[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 9, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S587-S594]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CLOTURE MOTION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination
of Executive Calendar No. 498, Douglas R. Bush, of Virginia,
to be an Assistant Secretary of the Army.
Charles E. Schumer, Jack Reed, Sheldon Whitehouse,
Richard Blumenthal, Catherine Cortez Masto, Richard J.
Durbin, Jacky Rosen, Margaret Wood Hassan, Mark Kelly,
Benjamin L. Cardin, Brian Schatz, Debbie Stabenow,
Angus S. King, Jr., Patrick J. Leahy, Martin Heinrich,
Tim Kaine, Gary C. Peters, Chris Van Hollen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
nomination of Douglas R. Bush, of Virginia, to be an Assistant
Secretary of the Army, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan)
is necessarily absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Rounds).
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 95, nays 2, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 44 Ex.]
YEAS--95
Baldwin
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--2
Hawley
Scott (FL)
NOT VOTING--3
Barrasso
Lujan
Rounds
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 95, the nays are 2.
The motion is agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon
disposition of the Bush nomination, the Senate vote on confirmation of
the Coffey nomination.
[[Page S588]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
U.S. Supreme Court
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here again today to discuss the
scheme by big Republican donor interests to capture and control our
Supreme Court. Today, I am going to put a little spotlight on ongoing
scheme operations.
As we all know, Justice Stephen Breyer will retire at the end of this
Supreme Court term. As the Biden administration selects a nominee, the
scheme is shifting gears to attack her even before she has been named.
A dark money front group called the Judicial Crisis Network has
already announced a multimillion-dollar ad blitz against Justice
Breyer's unnamed replacement, and its first ad is already up. The ad's
premise is that leftwing dark money is poised to capture our Supreme
Court. I am not making that up. Think of a squid. When a squid senses
danger, it squirts a jet of ink into the water. The squid ink creates
confusion and distracts predators, and the squid sneaks off. This new
ad from the Judicial Crisis Network is squid ink.
Let's start with just a quick review of the facts. Rightwing donor
interests captured our Supreme Court under Donald Trump. They did it
with dark money. They used the front group Judicial Crisis Network to
launder off identities of big rightwing contributors. The deidentified
contributions funded political campaign ads against Merrick Garland and
for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Those are the facts. The road onto
the Supreme Court for those three Justices was paved with dark money.
By the way, the checks were big. Four of the checks to Judicial
Crisis Network were for $15 million or more. That is a big check.
Because we don't know who those donors are or who that donor is--it
could all be one donor--we don't know what business they had before the
Court or why it was so worth it to them or him to spend $60 million to
influence the makeup of the Court.
This new Judicial Crisis Network ad--the squid ink ad--is designed to
confuse those rather conspicuous facts. They can hide who funded them,
but they can't hide what they did; so, squid ink--distraction,
misdirection. Their accusations of dark money corruption are a
projection of the very scheme they themselves hatched and executed. As
I have discussed previously in these speeches, this is a classic
propaganda technique: You accuse your adversary of what you yourself
have been doing.
Yes, it is maddening to have a phony front group use dark money to
capture and corrupt our Supreme Court and turn it into the Court that
dark money built. It is devilish, Vladimir Putin-style propaganda for
that phony front group to then accuse others of exactly what it did--a
false mirror of its own behavior.
By the way, that Judicial Crisis Network ad accusing a not-yet-chosen
Supreme Court nominee of being a dark money stooge? Paid for with dark
money. You can't make this stuff up.
Let's look at the Judicial Crisis Network. Start with the fact that
``Judicial Crisis Network'' does not exist. It is, legally speaking, a
fiction. Who knew, right--an entity selling fiction that is itself a
fiction. ``Judicial Crisis Network'' is actually a ``fictitious
name''--that is a term under Virginia incorporation law--a fictitious
name, one of several filed by an organization, a completely different
organization, called the Concord Fund.
It gets even more tangled, as dark money schemes tend to be--they are
a lot like a covert operation--so let's keep digging.
The Judicial Crisis Network actually used to exist. It was once the
501(c)(4) twin of a 501(c)(3) called the Judicial Education Project.
That is the state of the art these days for dark money political
mischief, a twinned 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4). Tax records list the same
address for both entities--conveniently an address which happens to be
just right down the hall, on the same floor, in the same building, as
the Federalist Society.
This twinned organization trick allows donors to shift money in and
out of different shady operations with zero disclosure, and it even
gives donors a tax deduction to the 501(c)(3). You could pierce that
corporate veil pretty easily.
All this schemery hides the donors behind the operation. It fools
members of the press who don't bother to figure it out, and it helps
dark money operatives like Leonard Leo, the central organizer of the
scheme--the operative for the big dark money donors--to hide their
hands and shuffle money secretly around.
Leonard Leo, you will recall, ran the donor turnstile at the
Federalist Society that picked Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and
Barrett. Then, at the tail end of the Trump administration, with no
more Supreme Court appointments likely, Leo scuttled off to a new
venture: CRC Advisors.
