Congressional Record, Volume 168 Issue 31 (Wednesday, February 16, 2022)

[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 16, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S739-S747]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the critical
role played by U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals in keeping America
safe.
Law enforcement is a team effort, and we need officials at the
Federal, State, and local levels working together to stop crime in this
country and to keep people safe in their homes and in their
neighborhoods.
It was only 2 months ago when I came to the floor of this Senate to
request unanimous consent for the Senate to take up and confirm five
U.S. attorney nominations. Despite the outstanding credentials of all
of these nominees, one Senator, the junior Senator from Arkansas,
refused to allow the Senate to confirm five nominees for U.S. attorney
positions by a voice vote--a tradition in the Senate. That Senator's
objections had nothing to do with the nominees. He said so. They had
nothing to do with their records and had nothing to do with their
qualifications.
Well, after he was confronted on the floor of the Senate, he lifted
his objections. We were able to get those U.S. attorneys confirmed and
put them to work, and there is work to be done in every State in the
Union to make this a safer nation.
We believe in law enforcement--we believe in it at every level--and
when there is delay in putting professionals in place, that delay can
cost lives. If you stand up and say ``I don't want to defund the
police'' but then refuse to fill vacancies when it comes to law
enforcement, that is inconsistent.
Sadly, we find ourselves in the same position today, 2 months later,
with the same Senator from Arkansas. He is again objecting to the swift
confirmation of U.S. attorney and U.S. marshal nominations. In short,
this same Senator is making it increasingly difficult for us to
prosecute violent criminals, track down fugitives, and protect
Americans from gang violence, cybercrime, terrorism, and fraud.
It is worth taking a moment to consider what U.S. attorneys and U.S.
marshals do. The positions that they hold are nearly as old as the
Nation itself. Both U.S. marshal and U.S. attorney positions were
created by the Judiciary Act of 1789, passed by the First Congress, and
signed into law by President George Washington.
The specific responsibilities have changed over time, but the core
function is the same. This is the Federal answer to enforcing the law,
prosecuting crimes, and protecting our communities. U.S. attorneys are
charged with prosecuting all Federal criminal offenses. U.S. marshals
have the responsibility of risking their lives to protect Federal
judges and courthouses, tracking down fugitives, and assisting in
locating and recovering missing children, just to mention a few. In
short, U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals play a critical role in
enforcing the law, promoting public safety, and protecting our
communities.
So it is sad that this same junior Senator from Arkansas is blocking
the confirmations of six U.S. attorneys and two U.S. marshals today.
Doing so threatens public safety across America and puts millions of
Americans at risk, including the most vulnerable.
Despite all of the tough talk we hear from many of these Senators on
the other side of the aisle about their dedication to law and order and
keeping America safe, it is a Republican Senator who refuses to take up
and confirm these nominations in an expeditious way.
Before I ask for consent for the Senate to confirm the nominees, I
would like to yield to the majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I thank the majority whip.
Thank you for your good work as chair of the Judiciary and for your
talk on this issue.
I thank my colleague from Minnesota, who has been passionate about
getting this done as well.
I rise today to join with my Democratic colleagues in support of
these U.S. attorneys and marshals who have singlehandedly been delayed
for weeks by one Senator, the junior Senator from Arkansas.
For decades--decades--Democrats and Republicans have regularly
cooperated to swiftly confirm the many, many individuals selected by
each President to serve in their administration. Regardless of the
party in the White House, both sides have long agreed that a President
deserves to have his or her administration in place

[[Page S740]]

