[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 141 (Wednesday, September 11, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5966-S5970]
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 discuss the confirmation
of four pending U.S. attorney nominations.
Currently, in the United States, we have 85 U.S. attorneys. There are
several from my State, and depending on your population, it really
indicates how many numbers you have. Those U.S. attorney nominations
are filled by the incumbent President of the United States.
Recommendations are made to the U.S. Senate, and we advise and consent
on those nominations. After examinations of their backgrounds, we vote
on these individuals to become U.S. attorneys.
Now, we have an agreement that has endured for a number of Presidents
over a number of years which says that these will be fairly routine--in
fact, very routine. The fact is that each one of the U.S. attorney
nominations goes through a review by the Senate Judiciary Committee, by
both Democrats and Republicans, and if they pass that review without
controversy, they move to the floor for a vote.
To give you an idea of how that works for the Members on the other
side who are relatively new to the Senate, when President Donald Trump
made nominations of U.S. attorneys, he made 85 nominations. Each one of
those nominations came to the floor of the U.S. Senate, and they were
approved by voice vote, unanimous consent. In other words, not even a
rollcall was required. It was the routine approval of U.S. attorneys'
nominations in a situation where a body like the Senate would have a
majority of Democrats but approve a nomination from a Republican
President by voice vote--no controversy moving forward.
Why is it even important to fill these vacancies? Because these 85
U.S. attorneys are literally the people who implement the policies of
the Department of Justice. If the Department of Justice of the United
States decides that we are going to have a serious effort under a
President to go after fentanyl, for example, or narcotics, for example,
or some crimewave in another area, it is the U.S. attorney who runs the
play. He is the quarterback in that U.S. attorney's district. So these
turn out to be fairly critical.
Some of us stayed up late last night to watch the debate, and in that
debate, there was a discussion of crime in the United States and what
we were going to do to stop it. Well, both of the candidates--
regardless of party--would be in favor of reducing crime. I am assuming
that every one of my colleagues who is on the floor now and wishes to
speak would put themselves in the same category. We want to stop crime
in our States and in our country,
[[Page S5967]]
and we rely on the Department of Justice to do that. The one who leads
the effort in each and every State is the U.S. attorney.
In this circumstance, we have four nominees for U.S. attorney who
have been waiting patiently for the approval of the U.S. Senate. On
seven previous occasions, I have requested unanimous consent--the same
process that was followed with every single one of Donald Trump's U.S.
attorneys. I requested unanimous consent of the Senate to take up and
confirm law enforcement nominees nominated by President Joseph Biden.
Each and every time, the junior Senator from Ohio--now running for Vice
President of the United States--has objected.
I asked him on many occasions when we came to the floor and raised
this question: What objection do you have to this U.S. attorney
nominee?
He said at the time: I don't have any objection to this nominee. I
object to the Department of Justice, and I want to stop U.S. attorneys
from being appointed nationwide.
Communities across America desperately need their top Federal
prosecutors in place. U.S. attorneys lead the Nation's effort to
prosecute violent criminals and protect our communities from violent
crime, child exploitation, terrorism, and much more. The U.S.
Attorney's Offices in the four districts I am talking about today are
no exception.
I just left a meeting this morning. We gathered about 40 or 50
leaders from across the United States to talk about child trafficking.
Child trafficking, of course, is a Federal crime, prosecuted by the
Department of Justice in each and every one of our States where it
happens. I can't think of a more awful situation for a person to live
through as those this morning who talked about what they lived through
before the prosecution took place and the person was removed from the
State. I would not want to play political games with those nominations.
Those U.S. attorneys do critical work in each and every State. We
felt that way under President Trump, and that is why we allowed his
U.S. attorney nominees to move forward by voice vote. I think President
Biden is entitled to the same treatment.
The entire Nation has been impacted by the opioid epidemic. Ohio is
one of the States that has been hit the hardest. In 2023, nearly 4,500
Ohio residents died from accidental drug overdoses. This story can be
told over and over in State after State. The U.S. attorney for the
Northern District of Ohio can focus her attention on combating this
drug crisis with the DEA's Operation Overdrive. This operation is set
up at a location in Toledo due to the city's ``copious violent crimes,
including homicides, shootings, assaults, and drug overdoses.''
