[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 211 (Tuesday, December 7, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8950-S8951]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an issue of 
vital importance involving the U.S. attorneys.
  Each of the 93 U.S. attorneys serves as the chief Federal law 
enforcement officer within his or her jurisdiction. U.S. attorneys 
prosecute the full spectrum of criminal cases brought on behalf of the 
United States, from hate crimes to human trafficking, to gang violence, 
to cyber crime, to narcotics, to financial fraud, to terrorism. The 
list is long, and the violations of the law that are alleged are 
serious.
  The position of the U.S. attorney is nearly as old as the Nation 
itself. In fact, the position has existed since the First Congress. 
President George Washington signed into law the law that created these 
attorneys in the Judiciary Act of 1789.
  Given the critical role that these U.S. attorneys play in bringing 
justice to those who violate Federal criminal laws, it is hard to 
imagine that any Member of this body would obstruct efforts to confirm 
these law enforcement officials. Doing so could threaten public safety 
and puts at risk millions of Americans' security.
  It is also a stark departure from what has happened before. The last 
time the Senate required a rollcall vote on a U.S. attorney nominee was 
1975. Forty-six years have passed without the request for a rollcall 
vote on a U.S. attorney. For decades, the Senate has confirmed U.S. 
attorneys by a voice vote or unanimous consent after they have been 
considered in the Judiciary Committee.
  Listen to this: During the Trump administration, 85 of President 
Trump's U.S. attorney nominees moved through the Judiciary Committee in 
the Senate. Of those 85, the Senate confirmed every single Trump 
nominee by unanimous consent without even requesting a record vote. I 
might add just for the record, I believe one nominee was held for 1 
week so that a question could be answered about his background. That is 
the only thing that I can recall where they even slowed down the 
process during the Trump administration. Certainly, it was within our 
power as Democrats to stop and require a vote, but we didn't. Yet now 
there is a Republican objection to holding a voice vote on five U.S. 
attorney nominees: Greg Harris for the Central District of Illinois, 
Clare Connors for Hawaii, Zachary Cunha for Rhode Island, Nikolas 
Kerest for Vermont, and Philip Sellinger for New Jersey.
  Several of these nominees have been held up for weeks--weeks--by this 
objection. Why, you ask, is there an objection to these five nominees? 
There must be something wrong with their records. Well, let's take a 
look.
  Greg Harris is a personal friend of mine. I practiced law with him in 
Springfield, IL. He spent nearly three decades as assistant U.S. 
attorney in the Central District of Illinois. That includes my 
hometown. He has tried over 50 cases to verdict and held a number of 
leadership positions in the U.S. Attorney's Office. He serves on the 
Central Illinois Human Trafficking Task Force and the Bankruptcy Fraud 
Working Group.
  His nomination is historic. He will be the first African-American 
U.S. attorney in the Central District of Illinois, which, of course, is 
located in Mr. Lincoln's hometown of Springfield--the first.
  Clare Connors is currently the attorney general of Hawaii. Ms. 
Connors previously served as criminal prosecutor in the Justice 
Department's Tax Division, special assistant U.S. attorney in the 
Eastern District of Virginia, and for nearly 7 years an assistant U.S. 
attorney in Hawaii.
  Zachary Cunha, currently an assistant U.S. attorney in the District 
of Rhode Island in the same office he will lead upon confirmation--he 
has worked there for 8 years, following time as an assistant U.S. 
attorney in both the Eastern District of New York and the District of 
Massachusetts.
  Nikolas Kerest, also an assistant U.S. attorney, served in the 
District of Vermont since 2010, following time in private legal 
practice in Maine and Massachusetts and a clerkship on the Second 
Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Philip Sellinger has had a long and distinguished legal career in New 
Jersey. He began his legal career as a law clerk for Judge Anne 
Thompson of the District of New Jersey before joining the U.S. 
Attorney's Office in Newark. For the past two decades, Mr. Sellinger 
has been a litigator in a prominent law firm and even served as the 
firm's cochair of global litigation.