quickly. That doesn't mean we don't disagree, but it does mean that
when nominees are held up, opposed, or blocked, it is for a legitimate
purpose, not for leverage and partisan games to score political points
at the expense of public safety. Most of us still believe in that
principle but, sadly, not all of us.
On the other side of the aisle, a small group of obstructionist
Republicans has spent the last year hijacking the rules of the Senate
to place an unprecedented number of holds on hundreds--hundreds--of
Presidential appointees.
Let me repeat. This isn't about a few nominees here and there; we are
talking about hundreds of nominees.
In this case, my colleague from Arkansas is holding back six U.S.
attorneys and two U.S. marshals--vital roles in preserving public
safety. The level of partisan obstruction is a new low for the Senate.
When President Trump was in office, every single U.S. attorney and
U.S. marshal--every single one--was confirmed by this Chamber with
unanimous consent. Yes, we had deep, deep problems with the Trump
Department of Justice, but never did we demand a rollcall vote just to
confirm nominees like these. In fact, the last time the Senate had to
hold a rollcall vote--listen to this--the last time the Senate had to
hold a rollcall vote to confirm a U.S. attorney was a half a century
ago--nearly half a century ago--in 1975, and it is not hard to see why.
U.S. attorneys and marshals aren't political positions. Their job is
literally to keep Americans safe. They are Federal prosecutors, and
they are Federal law enforcement.
If my Republican colleagues on the other side truly care about public
safety, why are they obstructing the appointments of individuals whose
jobs would precisely be to maintain public safety in the first place?
It is ``Alice in Wonderland'' logic.
Now, this isn't just about breaking precedent. Right now, communities
across the country still don't have their U.S. attorneys on the job
because of obstruction here in the Senate. Districts in Georgia, Ohio,
Nevada, Minnesota, Michigan, and Illinois are all still waiting for
U.S. attorneys.
Sadly, the families who live in these communities shouldn't have to
pay the price for what a very small number of Republicans are doing
here, but, sadly, that is what is happening. It is a textbook example
of why Americans are frustrated with the Senate and are frustrated with
their government.
On the other hand, I want to thank my Democratic colleagues for
advocating on behalf of the U.S. attorneys and marshals. I thank my
friend Senator Durbin, chairman of the Judiciary, for speaking
passionately. I thank Senator Klobuchar for coming to the floor to
speak. I thank Senators Rosen and Cortez Masto and Duckworth and Brown,
who have also spoken.
One way or another, these nominees will be confirmed by the Senate.
Republican obstructionists can try to delay, but they cannot stop these
individuals from ultimately going through.
If the holds on these nominees are not dropped, I will be filing
cloture on them, and we will schedule votes to advance them until the
job is finished. If that means more late nights, then more late nights
are coming. If it means vote series with six or seven or eight votes in
a row, then that is what we will do.
Most of us don't want to go down that road, and we don't have to. The
overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans want to preserve the
decades of precedent and comity that has enabled us to work together on
nominees.
So let me say for one last time, delaying the appointment of U.S.
attorneys and U.S. marshals over cheap partisan games ultimately makes
Americans less safe and weakens law enforcement.
I urge my Republican colleague to drop his obstruction or else he can
explain to his colleagues why we have to schedule a dizzyingly large
number of rollcall votes just to push these nominees through.
I thank my colleagues for their work and yield to Senator Durbin.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the majority leader. I would like to just add:
There must be those following the debate who are wondering, ``What is
the basis for the junior Senator from Arkansas opposing these eight
nominees? There must be something wrong with them. There must be
something in their background that doesn't add up.''
Consider the variety of individuals who are being held up by the
junior Senator from Arkansas: Ryan Buchanan, of Georgia, to be U.S.
attorney for the Northern District; Jason Frierson, of Nevada, to be
U.S. attorney for the District of Nevada; Andrew Luger, of Minnesota,
to be U.S. attorney for the District of Minnesota--and the Senator from
Minnesota will speak to that in just a moment--Mark Totten, of
Michigan, to be U.S. attorney for the Western District of Michigan;
Marisa Darden, of Ohio, to be U.S. attorney for the Northern District
of Ohio; Delia Smith, of the Virgin Islands, to be U.S. attorney for
the District of the Virgin Islands; Eddie Frizell, again of Minnesota,
to be U.S. marshal for the District of Minnesota; and LaDon Reynolds,
of Illinois, to be U.S. marshal for the Northern District of Illinois.
We looked especially at our own nominees very closely to make sure
that they were qualified to take on these Federal positions. Several of
my colleagues are going to come to the floor today to speak about the
nominees being held up by one Senator, so rather than delving into the
records of all of the eight nominees, let me just focus on the one in
Illinois--Chief LaDon Reynolds, nominated to serve as U.S. marshal for
the Northern District.
Chief Reynolds has served the people of Illinois for nearly 30 years.
He joined the Oak Park Police Department in 1994, rising steadily
through the ranks until his appointment in 2019 as chief.
In addition to his service at the Oak Park Police Department, Chief
Reynolds serves on the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards
Board, the Illinois Commission on Discrimination and Hate Crimes, and
the Executive Board of the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police. In
short, Chief Reynolds is eminently qualified to serve as U.S. marshal
for the Northern District of Illinois. There is simply no valid basis
to delay his confirmation.
And I have yet to hear the Senator from Arkansas come forward with a
bill of particulars of why he has decided to single out the people whom
I just mentioned, to deny them an opportunity to make communities safer
across America. At a time of high crime and the need for a coordinated
effort at every single level, there is absolutely no valid explanation
of why these individuals are being withheld from their responsibilities
in these communities.
We need to have law enforcement taken seriously and respected.
Holding up nominations for no particular reason other than a political
issue that may bother the Senator is certainly no reason for us to
jeopardize the safety of innocent people living in these communities
who depend on these Federal law enforcement officials to do their job.
At this point, I would like to make a unanimous consent request.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to
the consideration of the following nominations en bloc: Calendar No.
660, 661, 662, 663, 739, 740, 741, and 742; that the Senate vote on the
nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with
no intervening action or debate; that any statement related to the
nominations be printed in the Record and that the President be
immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. Madam President, reserving the right to object, which I
most certainly will do, I will just address what the Senator from
Illinois said.
He said he has heard no explanation for why I am objecting to every
Department of Justice nominee moving forward on a fast-track basis.
That is false. He has heard my explanation repeatedly. He may not like
it, but he has heard it.
I am taking this stance on behalf of four brave U.S. marshals who
defended the Federal courthouse in Portland from leftwing street
militias associated with the BLM movement and antifa.
The summer of 2020 was part of riots all across our country, but in
Portland these riots were particularly dangerous. Marshals were
targeted with lasers to blind them, with ball bearings,

[[Page S741]]