CRC Advisors was designed, as Axios reported, to ``funnel big money
and expertise across the conservative movement.''
As an aside, CRC Advisors has an affiliate called CRC Strategies,
which, among other things, brought us the infamous swift boat campaign
against John Kerry--classy bunch.
Along with the inception of CRC Advisors, Judicial Crisis Network was
quietly renamed the ``Concord Fund,'' and the Judicial Education
Project was quietly renamed the ``85 Fund.''
These became twin 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(3) political mischief
operations. Concord, as a 501(c)(4), would handle attack ads and PR.
The 85 Fund, the 501(c)(3), would help mask Concord's operations and
donors and provide tax deductibility.
So that was the original setup, the renaming. Then these newly named
groups loaded up with all these fictitious names. They filed under
Virginia law for permission to operate under fictitious names, and
these are the fictitious names they registered to use.
First, Concord took its old name--its old name--and reregistered it
as this new fictitious name. And so did 85 Fund, taking its old name,
Judicial Education Project, and registering it as a fictitious name. Go
figure why that was necessary.
Then they stood up new voter suppression projects under other
fictitious names: Honest Elections Project Action and Honest Elections
Project. Those two front groups--fictitious name front groups--are part
of the dark money armada, along with Heritage Action and others,
through which big rightwing donors orchestrated the anti-voting laws
that have spread like a virus through Republican State legislatures.
That didn't just happen. That was done. And as a Heritage Action
employee admitted in a leaked video, they did it, quietly, through
sentinels.
Concord also added another fictitious name, Free to Learn Action, and
85 Fund created the twin Free to Learn. These fronts are presumably to
whip up the rightwing about so-called critical race theory when the big
donors want.
Gobs of money pours into this propaganda machine. The 85 Fund's last
tax filing shows $65 million in revenues, including one $48.5 million
donation from a single, anonymous donor. If it is the same single,
anonymous donor that contributed the over $15 million contributions to
the Judicial Crisis Network before, that would put one donor over $100
million into this Court-capture scheme--and all that money for an
organization with only one employee who draws a salary of over $100,000
per year.
So no surprise, then, that the 85 Fund channels lots of money back to
the CRC mother ship. Its last tax filing shows over $12 million paid to
Leo's CRC Advisors for so-called consulting/advertising services, and
it distributed over $34 million to other unnamed groups, presumably in
other areas of the scheme, in a big dark money shuffle.
We are still waiting for Concord Fund records for the most recent tax
year, but the previous year's filing proves the Axios reporting is spot
on. Concord's top independent contractor is CRC Advisors, paid over
$4.2 million for consulting services. It is out of this pea-and-shell
game switcheroo that the dark money Judicial Crisis Network ad emerges.
I have noticed recently--in fact, as recently as our last Judiciary
Committee markup--that Republicans are currently reverting, often, to
the same dark money line of attack as the Judicial Crisis Network. As
we watch Republican Senators attack Democrat dark money, let's remember
a few things. First, Republicans created, protected, and defended--and
defend to this day--dark money. Republicans
[[Page S589]]
block our efforts to get rid of dark money.
Republicans came first to the dark money game with billions of dark
money dollars. Then, when we began to play by their rules--the rules
they made, the rules they defend--they complained. I guess they hope
that we will unilaterally disarm so they can pound us with dark money
just as they did for years after their Republican Justices in Citizens
United let the big money flow.
Well, unilateral disarmament isn't going to happen, but that is not
the only reason for the squid ink. The falsehood of this ad serves to
damn us all in the eyes of the public. The rightwing scheme reckons
that Americans, frustrated and cynical about a slimy, dark money battle
purportedly involving both sides, will tune out and turn away from what
Justice Sotomayor has called the ``stench'' of partisanship emerging at
the Supreme Court.
All this misdirection--squid ink--can then distract from their
captured Court's record for the big scheme's donors. The ``Roberts
Five'' have a pattern now, a pattern of 80--80--partisan 5-to-4
decisions, all benefiting easily identified Republican donor
interests--an 80-to-0 record. It is a heck of a pattern.
And now they have a new rightwing, dark money supermajority to amp it
up even further. It is no wonder polling shows that Americans believe
the six-Justice Republican majority is motivated mainly by politics and
that the Court's approval rating just hit an alltime low.
So a little distraction is in order. Cue the squid ink. Meanwhile,
the Senate minority leader is reportedly urging his caucus to keep a
low profile on Biden's nominee. I get it. When you have got your
burglars inside merrily ransacking a house, the last thing you want is
a noisy ruckus out on the front lawn. One liberal Justice exchanged for
another isn't worth a fuss when the loot is being shoveled out the
window to your gang.
If there was any honest concern about dark money on the Republican
side, there is a really, really easy way to show it: support
legislation to clean it up; put an end to it.
