[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12690-12695]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF BYRON TODD JONES TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, 
                   TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, 
which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Nomination of Byron Todd Jones, of Minnesota, to be 
     Director of the Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol, Firearms, and 
     Explosives.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 1 hour 
of debate on the nomination equally divided in the usual form. If no 
one yields time, time will be charged equally to both sides.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Hoeven pertaining to the submission of S. Con. 
Res. 21 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
  Mr. HOEVEN. With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                           NASA Authorization

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, we passed the NASA 
authorization bill out of the Commerce Committee yesterday. Sadly, I 
must report that it is the first time the NASA bill has been a partisan 
vote that I can ever remember. NASA--this little program that is such a 
can-do agency--has always been not only bipartisan, but it has been 
nonpartisan.
  There was actually no real disagreement with the content, the 
policies set in the NASA authorization bill. It is very similar to what 
the Appropriations Committee indeed has already passed out of the full 
Appropriations Committee. But, sadly, there is an insistence that this 
artificial budget limitation, which is like a meat cleaver cutting 
across the board--some would describe it as a guillotine coming down 
across programs willy-nilly--cutting programs such as the National 
Institutes of Health and all of the medical research that is going on 
and, indeed, a broadly embraced bipartisan program such as our space 
program.
  So the vote was 13 to 12--specifically along partisan lines--not 
because of the content, not because of the policy, but because of the 
funding level. In the bill that passed, we had the NASA authorization 
for appropriations at the level provided in the budget resolution that 
passed the Senate--$18.1 billion. That is about level funding for NASA, 
this little agency that is trying to do so much. However, our 
Republican friends wanted it cut to $16.8 billion, and some spoke 
favorably toward the House bill that has it cut back to $16.6 billion.
  If we cut $1.5 billion out of this little agency, it can't do what it 
is attempting to do to get us ready to go to Mars in the decade of the 
2030s and in the meantime to get our human-rated rockets in the 
commercial sector so we can send our astronauts to and from the 
international space station where six human beings are doing research 
right now. The multiplicity of science projects, the planetary 
exploration that is going on, and the aeronautics research that is 
going on--all of that is within this little agency.
  My hope is that as we get further along in the fiscal year, we are 
going to hit some grand design, some grand bargain, some great 
bipartisan agreement on funding that maybe will include tax reform but 
that will then allow us to operate with common sense instead of some 
artificial budgetary mechanism called sequester.
  Yesterday it was stated that indeed the NASA authorization bill 
violated the Budget Control Act of 2011. I tried to explain in the 
committee that it did not. As a matter of fact, the Budget Control Act 
is an overall level on compressing appropriations. It has no effect on 
the authorization for appropriations. That is where we set policy, and 
then we leave it up to the Appropriations Committee to set the actual 
funding.
  So I am happy to say that we made the step that we needed to make. We 
have the bill proceeding now out of the committee. I am sad to say that 
for the first time ever this broadly based, wildly popular, not only 
bipartisan but nonpartisan program, called America's space program, has 
come out of the committee with a partisan vote.
  Let's turn this around, and let's not have this excessive 
partisanship and this ideological rigidity that is gripping this 
country's politics. Let's not have that infect our Nation's space 
program.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
up to 15 minutes on the Todd nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I come to the floor to ask my 
colleagues to vote against cloture on the nomination, and here are my 
reasons for asking that of my colleagues.
  Earlier this week I outlined my general objection to the Senate 
proceeding to a final vote on the confirmation of Mr. B. Todd Jones, 
the nominee to be Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and 
Firearms. As I explained, the Senate should not be voting on a 
nomination when there is an open investigation.
  In this case the Office of Special Counsel is investigating Mr. Jones 
in a complaint that he retaliated against a whistleblower in the U.S. 
Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota.
  Because of the way this nomination was handled in committee, I was 
able to conduct only a limited investigation. But what I found should 
give all