with fireworks. There were efforts to barricade them inside the
courthouse and set it on fire to burn them alive. These marshals are
heroes, and they should be celebrated. Anyone who says they support law
enforcement should be defending these marshals.
Not surprisingly, leftwing activists and leftwing organizations, like
the ACLU, are coming to the defense of the leftwing street militia that
attacked these marshals, tried to burn down the Portland courthouse,
suing marshals on frivolous grounds.
Many of these marshals are being defended by the Department of
Justice, as is the Department of Justice's longstanding custom and
practice to either provide representation for its law enforcement
officers when they are sued in court or, if there is some conflict, to
reimburse them and pay their legal fees. Four marshals are not being
defended, though.
These four marshals are GS-11s, GS-13s. They have been serving our
country for a lifetime. Many of them are veterans, veterans of foreign
wars. They face financial bankruptcy and ruin because the Department of
Justice won't represent them; in many cases, won't even give them an
answer or explain why the representation was denied.
When I learned of this, I demanded answers. And the Department of
Justice had no answers. So if my colleagues think that I am going to
just roll out the red carpet for Department of Justice nominees to be
confirmed to politically connected positions, while GS-11s and GS-13s
are hung out to dry, they have another thing coming.
Now, some of you may say: Well, maybe there are investigations
underway. Maybe these officers engaged in misconduct. We don't know.
They won't give us answers. But here is what we do know: All four of
them--all four--are currently on unrestricted Active Duty--unrestricted
Active Duty.
And I would add, all four--all four--are in the Special Operations
Group for the Marshals Service, which means to say they are the
marshals who are most likely to be deployed nationwide and put in
circumstances that risk their lives and call for them to use violence,
to include lethal violence.
Now, I don't know the circumstances that led to the denial of
representation of these four marshals or why some of them are being
strung along, but I have to assume--I have to assume--that if they are
on unrestricted Active Duty in the Special Operations Group of the
Marshals Service, that Merrick Garland and Vanita Gupta can't have any
doubts about their fitness to serve or their actions for all those
weeks in Portland when they defended the courthouse from leftwing
street militias.
I understand my colleagues want to get their U.S. attorneys or their
U.S. marshals confirmed. Maybe there are people at Main Justice they
want to get confirmed as well. That is very simple. We could do it
today. We could hear from Merrick Garland or Vanita Gupta that they
will defend these four U.S. marshals in court or we could hear a
satisfactory answer of why they won't defend the marshals in court.
Is it because they were standing up to a leftwing street militia? Is
it because they were taking a stance to defend Federal property from
antifa? I don't know. We can't get an answer. Maybe my Democratic
colleagues could get an answer.
But to think that I am just going to roll over and allow the Senate
to fast-track nominees to the Department, when GS-11s and GS-13s, law
enforcement officials, are being hung up to dry--sorry.
These are people--and I have talked to them--who were worried about
buying Christmas gifts for their children last year because they had to
pay legal fees, who are worried about paying the mortgage next month,
who are worried about sending their kids to camp. Sorry if your lawyers
have to wait for a week or two to get confirmed to the U.S. attorney's
position. I am worried about four heroes who defended Federal property
from leftwing street militias.
So, yes, I do object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Objection is heard.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, try to follow that logic, if you will.
The Senator is so committed to law enforcement, he is so committed to
U.S. marshals, he won't let us appoint people to fill vacancies.
He takes the case in Portland, OR, where he wrote a letter to the
Department of Justice within the last 2 weeks asking for the status of
their defense of these 74 individuals. Now, he knows, and we all know,
that before we can take any action for anybody, we need a
confidentiality waiver, a privacy statement. That is routine in all of
our offices.
Each one of these individuals, despite the interest of the junior
Senator from Arkansas, has their own legal right to determine whether
or not they want to waive any privacy so that they can tell the public
or discuss even with the Senator their plight and how they want to
address it.
There is also something called the attorney-client privilege, which
the Senator, I am sure, is aware of. That, too, is a privilege which
allows the individual to deny ordinary access to information if they so
choose. It is their decision.
So the complication of the situation is ignored by the Senator from
Arkansas. He is valiantly standing for U.S. marshals that he won't
appoint. He believes they are important and that they give their lives
to their country--and many have--and yet he won't let them stand up and
do that on behalf of our communities.
He wants an answer to his letter, and until he gets an answer to his
letter, then we are not going to be able to put law enforcement in
place to deal with crime in this country. We can make all the
statements, run all the ads, make all the speeches on the floor about a
concern for safety in our communities, and then the junior Senator from
Arkansas says, ``I want you to be safe in your community, but you can't
have a U.S. attorney to prosecute those would-be terrorists. You can't
have a U.S. marshal for pursuit of fugitives from justice. You can't
have a U.S. marshal to protect the courthouse for men and women who go
to work there every day and risk their lives for the administration of
justice.''
This is upside down. We are talking about 74 individuals. The
Department of Justice has said they are going to defend 70 of them. One
is a question, I assume, whether he was acting in the scope of his
employment, and three are under review. And for that reason, this
Senator has decided to stop the administration of justice in these
jurisdictions or at least slow it down. That makes no sense whatsoever.
The basis for objecting to these individuals has nothing to do with
their individual qualifications. He didn't raise a single question. All
he said is, ``Your lawyers are going to have to wait,'' as if these
were just lawyers waiting for a fee.
These are men and women willing to serve, as he serves, in public
service. It is more than just lawyers--not that there is anything wrong
with that category of Americans--but it is individuals who are willing
to engage in public service.
And why are we in such a hurry? We are in the second year of this
President's administration. It is time to fill these vacancies.
As Senator Schumer said earlier on the floor, there are several on
the Republican side who just want to drag this out interminably in the
hopes that they can stop the Biden administration from filling these
vacancies.
My colleague from Arkansas asked whether the DOJ is representing
Federal law enforcement personnel who protected the Federal courthouse
in Portland. The FOX News headline about his letter said: ``Cotton
places hold on DOJ nominees after refusal to defend US Marshals
involved in Portland Antifa riots.''
Here is the reality. The Department of Justice often represents or
pays private counsel to represent Federal employees sued in their
individual capacity, but there are some constraints, and I have
mentioned them. For example, regulations require that the Department of
Justice can only represent employees for actions within the scope of
their employment; for example, protecting the Portland courthouse,
which clearly is within the scope. And the Department of Justice can
only represent them if doing so would be in the interest of the United
States. It clearly would be if they are defending against terrorists.
The Senator knows this. Do you know why he knows it? Because the

[[Page S742]]

Department of Justice responded to his letter. He just didn't like the
response--it didn't go far enough.
The Department said, ``The Department of Justice strongly supports
the provision of representation to federal officers acting in the line
of duty.'' The Department also told him that it represents or has paid
for private counsel to represent 70 of these employees who have been
sued in connection with the events in Portland, while denying only a
single request for representation.
I don't know the facts of that denial. I don't know if there has been
a privacy waiver signed. I don't know if this individual said, ``I have
an attorney-client privilege, and I don't have to tell the Senator from
Arkansas or anyone what the circumstances are.'' The Senator from
Arkansas is now demanding to know why the Department of Justice denied
this one request for representation and why it is still reviewing three
others. That is right--he is blocking the confirmation of critical law
enforcement officials across the United States until he gets an answer
that he likes.
The DOJ has already explained that it cannot comment further--here is
what they said--``in light of significant confidentiality interests and
applicable privileges.'' As I mentioned earlier the privacy laws and
attorney-client privilege.
``DOJ's regulations make it clear that communication about an
employee's requests for representation are protected by the attorney-
client privilege, and the Privacy Act prevents DOJ from disclosing the
personnel record of an employee,'' and that is as it should be.
Let me be clear. These privileges protect the privacy of the very law
enforcement personnel whose interests the Senator from Arkansas claims
to represent.
My Republican colleagues frequently claim to be the party of law and
order, but in this matter and others, they are the ones playing
politics with law enforcement because the Department of Justice will
not snap to the Senator's request and violate standing Federal laws;
because they won't ignore and violate those laws of privacy and
attorney-client privilege, he is prepared to endanger the communities
and law enforcement until he gets his way.
I have heard my Republican colleagues time and again claiming that
the Biden administration and Democratic mayors in big cities are
responsible for violent crime. They claim that the increase in violent
crime has nothing to do with the fact that America is awash in guns,
that the reality is that the increase in violent crime started during
the last administration, under President Trump. It is affecting
communities led by both Republican and Democratic officials. And it is
being driven by gun violence.
FBI statistics show that 77 percent of homicides in 2020 were
committed with guns. In Chicago, that number is higher. Ninety-three
percent of homicides last year in Chicago were committed by gun.
We face a gun violence crisis. The Judiciary Committee held five
hearings last year on ways to reduce it. I am going to continue it this
year. But if we are going to address this crisis, we are going to need
Senators from both parties to show some courage and to admit that gun
violence in America is a real problem.
We also need Republicans to stop defending the violent insurrection
that took place right in this Chamber on January 6, 2021. The Senator
was present. All of us were. We will never forget that day as long as
we live. Five brave police officers lost their lives as a result of
what the Republican National Committee in its official policy position
calls ``legitimate political discourse.''
This is nothing new. Last year, Congress passed the American Rescue
Plan--$350 billion for State and local governments. We made sure that
funding was going to hire good law enforcement officials and invested
in community violence intervention. Not a single Republican Senator
approved it.
There are areas where we are working together on bipartisan
legislation, and I hope we will continue to. Last year, President Biden
signed three laws in that area.
I hope my Republican colleagues will take a lesson from today. If we
are going to stand together, then let us all stand behind the Federal
law enforcement team.
When President Trump asked for his team, Democrats in the Senate
cooperated and gave those people to him. They weren't the people we
would have chosen, but he was President and had the right to do his
best to protect this Nation. So does President Biden.
President Biden has called for significant increases for our police
in the Byrne Justice Program and the COPS Hiring Program, but this
important funding has been delayed by debate over appropriations. We
shouldn't delay the appointment of these key law enforcement officials
either.
Again and again, Democrats are working to support law enforcement and
to keep Americans safe. Sometimes we are joined in these efforts by
Republicans and other times not, but there is no benefit to law
enforcement when Senators block the confirmation of well-qualified U.S.
attorney and U.S. marshal nominees, as we see today.

