[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 163 (Wednesday, October 4, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4929-S4932]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, yesterday, the Republican leader of the 
Senate came to the floor to give a speech relative to the issue of 
crime in America, and he was fairly specific as he outlined examples of 
violent crimes that were taking place across the Nation. He, of course, 
included in his litany the city of Chicago, talking about the car 
thefts that were occurring in that city and other felonious assaults in 
New York City and the like.
  He concluded his remarks--the Republican Senate leader did--by 
saying:

       American families deserve to feel safe in their homes and 
     in their neighborhoods and

[[Page S4930]]

     certainly in the Nation's Capital. It shouldn't take another 
     assault, carjacking, or homicide to convince local leftwing 
     leaders to start actually doing their jobs.

  I come to the floor to discuss doing your job and reducing crime in 
America. I come here once again to discuss the Senate's need to quickly 
confirm two pending U.S. attorney nominees: Rebecca Lutzko, to the 
Northern District of Ohio, and April Perry, to the Northern District of 
Illinois.
  I have come to the floor three times in the past 2 weeks to request 
unanimous consent for the Senate to take up and confirm these pending 
U.S. attorney nominees who are being stopped by one junior Senator from 
Ohio.
  Keep in mind that both of these nominees, for the State of Ohio and 
for the State of Illinois, have gone through extensive vetting and 
extensive efforts to determine whether or not they were prepared and 
qualified for the job--and it is a big job. They would be the leading 
U.S. criminal prosecutors in their area and have responsibilities that 
we know are substantial.
  Each time I have come to the floor to ask to give the opportunity to 
these two young people to lead the U.S. Attorney's Office, Senator 
Vance of Ohio has come up with a different explanation of why he is 
blocking their confirmation. It appears that he is not certain in his 
own mind as to the issue on a daily basis.
  As I stated last week, for almost 50 years, the Senate has confirmed 
U.S. attorney nominees, from both political parties, by either a voice 
vote or unanimous consent after they have been reported by the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Just look back to the previous Trump administration. In the 115th and 
116th Congress, 85 of President Trump's U.S. nominees moved through the 
Judiciary Committee, and Senate Democrats allowed all 85--every single 
one of them--to be confirmed by a voice vote or by unanimous consent.
  Why would we automatically give to a President of the United States 
their U.S. attorneys, their representatives of the Department of 
Justice and the Nation? Because we understand the critical role that 
U.S. attorneys play in our justice system.
  Just take a look at the law, title 28 of the U.S. Code, section 547. 
It states that ``each United States attorney, within his district, 
shall prosecute for all offenses against the United States of 
America.''
  Leader McConnell regularly comes to the floor to assert that 
Republicans are really tougher on crime than Democrats. The obstacles 
that Senate Republicans have created to confirming Federal prosecutors, 
and especially Senator Vance's actions over the last 2 weeks, show what 
an empty argument that is.
  Senate Republicans are literally moving the goalposts in the Senate 
and blocking the confirmation of law enforcement officers who lead our 
Nation's efforts to prosecute violent crime and protect our communities 
from drug traffickers, gun violence, terrorism, and so many other 
crimes.
  Is it important in the State of Ohio, where the junior Senator hails 
from, as it is important in Illinois, to deal with fentanyl deaths? It 
most certainly is. We understand that thousands of Americans are dying 
each year because of this deadly narcotic.
  Who is fighting them? Leading the fight is our Federal Government and 
the Department of Justice. We are dealing with an international drug 
cartel hailing out of Mexico. We are dealing with an effort to take 
over drug and narcotics control of the United States, Europe, and 
beyond. Certainly, we need more than local law enforcement to deal with 
it.
  So whom do we put on the case? The Department of Justice. Why is that 
important? It is important because we need to have the men and women 
serving in that Department of Justice who are doing this job every 
single day.
  Earlier this year, the Senator from Ohio explained why he is doing 
this, why he is stopping the appointment of well-qualified and vetted 
criminal prosecutors in the Department of Justice. Here is what he 
said:

       I will hold all Department of Justice nominations . . . we 
     will grind the Justice Department to a halt.

  ``Grind the Justice Department to a halt''--really? Is that what you 
want to leave as your legacy in the U.S. Senate, that somehow you 
managed to diminish the Department of Justice's effort to keep America 
safe, to keep neighborhoods safe, to stop the spread of narcotics? Is 
that something you brag about back home? I don't think so.
  The average American hopes and prays that someone in Washington is 
working late at night, lights on, trying to make sure that there is 
less crime in America. They trust us to do our jobs, and one of them is 
to make sure the Department of Justice has the men and women they need 
to be led properly and to be effective.
  The junior Senator from Ohio campaigned for this job in Congress, in 
the U.S. Senate, on the fact that he was tough on crime. He said:

       Americans deserve safety. They won't get it if politicians 
     . . . keep attacking police officers instead of violent 
     criminals.