  Listen to these biographies. All five of these nominees are eminently 
qualified to hold the office of U.S. attorney, to prosecute crimes and 
bring civil actions on behalf of the government, and to help safeguard 
our communities across America.
  There is one thing that all of these U.S. attorney nominees have in 
common, though. They are all from States with two Democratic Senators. 
That seems to be the only thing that they might have in common. The 
objections to these nominees are not that they aren't qualified or that 
the job is not important; the objection seems to be that they are from 
States with two Democratic Senators.
  So when it comes to critical issues we expect, in the Department of 
Justice, to be taken care of by U.S. attorneys--issues involving 
terrorism, human trafficking, narcotics, public corruption, gun 
violence, the safety of our communities--is the fact that they happen 
to hail from States with two Democratic Senators enough to disqualify 
them or to leave these positions vacant?
  It is time to end the Republican delay and get these well-qualified 
prosecutors confirmed and on the job.
  We never once during the Trump administration's 4 years held up a 
U.S. attorney when it came to a voice vote, a unanimous voice vote, to 
give them the opportunity to serve this country. It is unthinkable that 
we are going to do this to these fine men and women today. So, today, I 
will ask unanimous consent for a vote on these nominees.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following 
nominations: Calendar Nos. 534, 535, 536, 581, and 582; that the 
nominations be confirmed; that the motions to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that 
no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any related 
statements be printed in the Record; and that the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.
  The Senate is a special institution. It is a unique institution. 
James Madison said the Senate was the only truly innovative part of our 
Constitution.
  It remains the case today that our Senate is the only upper Chamber 
in a Western parliament that has more power under our Constitution than 
does the lower Chamber. That is in part because of the design of the 
Senate in our Constitution; because of our Senate rules, of our 
traditions, of our customs.
  We have heard a lot about courtesy and collegiality and respect. 
Those are very important customs around here, but it has to be a two-
way street.
  Earlier this year, in the Judiciary Committee, during the markup for 
Vanita Gupta to be Associate Attorney General, I was speaking, as is my 
right under the Judiciary Committee rules. There was at least one other 
Republican Senator who was preparing to speak. There may have been 
more. The Senator from Illinois, in his role as

[[Page S8951]]

chairman of the committee, cut off my remarks and forced through the 
vote on Vanita Gupta, all so he could save 1 week to get her 
confirmed--just 1 week.
  I said right here at this desk 9 months ago that when our rules and 
our traditions are so flagrantly breached, there has to be some kind of 
consequence, and I outlined exactly what that consequence would be at 
the time: that I would not expedite consideration, as the Senator from 
Illinois rightly observes is the custom here, for any U.S. attorney 
nominee from a State represented by a Democrat on the Judiciary 
Committee because if there are not consequences when rules and 
traditions are breached in this institution, we will soon not have 
rules and traditions.
  Now, I also said that if the Senator from Illinois would simply 
express regret for what happened that day and pledge that it wouldn't 
happen again, I would be happy to let all of these nominees move 
forward. We have communicated this to the Senator from Illinois and his 
staff on multiple occasions. I reiterated today that I would be happy 
to confirm these nominees in the following few minutes if the Senator 
from Illinois would simply express regret for what happened in the 
hearing that day and commit that it won't happen again, which, I say 
again, is simply committing that we follow our own rules. If we hear 
that from the Senator from Illinois, we will have five new U.S. 
attorneys.
  And I see the Senators from Rhode Island and Hawaii and New Jersey 
are here. As the Senator from Illinois said, I have no objection to 
moving forward with any of these particular nominees. All these States 
can have their U.S. attorneys this afternoon, but if not, I will have 
to continue to insist that we not expedite these nominations. So I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have been trying to understand the 
Republican objection to these well-qualified U.S. attorney nominees, 
and the Senator from Arkansas has made it clear. It has nothing to do 
with them; it is about me.
  He, obviously, doesn't approve of what happened one day in the 
committee. And the price to be paid is not by me but by the U.S. 
attorneys, well-qualified, who have important jobs to fill.