I urge the Senator from Arkansas to stand up for law enforcement. A
political story on FOX is not worth undermining the lives of innocent
Americans. We have to end this obstruction and let these nominees
protect and serve.
I now yield to Senator Klobuchar.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I am surprised to hear the Senator from
Illinois continue to refer to this as a political issue or a political
story when we have career law enforcement officers who put their lives
on the line to defend Federal property from leftwing street militias.
And they are worried if they can put the food on the table for their
children, if they can buy them gifts at Christmas, if they can put
braces on them, if they can send them to summer camp.
I don't consider that a political issue; I consider it standing up
for law enforcement--not just these four but every deputy marshal
around the country who forms the backbone of the Marshals Service, the
backbone of the Marshals Service all across the country, who have to
wonder if maybe they are going to be the next one to be hung out to dry
by the Department of Justice if they confront a rioter with the wrong
politics.
This is not a political issue.
Now, the Senator from Illinois continues to speak about
confidentiality and attorney-client privilege as if this is all
information that has been communicated to these four marshals and they
just don't want to share it with us here in the Senate. That is not the
case. Three of them, I would say, haven't heard anything. In a lawsuit
that is almost 18 months old, they have been told nothing yet. That is
why they have had to go out and retain their own counsel.
One of them was denied representation with no more basis than saying
it is not in the interest of the United States of America. Well,
forgive me if I don't trust Vanita Gupta to determine what is in the
interest of the United States when it comes to defending law
enforcement.
These marshals are told that these determinations are final and there
is no appeal and there is no recourse. Well, I am the recourse now.
The Senator from Illinois keeps talking about these urgent law
enforcement needs in his own State of Illinois. I would point out that
the position that is empty has been empty since 2018. If it was so
urgent, the Senator from Illinois could have cooperated with the Trump
administration and tried to fill it then. These U.S. attorney positions
that are empty--President Biden fired all U.S. attorneys a year ago. If
it was so urgent to have Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys in position,
he could have asked them to continue to serve until he was able to find
suitable replacements.
The Senator from Illinois also said: Well, Senator Cotton got his
letter responded to. I am not looking for some courtesy exchange of
letters here; I am trying to protect four U.S. marshals who defended
the Portland courthouse from a leftwing street militia, who have been
hung out to dry, imperiling the confidence of all marshals across the
country in whether or not their political leadership at the Department
of Justice will back them up when they are in a controversy. The
Department still won't answer that. They won't

[[Page S743]]

take any steps to answer it. They simply hide behind confidentiality
and privilege just like they are hiding behind it with these four U.S.
marshals--after 18 months.
What is so complicated? As the Senator from Illinois said, they are
representing 70 others. What makes these four so different? Maybe they
engaged in misconduct. Is that possible given the fact that they are
all on unrestricted active duty in the Special Operations Group, the
element of the marshals most likely to have to use violence, to include
lethal violence? Would Merrick Garland and Vanita Gupta really send
them back out on the streets if they had engaged in misconduct in
Portland?
These marshals deserve better, and they could get better if the
Department of Justice would just agree to represent them or if they
would give a satisfactory, fact-based answer about why they are not
representing them. Maybe some of my Democratic colleagues could call
Merrick Garland or Vanita Gupta and ask them for such an answer or
maybe just call them and say: Why don't you represent these four
marshals? That seems like the obvious, satisfactory outcome for
everyone here: U.S. marshals are represented in court, as they should
be, and we can go back to fast-tracking Department of Justice nominees.
But until we get to that outcome, we won't be fast-tracking Department
nominees because I will continue to stand up for these brave men of law
enforcement who deserve better from this Department of Justice.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise today in support of the two
nominees from my State: Andy Luger, who has been nominated to be the
U.S. attorney for the District of Minnesota; and Eddie Frizell, a
veteran, serving our country bravely overseas, who has been nominated
to be the U.S. marshal.
I was sitting here thinking to myself as I listened to Senator Cotton
that there were a lot of things I disagreed with at the Trump Justice
Department--many, many things; many, many things--but never once did I
think about holding up the U.S. attorney of Arkansas or of Arizona or
of Illinois because I disagreed with Donald Trump. Why? Because as
someone who used to be in law enforcement, I understand how important
these positions are, and I don't think they should be held hostage
simply because he happens to have a disagreement about something the
Justice Department is doing.
There were so many things that I disagreed with Bill Barr and his
associates about, and not only did I support the nominee for Minnesota
whom Donald Trump put up for both the marshal and the U.S. attorney and
voted for them, but I actually issued a public statement saying that
they were qualified. I worked with them, and I talked to them ahead of
time, and I actually liked them, because they might not have been, as
the Senator from Illinois pointed out, my first choice, but there was
something larger than politics and my first choice. My first choice was
our justice system, our country, and the safety of our citizens.
Right now, in my home State, they do not understand why a Senator
from Arkansas is holding up law enforcement in the State of Minnesota.
As the chief Federal law enforcement officer for their respective
districts, U.S. attorneys are critical to ensuring that American
communities are kept safe. This role is so vital that the Founders
created the position during the very first Congress as part of the
Judiciary Act of 1789. This is the same act that created the Attorney
General and the structure of the courts.
Today, in my State, the U.S. attorney leads a team of nearly 130
dedicated law enforcement professionals, including 65 assistant U.S.
attorneys. The office is responsible for bringing to justice those who
commit a range of Federal crimes, including drug trafficking, child
exploitation, cyber crimes, and national security matters.
After 9/11, it was the U.S. Attorney's Office in my home State of
Minnesota that was involved in what was known as the hijacker who got
caught. A citizen turned him in, and it was our U.S. Attorney's Office
that worked with New York on that case.
It was our U.S. Attorney's Office that took on the second biggest
white-collar case next to Madoff and won.
It was our U.S. Attorney's Office, under the nominee who is right now
on the floor, Andy Luger, that took on perhaps the most infamous
missing children case in the country. I know that the Presiding
Officer, being from the State of Wisconsin, knows this case of Jacob
Wetterling--sad, tragic case. He was able to put together the puzzle
pieces that had eluded law enforcement because of his vast experience
working as an assistant in the State of New York, working in Minnesota
in this very office as an assistant and working his way up. He was able
to put together that case with local, State, and Federal law
enforcement and solve it and bring some justice and bring some closure
for the Wetterling family, who will never see their son again. That is
Andy Luger.
This is a guy who took on a sex trafficking case on his own with a
young woman trafficked in the city of Rochester and brought the case to
trial. This is someone who has reached out to our communities--our
Native American communities--and gotten things done.
And this is someone, based on my discussions, Senator Cotton, with
the Trump White House, that they would have actually, after firing all
the U.S. attorneys, would have had him back. He decided to go to the
private sector for a while, and now he is ready to come back.
So this is someone whom I have gotten calls about, since you put this
hold on all the U.S. attorneys, from Republican Members of Congress who
think we need him in place. I have gotten calls from Republicans across
my State who want to put this guy in place.
We have double jeopardy here for my State because you are not only
holding up, Senator Cotton, the U.S. attorney for the State of
Minnesota, you are also holding up the U.S. marshal.
Andy Luger, the U.S. attorney nominee, as I noted, previously led the
U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota from 2014 to 2017.
His proven experience is exactly what is needed to handle the
challenges facing law enforcement in Minnesota today.
He has been waiting since January 1 to get this done because he
figured this went well before the Committee--so he is waiting. He is
waiting to serve our State, as is our U.S. marshal candidate.
In addition to the U.S. Attorney's Office, for over 160 years, the
U.S. Marshals Service has helped keep Minnesota safe, protecting public
servants, tracking down and apprehending fugitives, and operating the
Witness Protection Program.
President Biden's nominee to serve as U.S. marshal for the District
of Minnesota, as I noted, is Eddie Frizell. Chief Frizell was
recommended by a selection committee, as was Andy Luger that Senator
Smith and I convened. It included leaders in Minnesota's law
enforcement advocacy and communities.
Eddie Frizell brings nearly 30 years of experience in law enforcement
in my State, including serving as a chief of police for the Metro
Transit Police Department. As I noted, he is also a 30-year veteran of
the Minnesota Army National Guard.
I once met him coming off a plane after his deployment. I will never
forget that moment. As the brave soldiers are getting off that plane, I
thought, ``I know that guy.'' Yes, I was a Senator now. I knew him when
he was a police officer and I was a county attorney. Thirty years,
veteran of the Minnesota Army National Guard, including two overseas
deployments--one to Bosnia and another to Kuwait and Iraq. Throughout
his career, he has led by example, immersing himself in the community
and becoming what our newspaper called a ``model of persistence.'' His
proven experience is exactly what is needed.
So why haven't we been able to confirm these two nominees, both of
whom moved through the Judiciary Committee on a voice vote with broad
bipartisan support, after I, as I noted, proudly supported President
Trump's nominees--who, by the way, they went into their jobs, and they
did their jobs.
That is how we do law enforcement. That is how it is supposed to
work. This hold has nothing to with the qualifications of the nominees
for my State. Instead, as Senator Durbin has just noted, Senator Cotton
has put an