I have a bill, the DISCLOSE Act. It will end dark money in our
politics and in our judiciary. Every single Senate Democrat has voted
in favor of this DISCLOSE Act. Even the liberal groups that Judicial
Crisis Network complains about are backing that bill.
So, my Republican friends, support it, pass the law, end the slimy,
political, dark money era we now live in. They could do that, but I
will make you a bet that they won't. Dark money power is too important
a weapon for rightwing donors to abandon.
So, instead, Republicans in this Chamber filibuster that
legislation--filibuster it--and dark money continues to corrupt our
politics.
Brace yourselves, folks. Squid ink will flow in the weeks and months
ahead. For the dark money forces squirting out the squid ink, the aim
is defense, defense of their mighty prize: the Court that dark money
built and that dances to their dark money tune.
To be continued.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I commend my colleague for talking
about dark money. I was so curious this week when I saw--I think it
was--a New York Times article about the amount of dark money that came
from the Democratic side of the aisle this year far outpacing anything
that Republicans had spent. So I hope he is going to be successful in
dealing with some of his supporters on that side of the aisle.
Crime and Border Security
Mr. President, what I want to focus on today is a meeting that I had
the opportunity to have last week with the Tennessee Association of
Chiefs of Police and yesterday with Tennessee sheriffs who had come up.
And one of the things that they talked about repeatedly in these
meetings is the recent crime spike. This is something on everybody's
mind, and for good reason. The majority of America's 40 most populous
cities saw an increase in homicides last year--40 most populous,
increase, homicides. More officers were intentionally killed on the job
than in any other year since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
This is why morale is low.
Shoplifting is surging, and the thieves are getting creative. Instead
of stuffing merchandise in their clothing and smuggling it out the
door, gangs of thieves are executing smash-and-grab raids. We are also
seeing a spike in drug use. Overdose deaths were up 30 percent in 2020.
This is not trivial; it is not frivolous; it is not a laughing
matter; and it is something you cannot just overlook. It is life.
And I am sorry to say that Tennessee hasn't escaped this terrible
trend. In 2021, the homicide spike in Memphis set a new record. We lost
more than 3,000 Tennesseans to drug overdoses in 2020.
Law enforcement officers take this personally because they see how
quickly crime can destroy a community. Are they worried? Yes. Do they
have reason to be worried? Absolutely. As I said, morale is low.
Recruiting is hard.
But here is what struck me about my conversation with the police
chiefs and the sheriffs. They don't only consider the local effects.
They really see the big picture and the issue writ large for what it
truly is.
You won't be surprised to know that the lack of security along our
southern border came up more than once in these conversations. The
chiefs, the officers see the ripple effects of the Biden
administration's absolutely demoralizing failure to enforce the law.
On his first day in the White House, President Biden endorsed
lawlessness when he made it harder for Border Patrol to secure the
country. That stroke of a pen caused absolute chaos on our southern
border.
Border Patrol detained more than 1.7 million migrants between January
and September of 2021, and 1.1 million of those people were single
adults. They were not families.
Those 1.7 million were just the ones we were able to catch. We will
never know how many hundreds of thousands of ``got-aways'' made it into
the interior of the country, nor do we know what they were bringing in
with them that they were trying to evade the Border Patrol.
People and drugs are flowing across the border. Just last week, I
came here to the floor and told the story of the Border Patrol's $7
million week. Between January 21 and January 28, 1 week, they seized 47
pounds of meth, 3,800 pounds of marijuana, and almost 20 pounds of
cocaine--1 week.
Hopefully, those drug mules are behind bars, but, remember, those are
just the drug mules we caught. We do not know what the ``got-aways''
were bringing in with them or how many drug mules there were or how
many hundreds of women they were trafficking in for sex trafficking,
for human trafficking, for gangs, for labor crews. We don't know.
My Democratic colleagues continue to spin the border crisis as a
purely humanitarian issue, but what we are seeing along our southern
border is lawbreaking. In many cases, it is dangerous criminal
behavior. And the Biden administration is ignoring every bit of it.
Don't believe what you see. Don't believe the Border Patrol. Don't
believe the people who are down there running videos. Oh, no.
Everything is fine. Just listen to them.
But do you know who does not believe this? Our law enforcement
officers. They don't believe what this administration is saying because
they see something different. Every town is a border town, every State
is a border State because of that open southern border.
Our law enforcement officers can't ignore this. They can't ignore the
ripple effects because they live it every single day. They put on the
belt, the badge. They go out, and they do their job. They see how the
Democrats' desire to ignore lawless behavior when it benefits their
narrative has created a perfect storm of violence, of fear, and has
empowered criminals--not quite the message you want to send if you
believe in the rule of law.
Just yesterday, I had to send a letter to Health and Human Services
demanding to know why taxpayer dollars are funding fresh crack pipes
for drug addicts. That is right. A HHS spokesman has confirmed that the
Agency is pushing a grant program that would fund so-called smoking
kits with pipes for users to smoke crystal meth, crack cocaine, and
``any illicit substances''--government-funded drug paraphernalia.