We are talking about serious prosecutions and a team of effective
professionals to fight them, not just in Ohio or in Illinois but around
the Nation. Instead, this nomination--one of them today which I am
suggesting, the nomination of Rebecca Lutzko--has languished for more
than a year because of the objection of the junior Senator from Ohio.
It may have helped that Senator to make that decision for some other
reason, but it certainly doesn't help the fighting of crime in his home
State to have a vacancy in this office. He is harming Americans and
undermining public safety across the country for reasons I can't
explain.
The Senate has a long history of confirming U.S. attorney nominees as
I said. We have done it by unanimous consent. We have made it fairly
routine, as it should be. All 85 of President Donald Trump's nominees
for U.S. attorney were filled by unanimous consent. The Senate has a
long history of following that practice. Before President Biden took
office, the last time the Senate required a rollcall on a U.S. attorney
was in 1975--49 years ago. You have to go back 49 years to find an
objection to a U.S. attorney nominee.
At the beginning of a new Presidential administration, it is
customary for the U.S. attorney to step down and for the new President
to select replacements. That is why, during the Trump administration,
we moved so many so quickly. Senate Democrats allowed every single one
of President Trump's nominees to be confirmed by unanimous consent,
many of whom we would not have personally selected, but it is just as a
courtesy to a new President to fill the vacancy. It wouldn't have been
fair or realistic to force the Senate to debate and vote on every
single one of these nominees. Each one of these votes is a process
which eats up several days of the calendar. We already do that for
nominations for the Federal bench. It would not have been fair or
realistic to expect it for U.S. attorneys. So we respected the then-
President. We respected our colleagues, and we respected the need for
the Senate to have confirmed leadership in the U.S. Attorney's Office.
We put public safety and the needs of law enforcement ahead of
politics. We have done it always when it has come to U.S. attorneys
until now. The Senator from Indiana and some of his colleagues have set
an unfortunate standard. They are putting us on a path to require
cloture and confirmation votes on every U.S. attorney nominee. Talk
about a waste of time. That would be a terrible waste of time. This is
entirely unsustainable, which is something everyone here knows.
Without Senate-confirmed leadership for U.S. attorneys, public safety
will suffer across the United States. Candidates cannot vote to delay
these nominations and then stand up and say they are for law and order,
and they want to fight crime. We shouldn't be playing politics. I don't
know the reason behind this--I believe it is entirely political--but I
hope my colleagues will think twice about it. What we do to one another
will likely be revisited and become a precedent in the Senate to the
detriment of everyone.
These highly qualified nominees that I nominate today--the four of
them--have the strong support of their home State Senators, including
of several members of the Republican caucus. If President Biden has
been accused of misuse of the Justice Department, we shouldn't take
that out on these individuals who are competent and qualified to keep
us safe.
Until we confirm them, law enforcement agencies in Iowa,
Massachusetts, and Ohio will be stymied in their ability to fight
crime.
Don't be giving a speech that says ``I want to have a real assault on
crime in my State or my district'' and then turn around and stop the
prosecutor from being appointed who has that job. Otherwise, that would
be a temporary appointment, and the effort cannot be as effective as it
might be. That is a loss to the Nation, and it creates a danger to the
people living in that particular State.
So, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider
the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 544, 545, 604, and
605--those are the nominations of Matthew Gannon to serve as U.S.
attorney for the Northern District of Iowa, Rebecca Lutzo to serve as
U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, Joshua Levy to serve
as U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts, and David Waterman
to serve as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Iowa; that the
Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without any intervening action
or debate; that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered
made and laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of
the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The junior Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. HAGERTY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, these
are Biden-Harris Department of Justice nominees. What is the Biden-
Harris Department of Justice focused on right now? Multiple
prosecutions of former President Donald J. Trump.
Never before in history has a major American Presidential candidate
been criminally charged, much less by his campaign opponent's
Department of Justice. Yet, in the middle of this Presidential
election, the Biden-Harris Justice Department has brought two different
prosecutions against their Presidential election opponent. Other
Democrat prosecutors have brought three other sets of charges. These
cases have been timed to peak during the election.
So right now, President Biden's election opponent is on trial in five
separate jurisdictions--all by partisan Democrat prosecutors, all on
different charges, and all peaking right in the middle of this
Presidential campaign.
[[Page S5968]]
This begs a simple question: Is this coordinated election interference
or is this merely a coincidence?