[[Page S744]]

indiscriminate hold on all the Department of Justice law enforcement
nominees, stalling appointments for critical positions in Illinois,
Georgia, Nevada, Michigan, Ohio, the Virgin Islands, and, yes, my State
of Minnesota. And I am sure, if he continues this--and as Senator
Schumer has noted, he is going to have to call up votes for positions
that, during the Trump administration, went through with consent during
the Trump administration.
These nominees in these States are ready to serve millions of
Americans, including 5.7 million people in my State who need the
leadership of a permanent U.S. attorney and U.S. marshal.
Senator Cotton is seeking information from the Department of Justice,
and I hope that his questions are answered, but I cannot stand by and
let him use critical law enforcement nominations as leverage.
I note--and I will end with this--the timetables. During the last
administration, Erica MacDonald--the U.S. attorney I mentioned, former
judge who had been appointed by Tim Pawlenty--whom I met with in my
house so I could make sure that we moved her nomination quickly, she
was confirmed by the Senate, Senator Durbin, to be U.S. attorney the
same day her nomination was reported by the Judiciary Committee on May
24, 2018.
Tom Heffelfinger was nominated by, by the way, two President Bushes--
the first and the second President Bush. When he was nominated by
President George W. Bush to be U.S. attorney for Minnesota, his
nomination was received by the Senate on September 4, 2001. He was
reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee on September 13 and
confirmed by the full Senate the next day. His entire confirmation
process took 10 days.
And, by the way, when he retired from his position, he then served on
my selection committees--the U.S. attorney who had served under both
President Bushes. This is how law enforcement is supposed to work.
Before him, Todd Jones, who became, by the way, the head of the ATF--
he was nominated by President Bill Clinton to be U.S. attorney for
Minnesota. His nomination was received in the Senate on October 7,
1998. He was reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee the next day
and confirmed by the full Senate on October 21, 1998. His entire
confirmation process took only 14 days.
Finally, there was James Rosenbalm, who was nominated by President
Ronald Reagan to be the U.S. attorney for Minnesota. His nomination was
received by the Senate on October 21, 1981. He was reported favorably
out of the Judiciary Committee that day and was confirmed by the full
Senate that day. His entire confirmation process happened in 1 day.