[[Page 12691]]

of us pause--real pause--on this nomination because it gives me concern 
about Mr. Jones's leadership ability and raises doubts about whether he 
should be promoted to head this office.
  According to both the whistleblowing assistant U.S. attorney and the 
former head of the FBI in Minnesota, relationships with Federal, State, 
and local authorities deteriorated significantly under Jones's 
leadership. The problems primarily involved agencies that worked drug 
cases and violent crime.
  Mr. Jones addressed the issue in a meeting with criminal prosecutors 
in his office. According to the whistleblower, following that meeting, 
Mr. Jones came to the whistleblower's office and asked for his candid 
opinion of what could be done about the problem.
  The whistleblower gave Jones his candid opinion, and a few weeks 
later he put it in writing what he had told Jones during this meeting. 
His e-mail to Jones included allegations of mismanagement by one of his 
supervisors, the head of the Narcotics and Violent Crime Unit.
  The very next day, that supervisor called that whistleblower on the 
carpet and, according to the whistleblower, interrogated him about his 
work in search of a pretext to discipline him.
  Failing to find a substantive reason to discipline him, his 
supervisors then suspended him for 5 days for his demeanor during the 
meeting. Now, based on what we know at this point, it certainly looks 
like retaliation, and it helps explain why the Office of Special 
Counsel believed these allegations merited further investigation. 
Remember, only about 10 percent, 1 in 10 of these types of allegations 
is selected for investigation by the Special Counsel.
  To be fair, we do not know the full story. The Office of Special 
Counsel has not finished its investigation into the matter. But this 
fact remains: There is an open investigation of serious allegations of 
whistleblower retaliation, and because that investigation remains open, 
this body--the Senate of the United States--should have the full 
information about the nominee, and it does not have it, and it should 
have it before voting on that nomination.
  These are serious charges. The public interest demands resolution of 
these issues. Members of the Senate are entitled to know if these 
charges have merit. Members of the Senate are entitled to the complete 
record.
  So everyone should ask, Why then are we voting on a nomination on 
which there is an open investigation and on a nominee where we do not 
have the complete information? To me, the answer is obvious: We should 
not be conducting this vote until this matter is resolved.
  I would like to highlight a few comments contained in a recent letter 
from the National Whistleblowers Center. That organization, since 1988, 
has been supporting whistleblowers.
  The center opposes a vote on this nomination ``until there is a 
complete and thorough investigation into his treatment of employee-
whistleblowers.'' This is exactly what I am requesting today: a ``no'' 
vote to give the time to complete this investigation.
  The National Whistleblowers Center notes that the Office of Special 
Counsel's investigation remains open. Again, I agree with their 
contention; namely, ``that office should be able to complete its 
inquiry in due course, without any pressure triggered by the nomination 
process.''
  I am surprised to hear rumblings about my opposition to this nominee 
based on this particular matter. It seems some are asking the question, 
What does this whistleblower retaliation have to do with the ATF? Why 
is this investigation even relevant?
  I sincerely hope my colleagues have not forgotten about the disaster 
of Operation Fast and Furious--an absolute failure by the former 
leadership of the ATF. In that case, the former ATF leadership and the 
ex-U.S. attorney retaliated against the brave whistleblowers who 
alerted authorities about this botched operation of Fast and Furious. A 
U.S. attorney in Arizona had to resign because of his retaliatory 
conduct against whistleblowers.
  Based in part on that history, I am extremely hesitant to place at 
the head of that agency this individual who has been accused of 
retaliation against a whistleblower and, as Acting Director of ATF, Mr. 
Jones sends a very chilling message to all the employees of that 
organization.
  Mr. Jones was caught on video, so we know exactly what he said. He 
was caught on video making very disturbing statements specifically 
targeted at discouraging ATF agents from blowing the whistle.
  Let me remind you, whistleblowers are patriotic Americans who think 
the law ought to be followed and the government do what the law says.
  He told these whistleblowers:

       [I]f you don't respect the chain of command, if you don't 
     find the appropriate way to raise your concerns to your 
     leadership, there will be consequences.