It is beyond credulity that these charges would have been brought
against anyone but President Trump--especially five different
prosecutions all brought during the Presidential election. The
contortions of fact and law underlying these prosecutions testify to
that.
So do the political campaign promises and Presidential commands
behind the prosecutions underscore this? Of course they do.
The New York Times reported in April of 2022 that President Biden
told advisers that he wanted his Justice Department to prosecute
President Trump. Shortly thereafter, his Justice Department dutifully
appointed Jack Smith to prosecute President Trump.
When Alvin Bragg ran for district attorney, he campaigned on getting
Trump. He did just that, using a made-up, never-before-pursued theory.
When Letitia James ran for New York attorney general, she said that
her entire campaign was about getting President Trump. Even Democrat
Representative Dan Goldman called it ``an individualized political
vendetta.'' Five years later, in the middle of the campaign, she
brought a baseless case for a $454 million fine--unheard of. This is a
case of ``show me the man, and I will show you the crime.'' It is also
blatant election interference. It is outrageous to many Americans. It
violates our basic principles of blind justice and the rule of law.
I am not going to consent to the expeditious confirmation of any more
Biden Department of Justice nominees until the American people get a
chance to reject this politicized administration of justice.
I will say this: If these nominees were truly important to Senate
Democrats, they would schedule votes on them. Senate Democrats held me
for 30 hours of cloture when I came through this process. They are not
doing the same here.
Therefore, I would like to reserve the right to object, and I want to
withhold my objection to allow the junior Senator from Missouri to be
recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Missouri.
Mr. SCHMITT. Madam President, before I get started on this, I thank
my colleague from Tennessee.
I also want to note to my friend from Illinois that we are not doing
anything else on this floor. We are certainly not moving an
appropriations process. We could be doing appropriations bills in
September, but Chuck Schumer doesn't want to do any of that. So all we
are doing is nominations. If you feel so strongly about these
individuals, go through the process.
Also, it is curious to mention precedent being raised here in this.
I, in my first term here in the Senate, just witnessed for the first
time in American history--first time ever--an Articles of Impeachment
coming over to this Chamber, and we didn't have a trial. So forgive me
if I don't want to be lectured about precedence. There is a process to
get this done. We will never have an opportunity to have a trial on
Mayorkas like we should have had.
But I digress. My objection here today is not specific to the
qualifications of the individuals who have been nominated. My objection
instead is to the fact that we live in a time right now--and as a
lawyer, this is deeply saddening--where the Department of Justice and
other government Agencies are being politicized and weaponized. This is
angering the American people, and it should.
American history has no shortage of important moments marked by
statesmen making difficult decisions which balance the outrages of the
moment with the long-term stability of our Republic.
Throughout this last year, many of us have denounced here the
weaponization of the Justice Department by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
What many in the political establishment don't care to acknowledge is
that this is resonating even more with American working folks who
believe that there is a two-tiered system of justice in our country,
and it is being unlawfully applied.
From Hillary Clinton's ``mishandling'' of classified information to
President Joe Biden doing the same, the American public has watched
certain people be immune from consequences for their actions.
Biden-Harris are attempting to throw their political opponent, Donald
Trump, in jail for the rest of his life. It is wrong. They are trying
to interfere with this election, and that is why we stand here on the
floor today.
So if you are not part of the exclusive club or if you dare to fight
back against its monopoly on power, you are held to a different
standard. Those brave enough to fight the system are not only expected
to play by the rules but also subject to capricious, legal, and
inconsistent lawfare--banana republic stuff. If this were happening in
another country, our State Department would be warning us about it. It
is happening right here under our noses.
These political attacks undermine the American people's faith in
their government--a government of the people, by the people, and for
the people. We all are one people, and we must only have one standard
of which we are judged in our courts. We must immediately halt our
creep toward tyranny.
So until the Justice Department resumes its focus on applying equal
justice under the law instead of engaging in partisan lawfare against
President Trump, I will join my colleagues here today.
I withhold my objection to allow the senior Senator from Alabama to
speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Alabama.
Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I
rise today to join my colleagues in objecting to the fast-tracking of
Biden-Harris's U.S. attorney nominations. This is a commitment we
publicly made in June because of President Biden and Harris's
unprecedented attacks on Donald Trump. It didn't have to be this way,
but the Biden-Harris administration chose to target its political
opponent in an election year. This is the direct result of the
weaponization of a justice system they created.