  I would think he would recognize that U.S. attorneys are too 
important to be used as political footballs to make some headline or 
make some tweet, or whatever it happens to be. I would think he would 
recognize that he is blocking highly qualified nominees who have 
significant experience as Federal prosecutors and who have 
qualifications and leadership abilities to serve with distinction.
  According to the junior Senator from Ohio, the Justice Department has 
been ``weaponized''--a favorite word of the right--simply because 
former President Trump has been indicted for multiple felonies. So this 
is retribution. In order to punish the Department of Justice for any 
part of it--prosecuting or indicting the former President--the Senator 
from Ohio wants to stop prosecutors--criminal prosecutors--from going 
to work in Chicago and Cleveland.
  What is he going to do about the pending case in New York? There has 
to be a way for him to stop the Department of Justice, the work by the 
State of New York, the work by their attorney general. The former 
President is being sued--I can use the term ``prosecuted,'' but sued--
in court for his business dealings in New York, and he has a case 
pending in Georgia. What is the junior Senator in Ohio going to do to 
punish Georgia for having the temerity of indicting the former 
President as well?
  There is simply no basis in reason, fact, or law for what he is 
doing. The Justice Department under the Biden administration has made a 
point of demonstrating its independence, focusing on investigating and 
prosecuting criminal activity, regardless of an individual's political 
affiliation.
  Attorney General Merrick Garland has even appointed special counsels 
to handle the investigations of the current President and the former 
President to ensure their independence.
  Last week, Senator Vance came to the Senate floor and stated:

       [M]y objection is not specific to the qualifications of the 
     particular individuals that have been nominated.

  He explicitly said this in reference to both these nominees. So he is 
not questioning whether they are qualified for the job; he is just 
angry because the former President has been indicted by the Department 
of Justice.
  In response, I offered the junior Senator from Ohio the opportunity 
to end his obstruction and to keep his promise to support law 
enforcement by allowing us to schedule confirmation votes on four 
pending U.S. attorneys--exactly what he said in the Congressional 
Record he wanted. He agreed to it. He released his objection to all 
four nominees on the condition that we hold rollcall votes on them. He 
did this publicly in the Congressional Record and privately. He had 
said that while he couldn't speak for his colleagues in the Senate who 
may object to some on the floor, he would no longer object.
  Last week, we held votes on two of those U.S. attorney nominees. But 
then Senator Vance changed his mind again. Overnight, he decided he 
actually does object to even holding a confirmation vote on the two 
nominees--Rebecca Lutzko to be the U.S. attorney in Cleveland, OH, and 
April Perry to be the U.S. attorney in Chicago, IL.
  Over the last few weeks, Senator Vance offered explanation after 
explanation on why he is doing exactly what he promised not to do when 
he ran for office. He promised he would ``fight the criminals--not the 
cops.'' He has introduced a resolution in the Senate that calls on 
``all levels of government to

[[Page S4931]]

ensure that law enforcement officers receive the support and resources 
needed to keep all communities in the United States safe.''
  Now he has the chance to support law enforcement. Instead, he comes 
to the Senate floor three times to undermine the U.S. Attorney's 
Office--even one in his own State that he represents here in the 
Senate. These are officers responsible for prosecuting drug cartels, 
sex traffickers, and other violent criminals.
  Senator Vance himself has said that Americans will not be safe if 
politicians keep attacking our law enforcement officers. I fear he is 
proving that as right.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 314 
and 315; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without 
intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motions to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President 
be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VANCE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to 
address a few points that my distinguished colleague, the senior 
Senator from Illinois, made. I will restate a few of the things I have 
said.
  First of all, he made much about my hold policy being focused on 
Donald Trump. And, of course, I do think it is preposterous--banana 
republic stuff--that the President of the United States is trying to 
throw his opponent in jail in the middle of a Presidential election.
  But this isn't just about Donald Trump. This is about a pro-life 
father of seven who was harassed and arrested in front of his children 
like a common criminal. This is about parents who are investigated by 
the FBI for peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights at 
school board meetings. This is about a Department of Justice that seems 
far more interested in politics than in justice.
  So long as that is true, Senator, I will certainly continue to 
implement my hold policy.
  I want to say a second thing, which is that all I am asking for--all 
I am asking for--is that my distinguished colleague from Illinois or 
any other Senator invoke cloture, force a cloture vote, and then force 
a vote on the Senate floor. I understand that is not easy for a Senate 
that votes one to four times per day, but the American people--most of 
them have much harder jobs than we do. I think sticking our thumbs in 
the air or down to the ground is not too much to ask for people who--as 
my distinguished colleague said, we asked for this job. We ran for this 
job. We work pretty hard for this job. I think expecting us to vote on 
cloture and vote on these nominees on the record is not too much to 
ask.
  Third point that I will make: I have come to really appreciate and 
look forward to these exchanges with my colleague from Illinois. I will 
say this, that I think his criticism and I think his concern come from 
a very legitimate place. He has made this argument a number of times, 
the argument that there is something unprecedented about what I am 
doing.