  Wouldn't that scare anybody who worked in that organization?
  Of course, blowing the whistle requires going outside the chain of 
command to report wrongdoing. If you do not get the benefit of people 
listening to you within, then it is your constitutional responsibility 
to go outside and report violation of law. So telling employees there 
will be consequences for going outside the chain of command is the same 
thing as telling them there will be consequences for whistleblowing.
  This video was seen by several employees in the U.S. Attorney's 
Office of Minnesota, also headed by Mr. Jones in his other capacity. 
These employees wrote to the Office of Special Counsel referencing the 
video, stating that they had ``felt for the employees of ATF as we too 
have had the same types of statements made to us.''
  They then said Mr. Jones ``ha[d] instituted a climate of fear, ha[d] 
pushed employees out of the office, dismissed employees wrongly, 
violated the hiring practices of the EEOC, and put in place an 
Orwellian style of management that continues to polarize the office.''
  As I mentioned, the former head of the FBI in Minnesota also wrote to 
the committee about Mr. Jones. In that letter, he wrote:

       As a retired FBI senior executive, I am one of the few 
     voices able to publicly express our complete discontent with 
     Mr. Jones' ineffective leadership and poor service provided 
     to the federal law enforcement community without fear of 
     retaliation or retribution from him.

  Meaning from Mr. Jones.
  Those are chilling words, as I have said twice. They corroborate what 
members of his staff have said and are consistent with the 
whistleblower retaliation complaint.
  The former FBI Special Agent in Charge continued with this report:

       [Mr. Jones] was, and still remains, a significant 
     impediment for federal law enforcement to effectively protect 
     the citizens of Minnesota. . . .

  As the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported on December 31, 2012:

       Criminal prosecutions have dropped dramatically at the U.S. 
     Attorney's office in Minneapolis under the leadership of B. 
     Todd Jones, rankling some in law enforcement.

  But then the article continued:

       Several federal and state law enforcement sources said that 
     the U.S. Attorney's office refused to prosecute drug and 
     violent crime cases that would have been snapped up by Jones' 
     predecessors. None agreed to be quoted, saying they must 
     maintain a relationship with the U.S. Attorney's Office.

  My investigation revealed that during Mr. Jones's tenure as U.S. 
attorney, several people allege that relationships with other Federal 
law enforcement agencies deteriorated also. Now, why would we want to 
confirm as Director of the ATF someone who has a poor track record 
working with Federal law enforcement?
  Since the majority insisted on moving forward without waiting for the 
Office of Special Counsel to complete its work, on July 2 I wrote to 
the FBI, the DEA, and ICE seeking information about the deteriorating 
relationship between Federal law enforcement and the U.S. Attorney's 
Office under Mr. Jones's leadership. I have received no replies to that 
request.
  In addition to his record as U.S. attorney for the District of 
Minnesota, what about Mr. Jones's record as Acting Director of the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms? It is no secret that there 
have been a number of controversial events that Mr. Jones has been 
involved in to one degree or another. I have sent numerous letters to

[[Page 12692]]