I hope we can get back to this tradition of cooperation and
recognition that these law enforcement leaders aren't pawns in a
political game. They are needed to help keep our communities safe and
deserve to move through the Senate expeditiously.
We expect sound judgment from Federal law enforcement. Our
constituents expect sound judgment when it comes to confirming top
Federal law enforcement officers for a State. And it is time to do the
right thing by confirming not just Mr. Luger and Mr. Frizell but the
other law enforcement officers who have been held up. And I am happy to
come back here day after day after day until we get this done.
The people who work in the U.S. Attorney's Office, Marshals Office,
and my constituents deserve to have people in place.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in the interest of allowing the Senators
who are wishing to speak an appropriate amount of time and within the
confines of our upcoming vote, I ask unanimous consent that there be 40
minutes, equally divided, between the majority and minority; that the
majority side be recognized in the order of Senators Rosen, Cortez
Masto, Duckworth, and Brown.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The junior Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I feel like we are ships passing in the
night here. I could go on and on about the exploits of these deputy
marshals when they were Rangers and Green Berets and what they did in
combat. But my Democratic colleagues aren't getting the heart of the
matter: why they are being denied representation for defending the
courthouse in Portland.
So I will direct a question to the Senator from Minnesota through the
Chair: Does she believe that these four U.S. marshals should be
represented in court like all other marshals are being represented?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Being that I am the Senator from Minnesota and I am
not on the staff of the Attorney General of the United States and I
have nothing to with the State in which this happened, I am not aware
of all the facts of this. And I think it would actually be
inappropriate for me to be involved in Justice Department policy. I am
here on behalf of the people in my State, and I want to get someone in
place.
And I have made the case, Senator Cotton, that at no time did I not
only hold up the U.S. attorneys or the marshals under Donald Trump, I
actually supported the ones in my State. And I am just asking for that
same courtesy for the people of my State. We have talked about this
before. And I simply believe that we should be able to get our U.S.
attorneys and marshals in place. And you can do what you want to
complain about what is going on in the Justice Department, to make your
case to them, to go on TV about it, to make speeches in this Chamber,
to write letters about it, to advocate, to gather your friends who
might support you on this, but you shouldn't be hurting the people of
my State while you do it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Nevada.
Ms. ROSEN. Madam President, I urge my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle to allow these highly qualified Federal law enforcement
nominations to move forward.
In my State of Nevada, the position of U.S. attorney has been
unfilled for nearly a year.
This position, well, it plays a vital role in maintaining the rule of
law and making sure that justice is carried out in our State. The
continued obstruction of these critical nominees impacts the public
safety of Nevadans and impacts their ability to see justice served.
They have a highly qualified nominee to serve as U.S. attorney, Jason
Frierson. He is a graduate of the University of Nevada, Reno, and the
Boyd Law School of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. He is a former
Nevada Supreme Court clerk. And he served in the district attorney's
office as a public defender and as a deputy attorney general for our
great State.
In addition, Mr. Frierson has a long track record of fighting for
hard-working Nevadans as speaker of the Nevada Assembly. I know he will
lead in his role with integrity--integrity and a deep commitment to
upholding the law as a top Federal prosecutor for our State.
There is absolutely no basis to delay his nomination and the
nominations of other U.S. attorneys and marshals around the country.
Holding up these qualified nominees does not help Americans. It only
leaves them unprotected.
We must rise above partisan politics and do our duty to allow these
key roles to be filled. For all of the people, for my State of Nevada,
I urge my colleagues to allow the nomination of Jason Frierson and the
other nominees in this block to finally move forward.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. Madam President, again, I feel like we are ships passing
in the night, not getting to the point here. So I will address a
question to the junior Senator through the Chair, slightly differently
than when I spoke to the Senator from Minnesota.
If officers are returned to unrestricted Active Duty on the Special
Operations Group, does the Senator believe that they should be
represented for past incidents of alleged misuse of force?
Ms. ROSEN. Senator, I will reiterate what my colleague from Minnesota
said. I do not serve on the Judiciary Committee, and I do not serve in
the Department of Justice. Therefore, I am not privy to the information
that has been provided in privacy to the Department of Justice.

[[Page S745]]

Those marshals, if they would like to divulge their information, they
are free to do so as U.S. citizens. But there are privacy agreements
with attorney-client privilege that is clearly not being able to be
pursued in this fashion. So my opinion does not matter. What matters is
the law. I do not serve in the Department of Justice; therefore I
cannot answer your question.
Mr. COTTON. Unfortunately, they don't have any information to
divulge. That is part of my point. The Department of Justice won't tell
them why they are not being represented.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Nevada.
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Madam President, I rise to join my good colleague
Senator Rosen and my other colleagues in urging our friend and Senator
from Arkansas to allow the nomination of these candidates for U.S.
attorney and U.S. marshal to move forward.
And let me just start by answering the question that you have posed
to both of my colleagues because I think it needs to be reframed. I
think the premise really is this. There is no doubt that your ultimate
goal here--and you have an ultimate goal that you are trying to
achieve, and I don't question that. I do question, though, the
procedure and the means by which you choose to succeed in your goal.
And that is what we are talking about, Senator Cotton, because, at the
end of the day, what you are trying to do is literally stand for U.S.
marshals while at the same time harming the U.S. Marshals Service by
not allowing two nominees to go before and get appointed to the U.S.
Marshals Service. Likewise, you are adding to that--U.S. attorneys
across the country, including one in the State of Nevada, who are on
the frontlines of the law and order that we need in this country.
As you well know, U.S. attorneys work with U.S. marshals across the
country to address violent crime in this country and prosecute it, to
address drug trafficking, human trafficking, murders, and so on. So
that means what you are trying to achieve here is actually harming law
and order across the country. I don't think you intend to do that. I
hope not. But that is what we are questioning right now, is the means
by which you are trying to achieve here--what we are asking is for you
to reconsider because at the end of the day--and I heard you earlier. I
think you made some comment saying: Sorry your lawyers have to wait to
get confirmed in a week or two. You know better. These aren't just
lawyers. You know U.S. attorneys across this country are on the
frontline of law and order. They are key to prosecuting essential
crimes that we need to address in this country, including working with
our U.S. marshals along with the FBI and other essential Federal
Agencies.
I would ask that you reconsider the means by which you are trying to
achieve your goal because in Nevada, the position of U.S. attorney has
been vacant for a full year. The President has nominated Jason Frierson
for that role. As you heard, Senator Rosen and I both support this
excellent candidate, and the full Senate needs to confirm him and let
him get to work.
You have heard his background. He is more than qualified for this
position, and I am not hearing from you that you have concerns about
his qualifications. But he is essential to ensure that we get somebody
in place, confirmed very swiftly, so that he can get to work on behalf
of the people in the State of Nevada and be on the frontlines of
addressing and ensuring we have law and order not only in Nevada but
across the country in these other States.
My question to you, Senator Cotton, is, would you reconsider the
means by which you are trying to achieve your goal so that you are not
harming those men and women who are on the frontlines of law and order
across the country, including here in the State of Nevada that we are
talking about? And you will hear from some of my other colleagues.
So I pose the question to you, Senator, through the Chair.
Mr. COTTON. If that is a question for me, I reject the premise of
your question. I am not harming law enforcement; I am standing up for
law enforcement.
Once again, if you deny four U.S. marshals legal representation
because they stood up to leftwing street militias--which may be
unpopular in certain quarters of your party--then you cause every
marshal across the country and, for that matter, every law enforcement
official across the country to doubt whether their political superiors
are going to defend them in the future.
Look, if you want to have a broader debate about law enforcement, I
can, but we are going to be here for a long time.
It is your party that voted in lockstep for the FIRST STEP Act that
let thousands of violent felons back on the street who have now
committed innumerable violent crimes. It is your party that marched and
chanted in the streets for defunding the police. It is the Democratic
floor leader who blocked my resolution in the summer of 2020 to condemn
the ``defund the police'' movement. You all voted in lockstep to
confirm Vanita Gupta, the Associate Attorney General, who is
responsible ultimately for these decisions, even though I and other
Republicans cautioned you she would use her position to wage a war on
the police from the Department of Justice. That is what is happening
now.
I am standing up for law enforcement.
Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator from Nevada yield for a point?
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. The FIRST STEP Act--the Democrats did the FIRST STEP Act,
the Republicans were in the majority. It was a bill sponsored by
Senators Grassley, Durbin, Lee, and many others. Who signed it into
law? Donald Trump signed it into law, this so-called Democratic
measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Nevada.
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Madam President, I am disappointed because I hear
my colleague, but he is not listening. He keeps repeating the same
talking point that he is defending law enforcement when, at the same
time, he is harming law enforcement across the country. This really is
nonsensical. It does not make sense not only to me and my colleagues
but to the general public that is watching.
We are talking about filling positions at the U.S. Marshals Service
and U.S. Attorney's Offices across the country. They are essential to
addressing what we see across the country and ensuring that there is
law and order.
So it is the means by which you are trying to achieve your goal which
we would ask you to consider. Unfortunately, I am not hearing from my
colleague from Arkansas that he is willing to reconsider it and stand
up for law and order across this country and support the U.S.
Attorney's Offices and marshals who need to be appointed.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. To respond to the Senator from Illinois, it is true that
President Trump signed the FIRST STEP Act. The FIRST STEP Act was the
worst mistake of the Trump administration. Yes, it is true that a
number of Republican Senators voted for it. They were wrong. They
didn't start demanding that we defund the police in the summer of 2020.
They condemned that. They stood up for law enforcement.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Illinois.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, I join my colleagues, the Senators
from Nevada and Minnesota, in my frustration as to why we are here
today.
Today, I am joining them and urging my colleagues to join me in
calling for the swift confirmation of Chief LaDon Reynolds to be the
U.S. marshal for the Northern District of Illinois. As a seasoned law
enforcement officer, Chief Reynolds is more than ready to take on the
challenges of this important leadership role, including playing a key
part in addressing the rising violent crime devastating our communities
in Northern Illinois.
Yet the only reason he is not already confirmed to this position is
because of a hold from Senator Cotton--a hold that is completely
unrelated to Chief Reynolds' immense qualifications. These
qualifications include serving with distinction as the chief of police
of the Oak Park Police Department for nearly 30 years, teaching law
enforcement officers about the importance of community-oriented
policing at the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and

