[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.

                          ____________________