the department requesting information from and about Mr. Jones. In many 
cases, I have received no response or an incomplete response. Here is a 
sampling:
  On Fast and Furious--on October 12, 2011, the House Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee subpoenaed records of the Attorney 
General's advisory committee relating to Operation Fast and Furious 
during a period Jones was committee chair. I reiterated that request on 
April 10, 2013.
  No. 2, ATF's accountability for Fast and Furious. On October 19, 
2012, and January 15, 2013, I requested information on which ATF 
employees would be disciplined for their role in Fast and Furious.
  No. 3, Fast and Furious interview request. From October 7, 2011, 
through January 2012, I requested a staff interview with Jones 
regarding Fast and Furious. I reiterated that request to Mr. Jones on 
April 10, 2013.
  No. 4, interview request on Reno, NV, ATF office. My April 10, 2013, 
letter also indicated that Mr. Jones's failure to act on Reno 
management issues was another area of questions to be covered in a 
staff interview.
  No. 5, interview request on Operation Fearless. My April 10, 2013, 
letter indicated that the botched Operation Fearless in Milwaukee was 
another area of questions to be covered in a staff interview.
  No. 6, document request on Operation Fearless. On May 10 of this 
year, I sent Mr. Jones a letter requesting a copy of the Office of 
Professional Responsibility and Security Operations report on the 
botched Milwaukee storefront operation.
  No. 7, on the St. Paul and quid pro quo matter, I was able to have a 
staff interview with Mr. Jones. Just to remind my colleagues about the 
issue I will tell you, briefly, on February 3, 2012, the Department of 
Justice and the City of St. Paul struck a deal. The terms of the quid 
pro quo were as follows: The Department declined to intervene in two 
False Claims Act cases that were pending against St. Paul, and St. Paul 
withdrew its petition before the U.S. Supreme Court on the Magner case, 
a case that observers believed would invalidate the use of disparate 
impact theory under the Fair Housing Act.
  But this was no ordinary settlement. Instead of furthering the ends 
of justice, this settlement prevented the courts from reviewing 
potentially meritorious claims and the recovery of hundreds of millions 
of dollars for the U.S. Treasury.
  The U.S. attorney in Minnesota at the time of the quid pro quo, Mr. 
Jones, was serving both as U.S. attorney and Acting Director of the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Mr. Jones was 
interviewed by the committee staff as part of the investigation on 
March 8, 2013. However, before agreeing to the interview, the 
department demanded that staff not be permitted to ask Mr. Jones any 
further questions other than those involving quid pro quo.
  Questions remain about whether he was effectively managing both jobs 
as the U.S. attorney and Acting Director. For example, when asked by 
committee staff about his failure to attend a seminal meeting between 
the department's civil division and representatives from the City of 
St. Paul, which occurred in December 2011, he stated that he did not 
attend because he had an event at ATF that precluded his attendance. 
When pressed further, Mr. Jones indicated the important event at ATF 
was a holiday party called ``sweet treats.''
  He felt it was more important that he attend that event than it was 
to attend his crucial meeting----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. It was more important that he go to sweet treats than 
worry about collecting $200 million under False Claims Act cases 
pending. I raised many of these issues with Mr. Jones at his hearing 
and in written questions for the record. But in too many instances Mr. 
Jones was unable or unwilling to provide an adequate response. 
Unfortunately, I have a lingering concern about his candor during his 
testimony. With this record before us, it should be apparent to all of 
my colleagues that the Senate should not move forward with Mr. Jones' 
nomination.
  First, the Senate has yet to learn the results from the 
investigations of Office of Special Counsel; two, the Senate has not 
had an opportunity to hear Mr. Jones address those allegations himself. 
Point blank he told the committee he could not speak about them because 
of the open investigation; third, the Senate should recognize a 
troubling pattern indicating the nominee's inability to work with 
Federal law enforcement and whistleblowers; four, his involvement in a 
number of botched operations showing unacceptable management style or 
capability.
  Elevating an individual with such a record is not how you 
rehabilitate the reputation, image, and culture of Federal law 
enforcement agencies still recovering from the disastrous scandal of 
Fast and Furious. I do not believe we should simply rubberstamp this 
nomination and sweep the alarming allegations under the rug.
  I would hope that further action on the nomination pause until these 
matters are resolved. Before I close, I wish to address one additional 
matter. I have heard it argued from the majority that there is an 
urgency to get this nomination confirmed because ATF has not had a 
confirmed Director for 7 years. President Bush made a nomination in 
March 2007. That nomination was held up in the Senate based on concerns 
regarding ATF's hostility to small gun dealers and the nominee's 
apparent indifference to their concerns.
  President Obama did not nominate a Director until November 17, 2010. 
That is 2 years into his first term. That individual's nomination 
stalled because neither the White House nor the nominee responded to 
our requests for additional information. Rather than respond to our 
requests so that nomination might move forward or withdraw that 
nomination and send up another, the White House did nothing for 2 
years.
  The nomination of Mr. Jones was not sent up to the Senate until the 
beginning of this year. So for the past 4\1/2\ years, the vacancy is 
the responsibility of the White House. I do not think that supports 
their contention that there is a crisis because of a lack of a Senate-
confirmed nominee.
  In any event, the prudent course for the Senate, and what I support, 
is to wait a short while, until the open complaint is resolved. I urge 
my colleagues to vote against cloture.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                            Power Nomination