[[Page S590]]
Every once in a while, you think you have heard it all. Meanwhile,
the border sits wide open, crime is on the rise, and we are asking
police departments to do more with less.
A recent survey showed that between April 2020 and April 2021, police
force retirements were up 45 percent, and resignations were up 18
percent compared to the previous year. There is no coincidence there.
It is time for the administration to decide whose side they are on.
Are they on the side of the American people? Are they on the side of
law enforcement? Are they on the side of criminals and monsters who
really are responsible for this terrible crime spike?
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Biden Administration
Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, when the Biden administration ordered the
evacuation of families of U.S. diplomats from Ukraine last month due to
the increased threats of Russian military action and crime, a Ukrainian
official clapped back: ``Quite frankly these Americans are safer in
Kyiv than they are in [Los Angeles] . . . or any other crime-ridden
city in the U.S.''
Yes, that is what a Ukrainian official said. The comment really
struck a nerve because it may not be so far from the truth. In fact, an
L.A. Police Department detective says the out-of-control crime in the
city is ``so violent, we're telling people `don't visit,' because we
don't think we can keep you safe right now.'' The city was surrendered
to criminals by the L.A. district attorney on his first day on the job
in 2020 when he banned bail and prohibited prosecuting even the most
serious crimes, like murder and rape, to the fullest extent of the law.
The consequences of giving ``get out of jail free'' cards to
criminals shouldn't surprise anyone. Flash mobs of thieves breaking
into local businesses are giving new meaning to ``door busters'' as
they ransack city stores like bargain shoppers on Black Friday.
Looters are robbing trains like it is the Wild West, making off with
millions of dollars' worth of merchandise, including pistols and
shotguns. A Union Pacific Railroad official says that even when
apprehended, criminals boast that they will face no serious charges,
and within hours, they are let back out on the streets.
But most troubling, over the past 2 years, Los Angeles has
experienced a shocking 94-percent increase in homicides. The L.A.
sheriff says it is probably one of the biggest jumps ever, and he lays
the blame on the woke policies of both the district attorney and the
county board.
These senseless acts of violence aren't confined to liberal Los
Angeles, and neither is the revolving-prison-door approach that is
allowing career criminals to roam our streets. The U.S. murder rate hit
its highest point in a quarter of a century last year. More and more
felons are being released across the country as a result of permissive
policies being pushed by progressive politicians and lenient district
attorneys who view punishment as the real crime.
Democrats in New York, for example, recently pushed through a State
law requiring the release of suspects arrested for stalking, arson,
robbery, and other misdemeanors without bail. They require the release
without bail. And despite the dramatic increases in crime in New York
City, a Democrat district attorney released a list of crimes--I am
serious about this, folks--released a list of crimes on his first day
in office that would no longer be prosecuted, including resisting
arrest. The DA claims longer sentences don't deter crime or result in
greater community safety.
But a former New York City police commissioner points out the
obvious--that when you say you are not going to prosecute certain
crimes, you are sending a strong message to criminals. And it is the
wrong message to criminals. He notes that since the penalty was taken
away, stealing a car has become a game. As a result, vehicle theft is
driving up the city's crime rate, and the New York Post reported just
last week that the Big Apple is becoming a live action version of the
game Grand Theft Auto.
But the wave of crime that has been unleashed is far more deadly than
just stolen property. New York City's murder rate spiked an astounding
47 percent last year, and the killing spree is continuing into 2022.
The latest victims include a teenager who was working at Burger King
and two young police officers.
Refusing to keep dangerous, repeat criminals with a history of
violence behind bars allows anyone, at any time, to become the victim
of an entirely preventable crime.
For example, the low bail set by a Wisconsin District Attorney's
Office last November resulted in the release of a violent criminal with
a very long list of charges going back 15 years, including running over
a woman with a Ford Escape. Within days of being released, he drove
that same SUV into a crowded Christmas parade, injuring more than 60
people and killing 6, including a 5-year-old child and several members
of the Dancing Grannies, who were entertaining the crowds at that
Christmas parade. In a split second, the joy of the season was turned
into a gruesome crime scene because a violent, repeat offender was set
free. The Democrat district attorney has since admitted the release was
``a mistake.''
Folks, we cannot afford any more of these mistakes by public
officials who are putting their personal political agenda ahead of
protecting our public.
If letting criminals out of jail without bail isn't bad enough,
progressive politicians are even--get this--providing perks for
perpetrators. The Biden administration, for instance, is allowing
illegal immigrants to use arrest warrants as alternate forms of ID at
airports to clear security checkpoints and board airplanes--arrest
warrants. Seriously, folks.
Some liberal cities, like New York and San Francisco, have cash for
criminals, programs that actually pay prior offenders in the hopes that
they won't shoot anyone. Great plan. That is right--the same gang
calling to defund the police wants to fund felons.