This administration has shown time and time again that it is willing
to do whatever it takes to maintain power. Whether it is lawfare
against President Trump or allowing illegals to vote in elections, this
administration is hell-bent on election interference.
If we don't return to the principles of our Constitution, we will be
no better than Venezuela or communist China.
As long as this administration remains weaponized against the will of
the American people, my answer is no. This is why I am objecting to
unanimous consent of these U.S. attorney nominees today. It is not my
intent to attack these nominees individually; rather, it is my intent
to use my right as a Senator to restore the faith in the rule of law in
the United States of America. It won't end well if we continue down
this path.
I, for one, will never stop fighting against this weaponization of
the Federal Government, I don't care who it is. By continuing to stand
up for what is right, I believe Americans' faith in our institutions
will be restored.
I withhold my objection to allow the junior Senator from Tennessee to
be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. HAGERTY. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, I want
to thank my colleagues from Missouri, from Alabama, and my colleague
from Ohio who has led this effort.
For the reasons I stated earlier, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Did you hear that? The Department of Justice is too
partisan. The Department of Justice is too partisan. It is interesting
to note that two of the prosecutions of Donald Trump are not even
starting at the Department of Justice. They come from State
prosecutions in the States of Georgia and New York, not Washington.
So these nominees for U.S. attorney are being held up because of
decisions made by some other prosecutor in another State? Apparently,
that is the case in this situation.
I just have to say that at least in one of the prosecutions in New
York, they have been successful in bringing a case against the former
President and convicting him of felony counts--34, if I
[[Page S5969]]
am not mistaken. So there is some merit to it that goes beyond any
question of intrigue in Washington, DC.
Let me also add that, as far as I can tell, this Department of
Justice has tried to take a reasonable position to avoid conflicts of
interest. In this circumstance, we have a special attorney who is
appointed to prosecute the President's own son--the President's own
son--this Department of Justice, which is being accused of being
partisan in this situation. There is no precedent for that in history.
It is a clear effort by the Biden administration to deal fairly with a
painful situation personally.
Well, you look at this and you say: Well, what point have colleagues
made today? They have made the point that in these four places in the
United States--Iowa on two occasions, Massachusetts, and in Ohio--that
the competent professionals for prosecutor--that these competent
positions will not be filled with individuals who they admitted on the
floor they have no objection to.
What is the net result of this? It means that crimes that are being
committed or allegedly being committed in these States are not going to
be prosecuted as aggressively as they should.
Don't give me a speech about wanting law and order and safety in
community and then turn around and say: To make a political point, we
are going to stop sending prosecutors to these areas. It is
inconsistent, it doesn't follow, and it is unfortunate.
I am sorry, for these four individuals who are worthy candidates to
be U.S. attorneys, that this happened today. It has happened before.
It is a sad day if this is going to be a new precedent, that any
President coming in a new term is going to face this kind of an
obstacle course for the routine appointment of individuals to enforce
the law across the United States. We will not be a safer nation because
of this political strategy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. HAGERTY. If the Senator from Illinois would allow, I would just
like to respond to two points regarding the politicization of the
Justice Department.
One of them is the fact that Mr. Colangelo from the Department of
Justice was moved to the State of New York to undertake subsequent
State-level prosecutions. That is certainly deep involvement by this
Department of Justice in the State-level prosecutions that has taken
place here.
The other is the reference to the son of the sitting President and
his prosecution. I will point out that this Department of Justice
allowed and made certain that the statute of limitations on far more
serious charges expired. That is politicization in the Department of
Justice.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Connecticut.
23rd Anniversary of the September 11, 2001 Attack
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, as all of us know and the Nation
today commemorates, 23 years ago we experienced the unthinkable. Our
Nation went through an unspeakable, massive terrorist attack on our own
soil for the first time in our history.
The attacks on September 11 reshaped the world as we know it even
today and changed our country to its core. Nearly 3,000 innocent lives
were lost, and countless more were forever impacted as families and
loved ones carry their memory. Thousands survived the attacks, but they
were forever changed as well--physically, emotionally, and in many
other ways.
No matter how many years go by, the survivors and victims of the
September 11 attacks and their families will always be in our hearts.
And many of them live in Connecticut, and we remember them and their
loved ones today.
