[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.