A California cash for criminals program may have allowed some
individuals to get away with murder. As long as the participants pledge
to improve, they are still paid. Even when caught with a gun or, worse,
suspected of murder, they get paid.
Folks, it is one thing to give first-time, nonviolent offenders a
second chance, but rewarding career criminals by letting them loose and
paying them an allowance is itself criminal.
Democrats' approach to criminal justice can be summed up as ``take no
prisoners'' literally.
Instead of admitting their approach has backfired, liberals keep
looking for excuses, and they play the blame game. To address the rise
in carjackings in Chicago, for example, progressive politicians
proposed banning the video game Grand Theft Auto. Perhaps the real
problem is making crime all fun and games, with no real-world penalties
and only rewards, just like the video game.
A retired police officer who was carjacked in his own driveway south
of the city says the carjackers know that even if they are caught,
``they are going to get right back out.'' That is because the area's
State attorney promised to reduce the prison population, and by golly,
she is keeping that promise by dismissing tens of thousands of criminal
cases. As a result, about 100 people charged with murder in Cook County
have been let out on the city streets.
The Chicago police superintendent is even warning that the Cook
County court is ``making us all less safe by releasing violent
offenders.'' The horrifying numbers speak for themselves.
Chicago had more murders last year than any other city in the United
States with nearly 800 homicides. That is more people than in the small
community I grew up near--800 homicides.
Shootings in the city are up a shocking 63 percent since 2019. One of
the fatal victims was a 7-year-old girl who was gunned down at a
McDonald's by a gang member who was allowed out of prison despite being
charged with other crimes. The suspects in another recent shootout,
which left one dead and two others wounded, were released without
charges.
Public officials charged with enforcing the law who signal that it is
OK to commit crime by reducing or eliminating penalties are engaging in
criminal negligence. It is time to put an end to prosecutors being
partners in crime.
I took the first step towards making our streets safer by introducing
legislation to increase the penalties for some
[[Page S591]]
violent offenders and child predators, including life imprisonment for
repeat offenders.
Folks, progressive prosecutors need to stop playing politics and
start doing their job, which is enforcing the law. Criminal penalties
are not just suggestions; they are put in place to protect the public.
Parents shouldn't have to worry about the safety of their children, and
no one should feel unsafe, especially in their own neighborhood.
Let's get serious about crime so that the only people in America who
are afraid to walk the streets are the criminals.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I have two words for you today: ``crack
pipes''--crack pipes, not crackpots.
Many of us went to bed last night, others waking up this morning, and
heads are exploding across this Nation as we learn that this
administration is giving crack pipes to crackheads. I think when the
history books are written about this President and 2020 through 2024,
that will be the picture right next to the President's name--a picture
of crack pipes being given out by this administration.
I want to come back to that in a second, though.
I have a picture of my dad today and our dog Rennie. My dad and our
family--my mom, an older brother, younger sister--moved off the family
farm when I was 5. My dad was a proud, proud police officer. I remember
the day in kindergarten when my dad and our family dog Rennie came to
visit and what a proud moment it was for me. In 3 years, my dad was
head of the fire department, and 2 years after that, he became the
chief of police. My dad was the chief of police in El Dorado, KS, for
some 25 years.
My dad represented law in the community. He represented right from
wrong, and he applied that law equally. There was never a gray area for
my dad. I remember having dinner at my grandma's house one Sunday
evening and the phone ringing. We didn't have pagers. We didn't have
cell phones.
All I remember, my dad was saying: Stand down.
My grandma looked at us and said: You guys better hug your dad
goodbye.
I said: Grandma, what do you mean?
She said: He may not come back.
It was a familiar story of a domestic violence, of a drunk husband
with his wife on the front porch. There was always a 12-gauge shotgun.
It was never a 16-gauge or a 20; it was always a 12-gauge shotgun. My
dad was the person who would go and disarm that person. It happened way
too often.
But I just tell that story as we reminisce because we know how
important law enforcement officers are to all of us.
I remember, you know, you sit around and you listen while you are
making homemade ice cream, and people asked my dad questions about
crime. I think of those crack pipes and my dad always saying that drugs
and crime go hand in hand like peanut butter and jelly--the more drug
abuse there is, the more crimes there were in the community.
I remember somebody asking him why would the police officers be so
strict about petty crimes. Maybe it was a little vandalism. Maybe it
was a broken window. Maybe it was graffiti. I remember my dad talking
about, you have to set an example, that if you allow people to
vandalize, if you allow people to do graffiti, if you allow people to
break windows, it is just a cascade of bigger crimes.
I finished up some townhalls this past weekend--15 townhalls in the
past 2 weeks--and what Americans are concerned about are inflation and
crime. This is what Americans--Kansans--are telling me that they are
seeing every night on their television sets. They are seeing 2 million
people--maybe 6 million people--cross our border illegally, and they
see this administration reward them with an all-expenses-paid vacation
trip to any city in America.
America has seen riots and vandalism on television, and this
administration and this party applaud them. Every night, we see looting
and shoplifting, but this administration says: Don't prosecute.