  Mr. COONS. Madam President, this week the Senate will consider the 
nomination of Samantha Power to serve as our next Ambassador to the 
United Nations. In fact, I hope we will take it up later today. This is 
a critical position to our President's national and foreign policy 
team, and I believe Ms. Power's experience, values, and wise approach 
to foreign policy will make her a terrific Ambassador.
  Throughout her career, she has displayed a passion for human rights 
and worked tirelessly to prevent atrocities abroad. From her early days 
as a journalist, to her work in the White House, she has shown a 
pragmatic idealism and a deep and nuanced understanding of the foreign 
policy and security challenges facing this country around the globe.
  I met with Ms. Power a few weeks ago. I came away confident that she 
is the right choice to represent our country at the U.N. She 
understands the critical importance of democratic values and human 
rights to global stability. Ours is a complex time and a complex world. 
The fabric of global stability is woven with many threads of democracy, 
good governance, economic development, health, education, national 
security and, of course, diplomacy.
  The global challenges of our generation require leaders, leaders 
capable of

[[Page 12693]]

seeing each of these threads and appreciating how they connect and how 
we can weave them together to make a stronger more vibrant world.
  As chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on African 
Affairs, I am excited to work with Ambassador Power to strengthen our 
friendship and strategic partnerships on that vital continent. On 
Israel, it is clear she believes in our Nation's unbreakable bond with 
the Jewish State. She has shown us, in her words and actions, 
especially when she played an underreported and underappreciated role 
defending Israel at the U.N. during the Palestinian statehood vote.
  In closing, it is clear that in Samantha Power we have a nominee with 
a keen intellect and a grasp of the complex foreign policy challenges 
we face in the world. She combines a dedication to American values and 
principles with the pragmatism that will serve us well at the U.N. I am 
proud to vote for her confirmation and urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise in support of the nomination 
of Todd Jones to be Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms and Explosives. I wish to first thank Senator Coons for his 
remarks about Samantha Power. I am also looking forward to the vote on 
her confirmation. I am looking forward to her service.
  This is a very important job. As the Presiding Officer knows, the ATF 
has an incredibly important role in investigating crimes and terrorist 
incidents such as the Boston Marathon. They recently investigated the 
explosion in Texas that took so many innocent lives. This must be a top 
priority for the United States of America.
  Yet this is a position where there are 2,400 agents--2,400 ATF 
agents--and they have gone without a permanent Director for 7 years, 
ever since this became a confirmable position. This happened under 
President Bush. There was not a confirmed Director. It is happening now 
up until today under President Obama. It is time to change that. It is 
simply time to change it.
  I know Todd Jones. For 2 years he has served as the U.S. attorney of 
Minnesota at the same time he is serving as the ATF Director. That is 
not an easy job. He has five children. He is a former marine. He was 
willing to take on the ATF job after the Fast and Furious debacle. He 
was willing to come in after that and help to clean up that agency and 
make some very tough decisions. He took on that job while still 
remaining the U.S. attorney in Minnesota.
  I would note he served as the U.S. attorney of Minnesota under 
President Clinton and again was appointed to serve under President 
Obama. Then, 2 years ago, he was asked to be the Acting Director of 
ATF, never knowing if this day would ever come when actually there 
would be a vote on his confirmation.
  He literally has never turned down a tough assignment. Todd Jones has 
an impressive background that makes him well prepared to lead the ATF. 
After law school at the University of Minnesota, he entered the U.S. 
Marine Corps, as I noted, where he served on Active Duty as a judge 
advocate and infantry officer from 1983 until 1989. Two years later, he 
was called back to Active Duty during the first Iraq war.
  In addition to his military career and having the rare distinction of 
serving as U.S. attorney under two different Presidents, Todd Jones 
also has a strong record as a line prosecutor in the Minnesota U.S. 