  What is it--85 nominees were approved during the Trump administration 
through unanimous consent or whatever the number is--I don't know; I am 
going off of memory here--and now we have somehow stopped it, we have 
changed it.
  Well, certainly I have changed it. I have changed it because the 
Department of Justice has changed. When Donald Trump was President, he 
was not trying to throw Joe Biden in prison. Joe Biden is President, 
and he is threatening to throw not just Donald Trump but a whole host 
of political opponents in prison. That is unprecedented. That is a new 
thing. Therefore, the way we respond to it must be unprecedented as 
well.
  I acknowledge something the Senator from Illinois is pointing out 
here. In years past, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
made an argument that most of my fellow conservatives don't agree with 
but I do agree with. It is that for the Department of Justice or any 
local law enforcement to work--whether it is State, Federal, or county, 
city--it needs to have legitimacy; it needs to have the trust of the 
people.
  I have talked to a number of people just in the last few months who 
have told me that they have witnessed things in their community, but 
they wouldn't call the Department of Justice because they don't trust 
the Department of Justice.
  I know Senator Durbin and others might say: Well, look, you are a 
conservative Republican from Ohio. Of course you talk to the sorts of 
people who are skeptical of the Department of Justice.
  But I would ask him to extend the same courtesy to my voters that I 
would extend to all voters across this country whether they like me or 
not.
  When people don't believe that law enforcement can be trusted, public 
safety will suffer. Our Democratic colleagues have made this argument 
in the past, speaking about other prosecutors and other communities, 
and I actually think they are right. Whether you agree with the reasons 
why a given community is mistrustful of law enforcement, mistrust of 
law enforcement destroys one of the foundations of the Republic. You 
cannot have application of law if the people don't trust the people who 
are doing the application. That is what is different about the 
situation we find ourselves in.
  I don't like that the Department of Justice has become what it has 
become. I don't like--again, set aside President Trump. I am pro-Trump. 
A number of my colleagues are anti-Trump. Set aside the concerns about 
the Presidential election. What about parents who are protesting at 
their school board meetings for their kids? Should they be investigated 
by the FBI? Since they are being investigated by the FBI, doesn't that 
suggest that something is broken at the leadership of the Department of 
Justice? I think the answer is yes, and I think that answer threatens 
the foundation of law enforcement and equal justice under the law in 
this country.
  I will continue the hold policy so long as a broken Department of 
Justice cares more about politics than it does justice. Because of 
that, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Can you imagine what the family in Chicago who is 
concerned about narcotics and fentanyl deaths in their neighborhood 
thinks about this argument that somehow there is a grievance and people 
are mad about some of the things done by the Department of Justice?
  Trust me, under the previous administration as well as this 
administration, as an attorney and a Senator, I can find things to 
object to. But to deny to the city of Cleveland and the Northern 
District of Ohio a U.S. attorney to lead their office to stop sex 
trafficking--that is a political statement this Senator believes is 
appropriate, that he is going to stop a nomination for someone to move 
into the U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago and lead the effort to stop 
the narcotics in our community or the trafficking of thousands and 
thousands and thousands of guns each year from neighboring States, and 
he is going to hold up that person because he objects to the way they 
treated former President Trump? For goodness' sake, that is what is 
wrong with this country, and that is what is wrong with this Senate.

  When one Senator can stop the appointment of a well-qualified 
individual with no questions asked about her ability to handle the job, 
either in Cleveland or in Chicago, and to do that because he has a 
political grievance--I hope I never get to that point, and I hope other 
Members of the Senate will think twice.
  We need to function as a government that is effective and provides 
safety for the people we are sent here to represent. Having this snit 
over some political grievance and holding up the effective appointment 
of prosecutors to do their job is inappropriate.
  I will continue to come to the floor and plead the case for safety in 
the neighborhoods.
  Before anyone else decides to come to the floor in the future on the 
Republican side and criticize crime in the city of Chicago, for 
goodness' sake, try to explain to the Senator from Ohio that there is a 
connection between criminal prosecution and crime.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S4932]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.