Last year, America saw 5 tons of fentanyl cross the border illegally,
cross our southern border--five tons. Think of five big semitrucks
loaded with a ton--that is 2,000 pounds--of fentanyl. I remind
everybody that 1 teaspoon of fentanyl can kill 2,000 to 3,000
Americans.
We are seeing our law enforcement officers being told to turn their
backs on violent crimes, to not chase the bad guys. America sees this
White House and their party turn their backs on law enforcement
officers.
Again, I go back to my dad. I remember it was probably around 2014,
and my dad and I were fishing, as we often do together, probably
crappie fishing on a farm pond in the Flint Hills of Kansas, my
favorite place to be. My dad said to me: You know, Son, I don't think
this President has the back of our law enforcement officers any more.
As I visit with those law enforcement officers every time I am back--
and I appreciate them coming to my townhalls and having my back--I can
tell you, the law enforcement officers across this country do not feel
like they are being supported by this White House.
As I think about an America of today versus growing up, I do think
there has been a decay in our culture, and this ``defund the police''
movement from the radical left made that culture even weaker. We have
members of this squad wanting to close Federal prisons. They encourage
open borders. They want illegals to use arrest warrants to get through
the TSA. Of course, they want criminals to get off the hook. There is
this culture of lawlessness.
Again, I go back to my generation of ``If it feels good, do it.'' I
remember that saying for the first time from some song, I believe, from
the early 1970s, ``If it feels good, do it,'' and that is the way this
country is acting right now. What is the result? We see crowds chanting
``Pigs in a blanket, fry `em [up] like bacon.''
``Pigs in a blanket, fry `em [up] like bacon.''
The next time one of those houses is burning down that one of those
people lives in, I wonder who they are going to call. If they are
stranded in a motor vehicle accident, who is going to be the first one
on the scene? Again, I go back to thinking about my dad and him
carrying out one of my classmates in second grade from a fire.
Unfortunately, my classmate didn't make it.
Three hundred forty-six law enforcement officers were shot in 2021.
Seventy-three were intentional. Twenty-four were shot last month--a 40-
percent increase. Ambush-style attacks increased 115 percent. We have
never seen a crimewave like this across our Nation--not since the early
1990s, anyway. The United States recently saw the fastest increase in
murder rates ever recorded. Violent crimes spiked. Fourteen major,
Democratic-run cities are setting alltime highs for homicide records.
The numbers continue to go up.
As I think about advice for this administration, I know if they had
the will, they could fix this problem. I know exactly what my dad would
tell them. He would say: Treat criminals like criminals. Treat police
officers, law enforcement officers, like heroes. Tell them thanks.
Reward them. Respect them.
It is time to re-fund the police, folks. It is time to secure the
border. Let's hold criminals accountable.
It was a rare day, but I do remember my dad talking at the supper
table about someone they worked so hard to convict, and a judge or DA
let them off easy. We need to prosecute the smallest of crimes.
We need an Attorney General. Where is our Attorney General? Where is
he? In the middle of this crime spree, where is our Attorney General?
He needs to be tough on crime instead of labeling parents as ``domestic
terrorists.''
Simply, America, it is time to get back to our values--the same
values my dad raised us on. It is time to, like my dad did, apply the
law equally.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. ROSEN). The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, last week, a member of the Biden
administration was confused--very confused--why FOX News is talking all
the time about crime. That person is the Press Secretary to President
Biden, Ms. Psaki. She said Americans care more about what is happening
in their daily lives than what the news says about crime.
[[Page S592]]
How much more out of touch could the Biden administration be? Crime
is happening in Americans' daily lives all across America. Thousands
more people a year are being murdered.
Violent crime has increased for 2 years, and there is no sign of it
slowing down.
The administration's plan to fix the violent crime spike is merely
another partisan gun control plan. That is what they think about, doing
something about crime: control the guns of people who abide by the law.
They won't seriously reduce violent crime. If you do that, it focuses
on issues that make up a tiny fraction of violent crimes or maybe it
doesn't contribute to the problem at all.
For example, the administration wants to crack down on ghost guns,
but ghost guns are involved in only a fraction of 1 percent of the
crimes--particularly of the murders.
The Biden administration also wants to focus on the so-called ``Iron
Pipeline,'' and that is blaming red States for guns in crime-ridden
blue States. But on that issue, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms, their data shows that guns used in blue-city crimes usually
come from that very same blue State.
Finally, the Biden administration wants to focus on lawful gun
sellers, but we have a Department of Justice study finding most crimes
are committed with stolen guns from the black market.
So I worry about the Department of Justice could use efforts to
reduce violent crime as a pretext to harass lawful gun dealers and
owners. Gun sales have increased nationwide because Americans don't
feel safe anymore. They feel the police are not proactively policing,
so they get a gun to protect themselves.
Honest people who don't break the law want to feel safe, and that
makes them feel safe. I don't blame them for taking protection of their
life and property into their hands.