[[Page S746]]

Standards Board Executive Institute, and working to protect communities
from rising hate as a board member of Governor Pritzker's Commission on
Discrimination and Hate Crimes.
Senator Durbin and I carefully reviewed Chief Reynolds' experience
and expertise. It is clear to us and the White House that he is the
best fit for the job. What we are asking for now is simply to let
Reynolds get to work; let him take charge of an office that has already
gone without Senate-confirmed leadership for 4 years. We need to have a
confirmed U.S. marshal leading Federal law enforcement operations to
secure our Federal courthouses and capture violent fugitives of the
law.
As U.S. marshal, Reynolds would also play an important role in the
Biden administration's multijurisdictional strike force to investigate
and prosecute gun traffickers channeling deadly weapons into the city
of Chicago.
Every day, there are new stories of horrifying and often deadly
impacts of rising violent crimes in the Northern District of Illinois.
In fact, last year was one of the city of Chicago's deadliest in
decades.
But statistics alone cannot fully describe the devastation our
communities have endured. For so many Chicagoans, the presence of gun
violence is a constant source of trauma and grief in their day-to-day
lives. It is painful and gut-wrenching to see this sort of senseless
violence happen again and again.
We cannot wait any longer to advance Reynolds' confirmation,
especially not for his nomination to be used as a pawn for Senator
Cotton to expedite a response to his unrelated pending inquiry to the
U.S. Department of Justice. Instead, we must act to make sure the
Northern District of Illinois U.S. Marshal's Office has the leadership
it needs to fulfill its mission of administering justice and enforcing
the law.
If Senator Cotton is serious about tackling violent crime and making
our communities safe, then we must move forward with confirming LaDon
Reynolds to be the next U.S. marshal for the Northern District of
Illinois now. Chief Reynolds' nomination has my full support.
I request that Senator Cotton lift his blanket hold on the U.S.
attorney and U.S. marshal nominees pending consideration before the
Senate, including Reynolds' nomination.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. We keep hearing that this is unrelated, as if I am upset
with something the Coast Guard did or the Corps of Engineers wants to
improve some water project in Arkansas. These are Department of Justice
nominees, and right now, the Department of Justice is not standing up
for law enforcement officers by hanging these four marshals out to dry.
That is why I am not agreeing to fast-track these nominees. I am not
going to agree to fast-track political nominees while the Department of
Justice hangs out to dry career law enforcement officers.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Fast-track? Fast-track? Senator Cortez Masto said it has
been a year since they have had a U.S. attorney confirmed, sitting in
Nevada. In Ohio now, it has been--let me count the days--404 days since
6 million people in the Northern District of Ohio last had a permanent
U.S. attorney leading the office. Senator Cotton, with his demagoguery,
comes down here and talks about fast-track? I don't know what speed
they move in Arkansas, but I would not consider what we are trying to
do as fast-track.
They have been vetted. Senator Portman supports this nominee. Let me
talk about that.
We know the pandemic has caused an alarming rise in violent crime,
especially gun crimes. The Northern District of Ohio, which includes
Toledo, Cleveland, Akron, Canton, Youngstown, Mansfield, Warren--cities
in basically the northern half of the State. The U.S. attorney has the
highest caseload in the last 30 years, filing a record 846 indictments
in 2021 alone without a full-time, confirmed U.S. attorney.
Even before the pandemic, the district had a staggering caseload
after reaching a record low in 2016, with only 363 new cases through,
Senator Cotton, I might add, the Obama administration. The number of
new cases began to climb in 2017, at the beginning of the Trump
administration, if you want to play those games, Senator Cotton. The
number of new cases rose to 706 in 2018. This as kept climbing since.
Last year, there were 170 homicides in the city of Cleveland, where my
wife and I live--another 30-year record--not to mention a surge in
carjackings.
We need to fill key law enforcement positions in Ohio and, as Senator
Cortez Masto said, as Senator Durbin said, in their States--and Senator
Rosen and Senator Duckworth. We need to fill these key law enforcement
positions.
I hear from Ohio police officers that they are in desperate need of
help, while we, through--Senator Cotton and others accuse Democrats of
undermining police or whatever term they use--a term that none of us
use--when we have supported local governments with more dollars so they
can hire more police while you oppose those same positions, as we know.
So we are working with local police to get them that help, whether it
is confirming U.S. marshals, whether it is confirming U.S. attorneys.
Thankfully, we have an extremely qualified nominee in Ohio who is
ready and eager to serve. The only thing standing in our way is the
U.S. Senate. Apparently, the only thing standing in the Senate's way is
Senator Cotton, although I am sure somebody else would be willing to
take his place.
Marissa Darden is a seasoned prosecutor with extensive experience, a
lead attorney in both civil and criminal cases. As an assistant U.S.
attorney in the Northern District, she was recognized for her work on
several cases involving highly complex legal issues. She received the
National High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Award for outstanding
opioid investigation effort in 2016 and for outstanding investigative
effort in 2019.
Listen to what some people have said. Federal District Court Judge
Benita Pearson: You can be assured that Darden will fiercely enforce
the law while treating all--attorneys, staff, the accused, and the
community--with respect and appropriate sensitivity.
Former Acting U.S. Attorney Justin Herdman, nominated by President
Trump and supported by Senator Portman and me both--U.S. Attorney
Justin Herdman was the last confirmed U.S. attorney in the Northern
District. He described her as an attorney of outstanding ability and
unquestioned integrity. He said that she is a leader who has a proven
track record of delivering results inside and outside the courtroom.
First Assistant Federal Public Defender Jacqueline Johnson told us
that this was her first recommendation for U.S. attorney in 38 years of
practicing in the Northern District. She said she based her
recommendation on her belief that Ms. Darden possesses the intellect,
vision, temperament, and judgment needed to lead the U.S. Attorney's
Office during this perilous season.
DEA Special Agent in Charge Keith Martin. With 26 years of
experience, she is one of the best he has ever encountered, he said. He
explained that she was phenomenal in her interaction with law
enforcement, cooperative, and stands on her principles. He can't
imagine a better choice.
These qualifications--I repeat that Senator Portman also supports Ms.
Darden's nomination. Her confirmation would also be historic, making
her the first African-American woman to ever serve as U.S. attorney in
Ohio.
Unfortunately, Senator Cotton blocks this nomination in addition to
these eight other law enforcement nominees. By his own admission, his
objections to these nominees have nothing to do with their
qualifications.
I support his desire to get answers from DOJ. He should get them. But
the solution for his disagreement with DOJ is not with the 6 million
Ohio citizens who pay a price or the millions of citizens in Illinois
or in Nevada who pay a price, or Minnesota or anywhere.
The last thing I will say, last week I spoke with police officers,
one of the many kind of roundtable zooms I do around the State with
police officers from around the State. One officer conveyed his
colleagues' frustration with politics today. He told me that officers
in his department have begun leaving letters on their lockers that say,
if