Attorney's Office. When Jones was U.S. attorney in Minnesota from 1998 
to 2001, the violent crime rate decreased by 15 percent. So far during 
his second tenure as the U.S. attorney, the violent crime rate in 
Minnesota has already decreased by 9 percent.
  We all know there are a lot of factors that go into that, including 
the great work of our local police officers, including work of our 
police chiefs, including the work of community groups, including the 
economy. There are a number of things at hand. But when I hear attacks 
against Mr. Jones, I believe it is important to set the record 
straight.
  One other thing--I did want to set the record straight on one other 
thing. I so appreciate the leadership Senator Grassley has shown when 
it comes to whistleblowers. But everyone should know, regarding this 
complaint within the office, an internal complaint within the U.S. 
Attorney's Office in Minnesota, it was investigated by the Judiciary 
Committee. In this place, to set the record straight, the complainant 
voluntarily agreed to mediate his concerns. The Office of Special 
Counsel is no longer investigating. I wish to make that straight for 
all of my colleagues so they understand the outcome of that and that 
there is a mediation going on. It is not being investigated.
  As an assistant U.S. attorney, Todd Jones was the lead prosecutor in 
a number of cases involving drug conspiracies, money laundering, 
financial fraud, and violent crime in the early 1990s. In the private 
sector, he became a partner at two very well regarded Minnesota law 
firms, Robins Kaplan and Greene Espel. He has led a number of very 
important prosecutions in his capacity as U.S. attorney: Operation 
Rhino, which involved the criminal prosecution of Omer Abdi Mohamed, 
who recruited young Somali Americans to fight for terrorist groups in 
Somalia, To date, this investigation has resulted in charges filed 
against 22 other individuals and Operation Brother's Keeper, a major 
RICO case, the second biggest Ponzi scheme in the history of America, 
second only to the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme, prosecuted by the U.S. 
Attorney's Office, by a fine prosecutor named Joe Dixon and many others 
under Todd Jones's leadership.
  This gives us a sense--and I would end with this as I see Senator 
Leahy, our great chairman is here. Jones's confirmation is supported by 
the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Chiefs of Police, 81 
U.S. attorneys, the National District Attorneys Association, 
Minnesota's former FBI Special Agent in Charge, Ralph Boelter, the 
former U.S. attorney Tom Hefflefinger, who served under both George H. 
W. Bush and George W. Bush in Minnesota, and dozens of others who have 
worked with Mr. Jones over his many years of public service.
  I would end with this: The ATF has people on the frontlines every 
day. They do not ask if the work they have done is ordered by a 
Republican or a Democrat. When they go to investigate a bombing, they 
do not ask the police officers what their political affiliation is or 
who the FBI is. They do not care. They just do their job. Now it is 
time for the Senate to do its job and confirm an ATF Director for the 
first time in 7 years. I thank the chairman for his leadership.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, when the 113th Congress convened 
following the terrible tragedy in Newtown, CT, the Judiciary Committee 
focused its attention on commonsense gun violence prevention 
legislation. The American people made their voices heard in favor of 
effective reforms, and many Senators went to work to find common 
ground.
  Although the Senate Judiciary Committee approved four pieces of 
legislation to address gun violence, two of which were reported on 
bipartisan votes, the Senate was unable to pass any of these measures. 
Like many Americans, I was disappointed at the Senate's inability to 
come together to make sensible changes to our laws to reduce gun 
violence.
  Today we have another chance to make progress in our efforts to 
reduce gun violence with the confirmation of B. Todd Jones to lead the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Todd Jones has 
served as the Acting Director since September 2011. Under his 
leadership, the ATF has been called on to analyze the bombs left near 
the finish line at the Boston Marathon, to sift through burned debris 
in the West, TX, explosion and to trace the weapons used by the 
shooters in the Newtown and Aurora massacres. The ATF has played a 
major role in investigating some of our Nation's worst tragedies.

[[Page 12694]]