  One member of the Republican caucus is upset with the fact that back 
in March--this happened in March--the Judiciary Committee moved to vote 
on the nomination of Vanita Gupta to be Associate Attorney General when 
Republican members of the committee had not finished speaking on her 
nomination.
  He correctly remembers that he was speaking at approximately 10 
minutes to 12 p.m., when I interrupted him, took a rollcall vote, and 
went back to him if he wished to speak again.
  I will be the first to acknowledge that I moved forward with the vote 
on Ms. Gupta's nomination over the objections of committee Republicans. 
But put simply, the Republicans forced my hand that day.
  The Senator from Arkansas talks about courtesy in this body. I will 
tell him I think that it should be a hallmark of what we all do at all 
times. I am fortunate, truly blessed, in my mind, to have, as the 
ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, a real friend in 
Chuck Grassley, the Republican Senator of Iowa.
  I asked him that day what was going on. I had informed the committee 
in writing that we would proceed with a vote on Ms. Gupta that day. I 
then allowed committee Republicans to speak for 94 minutes on Ms. 
Gupta's nomination, even though much of what was said was repetitive--
some false and some really unwarranted.
  I was, in fact, prepared to allow committee Republicans to speak for 
as long as they wished. I turned to Senator Grassley and said: ``What's 
the plan here?'' And he said: ``Well, Senator Tillis may return and 
speak, and we just have these members speaking.''
  I had received assurances that the Republicans would not use an 
obscure Senate rule, the 2-hour rule, to cut off the markup before we 
voted on Ms. Gupta's nomination. But at 11:55 a.m., I was surprised, as 
was Senator Grassley, to be informed that despite their earlier 
assurances, a Republican Senator had, in fact, invoked the 2-hour rule 
in an effort to prevent Ms. Gupta's nomination from being considered 
that day and to close down the markup in the committee.
  My hand was forced by this action. It was a surprise move, a tactical 
move, surely within the rules for them to make, but I did exactly what 
previous Republican chairs of the Judiciary Committee did in similar 
situations. I ended the debate and called for the vote on the 
nomination.
  If you are listening to this and wondering what these arcane 
committee procedures have to do with U.S. attorney nominations, you are 
not alone. The Senator is pleading that we should stand by the 
traditions of the Senate. And by the traditions of the Senate, these 
U.S. attorney nominees would go through by unanimous consent. That is a 
tradition of the Senate as well.
  The simple answer is, what happened with the markup debate more than 
8 months ago has nothing to do with these five fine individuals or with 
any other U.S. attorney nominee who may come before the Senate.
  If the Senator from Arkansas wants me to publicly express my regret 
for this occurrence, I express that regret. But I want to make it 
clear, I relied on my friend Senator Grassley. We were both surprised 
to know that someone had invoked the 2-hour rule. Caught by surprise, I 
did what other Republican chairs of the committee have done.
  I don't believe we should play politics with critical law enforcement 
nominations. They are putting our communities at risk and politicizing 
law enforcement in a way that threatens public safety.
  If we are going to truly stand up for law and order, let these men 
and women go to work across America representing the Department of 
Justice.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I would like to address the Chair with a 
question to the Senator from Illinois.
  I appreciate those comments. I would observe that since that day, we 
have not had a similar circumstance in which any Republican wishing to 
speak was cut off in a markup.

  Can we simply have a commitment that that will not happen again in 
the future, as it hasn't happened in the last 9 months?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Responding through the Chair, as long as there is 
openness and honesty about what is happening in the procedure, I will 
assure you that I will do everything I can to extend that courtesy 
forward.
  That particular day, you may or may not be aware of the fact that 
while you were speaking, we learned--Senator Grassley and I both 
learned that someone had raised the 2-hour rule, and it came as a 
surprise to both of us.
  When we are open and honest about what we are trying to achieve in a 
committee, there is no reason why we can't abide by basic courtesy in 
the tradition of the Senate.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks from the Senator 
of Illinois. I will invite him to make his unanimous consent request 
again. I do not intend to object further. And a voice vote is fine.

                          ____________________