[[Page S747]]

they are killed in the line of duty, they want no elected officials
invited to their funerals.
He said, the notes don't say no Democrats, no Republicans; they say
no elected officials. A whole bunch of them. The reason for that is the
gamesmanship we see right now, that we are not willing to confirm U.S.
attorneys, U.S. marshals, in many cases, Federal district judges, just
because somebody's been offended by the lack of a letter or something
somebody at the Justice Department said to them.
The fact is we need to do this. It will help our States, it will help
our country combat crime.
Let's heed this officer's warning and come together to get qualified
and talented law enforcement officials and professionals on the job.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. Madam President, so contrary to what the Senator from
Ohio says, I am not offended by the lack of a letter or offended by
something someone said. I'm offended that four U.S. marshals--four U.S.
marshals had to decide whether they are going to have enough money to
buy Christmas gifts for their kids, pay their mortgage next month, put
braces on their kids, send them to summer camp because that is the
position that the Department of Justice has put them in.
To recap, four U.S. marshals were among dozens deployed to Portland
last summer to guard the courthouse from leftwing street militias. They
were targeted with blinding lasers, ball bearings, fireworks. There was
an effort to barricade them into the courthouse and set it afire to
burn them alive.
Now leftwing activists in leftwing organizations like the ACLU are
suing them, and the Department of Justice won't provide them
representation, won't even tell them why they are not providing them
representation.
Maybe they engaged in some kind of misconduct? Maybe it was excessive
force? That would be strange, because all four of these deputy marshals
are now back on unrestricted active duty with the special operations
group of the Marshal Service, the element most likely to be sent into
the most dangerous circumstances and have to use violence, including
lethal violence.
It would be pretty strange to send them back to the special
operations group with no restrictions if they engaged in some kind of
misconduct in Portland. That is what this is about and what it does to
undermine the faith and confidence of every career law enforcement
professional in the Department of Justice.
So, no, I will not agree to fast-track political nominees to the
Department when the Department leadership is hanging out to dry career
law enforcement officers.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question? I ask the question
through the Chair.
Has the Senator been given a privacy waiver by the one marshal that
the Department of Justice is not going to defend?
Mr. COTTON. No, I have not. But I know that the response that that
marshal received was that the denial of representation was not in the
interest of the United States. No more----
Mr. DURBIN. How much time do we have? I am sorry. Go ahead.
Mr. COTTON. No more facts, no more explanation, just like the three
who are waiting for a determination and have been waiting for more than
a year do not have any fact-based explanation.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, how much time do we have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 1 minute 13 seconds.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, that last admission by the Senator from
Arkansas tells the whole story. He doesn't even know why the Department
is turning down representation of 1 person out of 74. They have agreed
to represent 70 of these U.S. marshal employees, and they said they
will represent them; and three are under review. One has been turned
down; and he hasn't received a privacy waiver, so he doesn't know why.
I don't know why either. But you know who is paying the price for it?
Millions of Americans who are asking for Federal law enforcement to
be adequately staffed to do their job. The U.S. attorneys and U.S.
marshals that want to keep us safe and be part of the team to do that.
And because this Senator suspects there may be something suspicious
about this, he doesn't have a privacy waiver, he is going to hold up
those officials throughout the United States and put their communities
in peril. Tell me that that is devotion to law enforcement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. This is exactly the point. Privacy waiver or not, what
does it matter? Here is what we do know. Here is what we do know. That
none of these four know why they were denied representation or why they
haven't had a determination. We know that. And we know that they were
sent back on unrestricted active duty to the special operations group.
I think the Department of Justice political leadership owes these
brave law enforcement officers an answer before it hangs them out to
dry and exposes them to risk of financial ruin and bankruptcy.
Mr. DURBIN. I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
Mr. COTTON. I yield back.