I related recently about the increases in crime that have nothing to
do with guns, and yet all we hear from this administration is about
controlling guns. But what does that have to do--gun control is not
going to stop criminals from pushing people in front of subway trains.
Gun control won't stop flash mobs from stealing goods from stores. It
isn't going to stop the thieves from looting train yards, and you see
evidence of this all the time on television--almost daily--people going
into stores with bags, filling it up, and just think in San Francisco
some prosecutor said if you steal less than $950, you won't be
prosecuted.
So you wonder why people commit crime. If you aren't going to pay a
penalty for it, why not do it? So the Biden administration is wasting
precious resources and taxpayer dollars on partisan pet projects of gun
control.
The Biden administration has ordered the Department of Justice to
look like it is doing something without really doing anything at all.
You know what Americans actually need to reduce violent crime? They
need police forces empowered to do their jobs with the right resources
and protections.
Now, we hear the Biden administration just last week in New York
saying it supports police. The President himself was up there. But a
leaked Executive order shows it wants to take away their nonlethal,
lifesaving tools, and make it more difficult for police to get grants
for funding.
Americans also need responsible bail policies--these policies that,
if they were responsible, wouldn't let dangerous criminals back out
onto the streets to kill people.
They need prosecutors who will actually do their job to keep violent
criminals away from the vulnerable. The Biden administration has a
chance to make a real difference in reducing violent crime. It is a
shame that they are wasting their time and resources on a misleading
message.
When you see the prosecutors in Los Angeles and San Francisco listing
a whole bunch of crimes that they are not going to prosecute, it just
invites lawbreaking. We need to stop this ``defund the police''
crusade. We need to step up prosecution. We need to eliminate
progressive prosecutors. We need to make sure that people don't get
bail if they are repeat criminals or a threat to society.
In the final analysis, taxpayers are paying for public safety, but in
some places in the United States, they aren't getting their money's
worth for public safety they pay for. Government is set up to maintain
public safety, and that is what we are all about with this War on
Crime, protecting the taxpayers, protecting every citizen taxpayer or
not.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, oftentimes when we talk rising crime,
we talk about statistics. For example, last year in Milwaukee, there
were 194 murders.
As I prepared to give remarks yesterday, I got the stat that there
were 26 murders already this year. That is an 86-percent increase.
Unfortunately, last night there were two more murders, and now it is up
to 28.
Seventy-three law enforcement officers were intentionally killed in
the line of duty last year. That is the highest it has been since 1995.
We had three police officers shot in a 2-week period at the end of
January. Those are just some of the statistics, and I am sure you have
heard a lot more on the floor here today. But one thing I don't think
we talk about enough are the victims.
I heard President Biden's Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, last week. I
guess she was monitoring different TV stations, and she remarked that
one commentator was talking about soft-on-crime consequences, and she
giggled and said what does that even mean?
Well, I will talk about what it means. An excellent article in the
Just the News a couple days ago had some heartbreaking examples of
those consequences.
Last week, we held an event about the open border, about the catch-
and-release policies of this administration, record levels of people
coming into this country illegally and what that represents from a
standpoint of national security and homeland security and crime.
In Alabama's Chilton County, two illegal immigrants, ages 27 and 28,
have been charged in the murders of three adults found shot and burned
in an SUV.
In another recent case, a Florida father who believed he was taking
in a 16-year-old migrant minor from Honduras, a Good Samaritan, was
killed by that migrant who turned out to be much older and involved in
crime.
In Florida, a 5-year-old girl riding in her mother's car was crushed
to death when an illegal immigrant from Honduras crashed into the car.
The driver admitted he got into the car after drinking six cans of 32-
ounce beers.
In Harris County, TX, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador is
charged with exiting his vehicle during a routine traffic stop and
fatally shooting the sheriff's deputy in the face.
Those are just a few examples of the consequences of soft-on-crime
policies. Those are crimes that were committed by illegal immigrants
that take advantage of the catch-and-release policies on the border.
But we are not only just experiencing catch-and-release on the
southern border, we also have catch-and-release in our criminal justice
system--these no-bail, low-bail policies promoted by generally Democrat
district attorneys in cities governed for decades by Democrats.
We had a tragedy in Waukesha, WI. It never should have happened. This
was during the Waukesha Christmas parade, when children lined up on the
street, on the curb, waiting to see Santa Claus--instead they saw a
slaughter. Six innocent people lost their lives. Sixty-two people were
injured--their lives forever altered.
And it didn't have to happen because the murderer had been let out on
a thousand-dollar bail after having run over the mother of his child
with that same SUV. That is the result--that crime, those 6 innocent
victims, those 62 innocent victims who were injured, their family
members, their loved ones are the consequences of soft-on-crime
policies of Democratic governance.
So as horrific as those 6 murders were, as horrific as the 62
injuries were, what I can't get out of my mind are those little
children sitting on the curb waiting to see Santa and instead
witnessing the slaughter. How do they ever recover from that? Is that
something that Jen Psaki ever thinks
[[Page S593]]
about? Is that something that President Biden ever thinks about?