As all of us know, this unimaginable loss shook our Nation to its
core, and now, more than two decades later, we remain committed to
honoring the survivors and the fallen. We remember the people we lost,
but we should also remember the survivors; the loved ones of the
fallen; the first responders, who continue to bear the wounds of that
day and the successive days; the veterans, who bear the visible and
invisible wounds of war because the ripple effects of that attack on
September 11 continue to haunt us. And we should remember not just the
horror of that day but also the heroism, because in the days and weeks
afterward as well as on that day, that heroism helped to bring us
together as a nation as never before or since.
We were as one in those days. And all of us have memories--especially
in Connecticut and other States impacted directly in our losses--of the
vigils, the conversations, and the acts of kindness and generosity,
most of them totally unrecorded and many of them now perhaps
unremembered.
But in remembering the great heroes whom we lost, in their honor, we
should also remember the loved ones who survived them. That is the
reason that we have the Victim Compensation Fund, and that is the
reason that we are fighting for justice, for them, so that their rights
are vindicated. Whether it is in court or through diplomatic channels,
they deserve justice against all who were complicit in the unspeakable,
horrific acts of that day, all who supported them and who enabled them.
That is the reason why, in Congress, I have helped to lead efforts to
keep the courthouse doors open to their legal action, along with a
bipartisan group that, in fact, overrode the veto of a President on
JASTA. So, justice for the loved ones.
And the wounds of that day will never completely heal because we
suffered losses that we will never forget--our friends who lost lives.
In Connecticut, we gather every year in one of our most beautiful
parks, Sherwood Island in Westport, where there is a memorial. Every
year, many of those loved ones come for a ceremony that is both solemn
and exquisitely beautiful, and every year we lay flowers at that
memorial as part of our remembering.
But we also know that on that day, first responders rushed toward
danger. They ran into burning buildings. And many of the firemen and
police from Connecticut spent weeks breathing in toxic chemicals from
burning jet fuel and concrete filled with asbestos that has led
thousands of them to develop chronic medical conditions that require
ongoing medical treatment and consistent monitoring for the delayed
onset of illnesses such as cancer.
That is why, in 2010, Congress created the World Trade Center Health
Program to provide healthcare services with no out-of-pocket costs--
none--to those directly impacted. This program treats first responders
and survivors for many chronic illnesses and respiratory diseases,
including asthma, sinusitis, obstructive pulmonary disease, and other
kinds of health issues directly associated with the 9/11 attacks that
continue to grow and evolve.
Over the years, there have been efforts to cut funding for this
crucial program. To be clear, let us resolve on this day that defunding
the World Trade Center Health Program would be an unforgivable betrayal
of the thousands of individuals who risked their lives in the 9/11
attack. I will continue fighting against any attempt to strip even one
first responder or survivor of the healthcare they deserve.
In Connecticut, as of June 2024, 1,365 individuals were enrolled in
this program. They deserve that we continue this support, and that is
also why I am proud to join my colleagues in introducing the 9/11
Responder and Survivor Health Funding Correction Act. It ensures that
the World Trade Center Health Program receives permanent and mandatory
funding while updating the outdated funding formula to prevent a
shortfall that would put survivors and first responders at risk of
losing access to healthcare.
We cannot afford, in terms of conscience and conviction, this
betrayal of our solemn obligation to those first responders and their
families--and likewise to veterans--thousands of them--who now bear the
invisible wounds of war, from PTS to the cancer or hypertension or
other kinds of medical conditions resulting from their exposure to the
poisons and toxic chemicals in burn pits and elsewhere during their
fight for our Nation in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to keep faith
with them.
The PACT Act should be fully funded, robustly supported by Congress,
and never abandoned. I will continue to fight to support the PACT Act
but also to support outreach so that more veterans are aware of these
benefits and
[[Page S5970]]
the care that is offered by the Veterans Administration--the screening
that can help save them from diseases that will be less severe if they
are stopped earlier. Again, cancer is one of the great enemies.
We vow again today: Never forget. Those two words are probably
repeated on this day, year after year, more often than any other time:
Never forget. But never forgetting is more than just words. It is a
commitment to honor the memories of the fallen with action--the fallen
on 9/11, the fallen who died afterward from diseases that resulted from
9/11, the fallen among our veterans who gave their lives or now suffer
medical conditions resulting from their service. We will never forget
in action as well as in words--in deed, as well as in rhetoric. That
has to be the promise that we keep today.
I yield the floor.