of those additional documents should be made public in 
redacted form.
  If some of those documents were written by this nominee, and if the 
court orders them to be made public, Senators' constituents are going 
to ask why they didn't stand today to get that information. Their 
constituents are going to ask why they didn't stand up to this White 
House and demand to see any and all memos this nominee wrote on this 
subject before this vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I rise to oppose the nomination of anyone 
who advocates for the executive branch killing American citizens not 
involved in combat without trial. I strongly believe any nominee who 
rubberstamps and grants such power to a President is not worthy of 
being placed one step away from the Supreme Court. It isn't about 
seeing the memos, it is about what they say and how they disrespect the 
Bill of Rights.
  Due process can't exist in secret. Checks and balances can't exist in 
one branch of government. Whether it be upon the advice of one lawyer 
or 10,000 lawyers, if they all work for one man, the President, how can 
there be anything but a verdict outside the law, a verdict that could 
conceivably be subject to the emotions of prejudice and fear, a verdict 
that could be wrong?
  The nomination before us is about a nominee who supports killing 
American citizens not engaged in combat without a trial. These memos 
don't limit drone executions to one individual, they become historic 
precedent for killing citizens abroad.
  Barron's arguments for extrajudicial killing of American citizens 
challenges over 1,000 years of jurisprudence. It is quite simple; an 
accusation is different from a conviction, and due process is different 
from internal deliberations. The executive can accuse, but it cannot 
try and it cannot convict someone.
  Critics will argue, but these are evil people who plot against and 
plan to kill Americans. I understand that. My first instinct is--
similar to most Americans--to immediately want to punish these 
traitors. The question is, How do we decide guilt? Aren't we, in a way, 
betraying our country's principles when we relinquish the right to 
trial by jury?
  Due process can't exist in secret. Checks and balances can't exist 
within one branch of government. If we can't defend the right to a 
trial for the most heinous crimes, then where will the slippery slope 
lead us?
  Critics ask how we will try these people overseas. The Constitution 
holds the answer. They should be tried for treason. If they refuse to 
return home, they should be tried in absentia and provided a legal 
defense. If they are found guilty, the method of punishment is not the 
issue. The issue is, and always has been, the right to a trial, the 
presumption of innocence, and the guarantee of due process to everyone 
no matter how heinous the crime.
  For these reasons I cannot support the nomination of David Barron. I 
cannot and will not support a lifetime appointment for someone who 
believes it is OK to kill American citizens not involved in combat 
without a trial.
  I yield back my time.

                          ____________________