As Jen giggles about the consequences, these are serious
consequences. We need to get tough on crime. We need to put violent
criminals in jail and leave them in jail so they don't create more
victims.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I think Senator Blunt from Missouri is
going to ask for recognition, and I do not object to that. But I was
scheduled for earlier, and I would like to ask unanimous consent that
when the upcoming rollcall is completed, I be the first Senator
recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Sorry, after the second rollcall, that I be the first
Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up
to 5 minutes before the scheduled rollcall vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, there are really few jobs in the country
as difficult, as dangerous, and as demanding as the sacrifice of being
a law enforcement officer. I would suggest the one job that may
possibly be harder--and certainly in my view is as hard--is to be the
family member of a law enforcement officer, wondering all during that
working shift what might be happening to the person you care so much
about.
You know the challenges to these officers and their families--the
challenges they face today are intensified as local departments
struggle with the staffing shortages caused by record high departures
and difficulty filling the open positions they have got.
The Eastern Missouri Police Academy had around half as many recruits
join in 2021 as they had in 2020. In my hometown of Springfield, MO,
they have 40 vacancies right now they are trying to fill in the
department.
In January, the Columbia, MO, Police Department had around 20
vacancies in a force that its maximum size would be 187 or so people.
According to the St. Louis Post Dispatch in September, officer
departures in St. Louis City and St. Louis County spiked in 2021 and
were at a pace to be up to 60 percent higher in each of those
departments than they had been in the average year.
In the police force here, I was with Chief Manger yesterday, and he
pointed out that retirements and resignations were 50 percent higher
than they have been in recent years in 2021.
The new chief of police at the St. Louis County Police Force said: My
biggest priority is hiring and finding people who will do these jobs.
These staff shortages are unfortunate, but they are in so many ways
predictable of a movement that villainized enforcement for, I think,
political gain in many cases. Officers have been demoralized by the
``defund the police'' crusade. They have been discouraged by
prosecutors who put dangerous criminals back on the street or even put
out a list of crimes that people will not be prosecuted for.
That is well beyond the standard of belief that most people would
have had, actually, until they heard it, my guess would be, that, no,
these are crimes that we are just not going to prosecute people for.
Police saw themselves, in many cases, forced out of the force because
of a vaccine mandate they didn't agree with, often going to smaller
forces that had less than 100 people.
All this is happening, really, against a backdrop of a crime wave
that is harming communities of all sizes all across the country.
When I talk to police chiefs, I hear concerns that a lot of good
candidates are deciding maybe law enforcement won't be the career that
they want to have. When I talk to the sworn officers that I see here
every day and I see at home, I hear many of them feel they just simply
have a job where they face danger but they don't get enough support
that they need to do the job that they need to do.
Police work has always been dangerous. We have always lost officers.
They have always been courageous in their willingness to stand up, but
last year was the deadliest year ever for law enforcement officers.
Four hundred fifty-eight officers died in the line of duty in 2021, 128
of them from gunshot wounds or fatalities from traffic.
You don't have to travel very far away from here, just down
Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol to the National Law Enforcement
Officers Memorial, to understand what it means to lose officers and
what it means to lose them in protection of the country. The marble
walls there bear the names of thousands of officers who have been
killed in the line of duty. Each corner of that memorial shows a lion
protecting its cubs.
We have always seen law enforcement as our protectors, not as those
we should somehow fear. It eats away at our society to say that we
appreciate law enforcement but we really don't want to do what is
necessary to support law enforcement.
I think there is no data that says one or more tweets that say
``defund the police'' leads to two crimes or two muggings, but it
simply makes common sense that when police departments are understaffed
and undertrained, it increases the risk of violent crime on the
officers themselves and the communities they serve.
As the cochair of the Senate Law Enforcement Caucus, one of my
priorities has been to ensure that law enforcement officers have the
support and resources they need to do the job they are asked to do and
do it as safely and effectively as they possibly can.
We certainty all can and I think would agree--I certainly would--that
there really should be zero tolerance for police misconduct. Taking the
oath to support and defend and then somehow not conducting yourself in
the right way, if you cross that line, you ought to be held
accountable.
We need to view people on the line as people who are there to defend
us, to serve us. We need to make this a profession that people want to
be part of, and if they are willing to be part of it, we have provided
them everything they need to be safely doing the hard work that they
are asked to do.
I yield the floor.
Vote on Bush Nomination
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time
has expired.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Bush
nomination?
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan)
and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), are necessarily absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Rounds), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 2, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 45 Ex.]
YEAS--93
Baldwin
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
[[Page S594]]
NAYS--2
Hawley
Scott (FL)
NOT VOTING--5
Barrasso
Lujan
Rounds
Sanders
Tillis
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is made and laid upon the table, and the President will be
immediately notified of the Senate's actions.
____________________