[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.