  In addition to the ATF's enforcement responsibilities, the agency is 
central to firearms commerce. The ATF issues permits for companies that 
import firearms and provide firearms to law enforcement agencies. 
Without a confirmed Director, the ATF's job of supporting and 
regulating Americans who make their living in the business of firearms 
is much more difficult. Yet we continue to hamper the ATF's ability to 
do its job. No nominee to lead the ATF has been confirmed since that 
position was made subject to the Senate's consent.
  I hope the Senate will vote to change this unfortunate pattern of 
obstruction. Mr. Jones is a dedicated public servant and law 
enforcement official. He volunteered for the U.S. Marine Corps in 1983, 
serving on Active Duty as a Judge Advocate and Infantry officer until 
1989. In 1991, he was recalled to Active Duty to command the 4th Marine 
Division's Military Police Company in Iraq. He also served as 
commanding officer of the Twin Cities Marine Reserve Unit. When Todd 
Jones was confirmed by this body in 1998, he became the first African-
American U.S. attorney in Minnesota's history. Todd Jones has served 
this country honorably as a marine, a U.S. attorney, and the ATF's 
Acting Director.
  Unfortunately, there is opposition to Mr. Jones's confirmation. But 
in my view this opposition has little to do with his ability to lead 
this important Federal agency. Every nominee to lead the ATF has been 
met with unreasonable opposition. And the consistent opposition all 
nominees to this post have faced is less about those nominees' 
qualifications than about weakening a Federal law enforcement agency 
that some disfavor.
  Some Senate Republicans would prefer not to have anyone leading the 
ATF, no matter who the nominee is. They would not allow President Bush 
to have a confirmed Director, and they do not want President Obama to 
have one either.
  Opposition to confirming an ATF Director is just another piece of the 
overall effort by some in Congress to make it more difficult for the 
ATF to carry out its important mission. For example, when the ATF 
proposed and implemented a rule intended to provide investigative leads 
on straw purchasing rings in the Southwest that were fueling drug 
cartel violence by trafficking firearms across the border, some Members 
of Congress immediately objected, and the agency was sued to block 
implementation of the rule. The rule, which has now been upheld 
unanimously by two Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal, including the 
Fifth Circuit, was simple--it required federally licensed firearms 
dealers to report sales of multiple semiautomatic rifles to the ATF, 
just as all licensed dealers are required to report multiple sales of 
handguns. Yet some spent significant energy and resources to block the 
agency's action.
  And in recent years, some Members of Congress spent months and untold 
public resources investigating misguided investigative tactics in the 
ATF's Phoenix field office associated with an ATF criminal 
investigation called Fast and Furious. The Fast and Furious 
investigation concerned a significant firearms trafficking organization 
in Arizona. This trafficking organization was systematically purchasing 
hundreds of firearms using straw buyers and transferring them to 
members of Mexican drug cartels. They operated with ease and virtual 
impunity as the result of weak Federal laws concerning straw purchasing 
and firearms trafficking. Investigators and prosecutors were hobbled by 
weak laws. Some took unacceptable risks to combat a very serious 
problem on both sides of our border with Mexico.
  When the investigative tactics at issue came to light, they were 
widely criticized, and Attorney General Holder acted swiftly to put an 
end to them. The Attorney General also directed the Department of 
Justice inspector general to conduct a thorough investigation. As a 
result of the inspector general's investigation, those responsible for 
these tactics were disciplined. And the ATF's procedures were revised 
to set out clear guidelines for firearms trafficking investigations.
  While some Members of Congress were content to merely heap blame on 
the Attorney General and other dedicated law enforcement officials 
following the Fast and Furious investigation, I and other Senators 
chose a different path and worked with law enforcement experts and 
advocates on both sides of the firearms policy debate to come up with 
an effective, sensible approach to put an end to the straw purchasing 
and firearms trafficking.
  Unfortunately, the same Senators who were so critical of the ATF's 
investigative tactics in Arizona and its approach to dealing with a 
very serious law enforcement issue declined to support the bipartisan 
legislation Senator Collins and I developed to give law enforcement the 
tools they need to fight gun trafficking.
  I hope the same Senators that were so critical of the ATF and the 
Department of Justice for the breakdown in leadership and management at 
the agency will not obstruct this nominee and the opportunity to give 
the agency the solid footing it needs. If the Fast and Furious 
investigation revealed anything, it was that the ATF faces very 
significant law enforcement challenges, and that our current laws are 
inadequate to provide the tools investigators and prosecutors need to 
confront these problems. Let us not compound these difficulties with 
continued obstruction of this nominee.
  Todd Jones was nominated in January. It is now the last day of July. 
For months, I accommodated the ranking member on requests for further 
information and delay on the nomination of Todd Jones. He insisted on 
the production of documents from the Department of Justice that his 
staff had already had access to for months. He insisted that his staff 
be able to interview Todd Jones in his capacity as U.S. attorney for 
the District of Minnesota, as well as two other Justice Department 
officials, in order to try to build a case against another nomination, 
that of Tom Perez to be Labor Secretary.
  Senator Grassley requested additional background information from the 
administration not usually required by the committee for an executive 
nomination and he was provided that information. When he sought 
information about an ATF operation in Milwaukee, I arranged a 
bipartisan briefing from the agency.
  Then a member of the ranking member's staff disclosed a private 
Office of Special Counsel, OSC, complaint against Todd Jones to the 
press. I thought it unfair that the nominee could not publicly defend 
his reputation.
  An employee complained of ``gross mismanagement and abuse of 
authority'' but the OSC closed the file based on lack of evidence. The 
other allegation involved alleged retaliation for making the 
mismanagement claim, and that subsidiary claim has been referred to 
mediation. In deference to the complaining party and at the request of 
the investigating agency that the complaint not be made public, it has 
not been. I wish it were. It is not substantial or directly related to 
Todd Jones. It is certainly not a reason to oppose his confirmation.
  I know Senator Grassley has the right to raise concerns, but he has 
made it very clear he does not approve of Todd Jones under any 
circumstances. I had asked his staff to work with us to get a clearer 
understanding of the retaliation complaint. But when we talked to the 
complainant, he was willing only to repeat his own allegations, 
allegations that are not aimed directly at Mr. Jones but at somebody 
else, a mid-level manager.
  We asked the complainant to provide the committee access to the 
contemporaneous files so we could determine whether this instance was 
retaliation or one in a series of disciplinary actions against an 
employee spanning several years. We offered to take the information in 
confidence, not for the Justice Department but just for members of our 
committee. The complainant refused and his lawyer refused to provide 
that to us, so I would ask all members to read the complaint 
themselves. We have bent over backwards to allow the complainant to 
come forward, and he has chosen not to do so.

[[Page 12695]]

  I would also note for all Senators that we have moved forward on 
nominees in the past when there have been pending complaints. For 
example, last year a civil suit was filed against a judicial nominee 
from Iowa alleging age discrimination and retaliation for raising 
management issues against the nominee in her capacity as the U.S. 
attorney for the Northern District of Iowa. We conducted a bipartisan 
staff investigation into the claims. I listened to the Senators from 
Iowa, and we determined we could move forward despite the civil suit 
that was pending against the nominee. The nominee was overwhelmingly 
confirmed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
  Earlier this year, when a defense counsel filed a motion against the 
U.S. attorney for the District of New Mexico making allegations of 
improper activity, we independently examined the matter. The committee 
proceeded with that nomination instead of delaying it.
  Todd Jones is the ATF's fifth Acting Director since 2006. During that 
time 80,000 Americans have been killed with guns. The ATF helps protect 
our communities from dangerous criminals, gun violence, and acts of 
terror. It is a central piece of our Federal law enforcement strategy. 
For too long the position of Director at the ATF has been held hostage 
to partisan politics at the expense of public safety. It is time to 
make real progress in our efforts to reduce gun violence and protect 
the citizens of this great Nation. Today, I encourage all Senators to 
take the opportunity to move toward that goal together with the 
confirmation of B. Todd Jones to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms, and Explosives.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the cloture motion 
having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to 
read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of 
     Byron Todd Jones, of Minnesota, to be Director, Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
         Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Mark Begich, Christopher A. 
           Coons, Thomas R. Carper, Patty Murray, Martin Heinrich, 
           Bernard Sanders, Jeanne Shaheen, Benjamin L. Cardin, Al 
           Franken, Sherrod Brown, Tom Harkin, Jack Reed, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Bill Nelson, Charles E. Schumer.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Byron Todd Jones of Minnesota to be Director, Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, shall be brought to a 
close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 60, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 196 Ex.]

                                YEAS--60

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Chiesa
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). On this vote, the yeas are 60, 
the nays are 40. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Byron Todd Jones, of Minnesota, to be Director, Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) and 
the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Inhofe), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 197 Ex.]

                                YEAS--53

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--42

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Chiesa
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Blunt
     Harkin
     Inhofe
     Landrieu
     McCain
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. The President 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________