[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3798-3805]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

   NOMINATION OF DEBO P. ADEGBILE TO BE AN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

  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 legislative clerk read the nomination of Debo P. Adegbile, of New 
York, to be an Assistant Attorney General.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11:45 
a.m. will be equally divided between the Senator from Vermont and the 
Senator from Iowa or their designees.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, similar to my Republican leader, I come 
to the floor to share my concerns about Mr. Adegbile's nomination, and 
I will explain my voting no today.
  I begin by saying I believe the nominee possesses high moral 
character and personal integrity. I have met him. I am also aware he 
has been working on the chairman's staff of the Judiciary Committee for 
the last few months. Unfortunately, I have reached the conclusion that 
this nominee isn't the right pick to lead the Civil Rights Division.
  First of all, it is no secret that I believe the last individual to 
lead this office, the current Secretary of Labor, was very political 
and extremely committed to a host of political causes. Of course, I 
don't expect President Obama to nominate conservatives to his political 
appointments, but as we all know, these are very important and powerful 
jobs. The individual who holds them wields a tremendous amount of power 
on behalf of the Department of Justice.
  I expect the President's nominees to be liberal, maybe even very 
liberal, and in the vast majority of cases the President is entitled to 
have people of his own choosing serving in these important positions, 
but the Senate must provide its advice and consent, which is what we 
are doing today.
  In my view the President's nominees can't be so committed to 
political causes and so devoted to political ideology that it clouds 
his or her judgment. This is particularly important here, given that 
this office, under the leadership of the last Assistant Attorney 
General, was marked by controversy, and those controversies, in my 
view, were directly linked to that individual's deep commitment to a 
host of liberal causes, regardless of how well held they were. At the 
end of the day I believe it clouded his judgment.
  With that brief bit of background, I would first note there is 
bipartisan opposition to this nomination. As I will discuss in a few 
minutes, there is also widespread opposition from the law enforcement 
community.
  Seth Williams, a Democrat and Philadelphia's district attorney, 
opposes this nomination. Many of the largest national law enforcement 
organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police and the National 
Association of Police Organizations, vigorously oppose this nomination 
as well. This opposition is based upon the nominee's record--and the 
nominee's record, in my view, demonstrates that the nominee has a long 
history of advocating legal positions far outside the mainstream. I 
believe it is a record which demonstrates he is simply too deeply 
committed to these causes to be an effective and fair leader of this 
very important Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.
  I am not going to mention every aspect of the nominee's record I find 
troubling but a few will be mentioned.
  His record on First Amendment issues should give us all pause. For 
example, in the Hosanna-Tabor case before the Supreme Court, the 
nominee advocated for a position which would have infringed on the 
free-exercise rights of religious organizations. Specifically, he 
argued that a church didn't have the right to freely hire or fire 
individuals who were responsible for conveying the church's message and 
carrying out its religious mission. This is at the core of what 
religious freedom means under our Constitution. The nominee's view was 
a dramatic departure from established First Amendment jurisprudence. In 
fact, it was so outside the mainstream that the Supreme Court 
unanimously rejected it 9 to 0.
  Likewise, the nominee's views on the Second Amendment to our Federal 
Constitution are out of step with the law. In Heller he argued, ``The 
Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to keep and 
bear arms for purely private purposes.'' He also argued that ``the 
right protected by the Second Amendment are ones that exist only in the 
context of a lawfully organized militia.''
  The Supreme Court, of course, rejected that view, as we all know, and 
the Supreme Court's decision very much strengthened the right of 
individuals to bear arms.
  I have also been disappointed by the answers the nominee provided to 
a number of my questions. For example, I asked whether he believed 
voter-ID requirements--which have been upheld by the Supreme Court in 
the Crawford case--are the modern-day equivalent of a poll tax. I asked 
this question for several reasons.
  First of all, according to press reports, this nominee said as much 
in 2005 during a discussion in Georgia regarding voter-ID laws. 
According to press reports, he called voter-ID cards ``a modern poll 
tax.'' But the Supreme Court upheld Indiana's voter-ID law as 
constitutional in the Crawford case in 2008.
  So, if the nominee continues to believe that voter-ID laws are the 
modern-day equivalent of a poll tax and is firmly committed to that 
principle, I am concerned--we all ought to be concerned--that he would 
look for creative ways to undermine and challenge those laws, 
notwithstanding the Crawford case upholding Indiana's voter-ID law.
  It goes without saying, of course, a significant part of this job is 
the enforcement of voting-rights laws, and that enforcement power 
should be entrusted only to someone we are confident will apply the law 
in an evenhanded way and, obviously, uphold what the Supreme Court has 
already said was constitutional.
  I have also repeatedly asked the nominee whether, if confirmed, he 
would commit to implementing the recommendations made by the Department 
of Justice's Inspector General regarding the hiring process in the 
Civil Rights Division. The IG's report exposed a hiring process in that 
division which was structured in a way that systematically screened out 
conservative applicants. So, evidently, only one point of view is 
welcomed in that division. But the nominee will not commit to 
implementing the recommendations the IG's report has put out which 
addressed those issues so the office has the benefit of an 
ideologically diverse group of lawyers. This concerns me, and it ought 
to concern my colleagues. Again, this is a division in the Department 
of Justice which needs a clean break from the political partisanship 
which plagued the office under the last Assistant Attorney General.
  Finally, I wish to address the nominee's involvement with and 
representation of Mumia Abu-Jamal. To understand why the nominee's 
involvement in this case is so concerning to many of us, a bit of 
history is in order.
  Mr. Abu-Jamal is this country's most notorious cop-killer. The facts 
of the Abu-Jamal case are well known and cannot be seriously disputed.
  Back in December of 1981 Abu-Jamal--then known as Wesley Cook--gunned 
down Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. Abu-Jamal first shot 
Officer Faulkner in the back and then several more times in his chest 
at close range. As Officer Faulkner lay dying in the street, Abu-Jamal 
stood over him and shot him in the face. At the hospital a short while 
later, Abu-Jamal actually boasted he had shot a police officer and said 
he hoped the officer would die. Ballistics evidence proved Officer 
Faulkner had been shot with a .38-caliber revolver registered to Abu-
Jamal and found at the scene, along with spent shell casings.
  No serious observer of this case can question the overwhelming 
evidence of his guilt. Based on the evidence, he was tried. A jury--
including white and African-American jurors--convicted him and 
sentenced him to death.

[[Page 3799]]

  Nonetheless, over the course of the next 25 years, opponents of 
capital punishment and other critics of our justice system have 
elevated Mr. Abu-Jamal to celebrity status. Those critics have charged 
that the conviction was tainted by racial discrimination. They 
slandered police officers and prosecutors and they have leveled 
accusations of police abuse. They have even organized rallies which 
portrayed this murderer as the victim.
  Amazingly, Mr. Abu-Jamal's campaign has been somewhat successful. He 
has actually convinced a lot of people he is a political prisoner--if 
you can imagine that--and his fame isn't confined to the borders of 
this country. The French went so far as to name a street after him in 
the suburbs of Paris. In fact, it became such a high-profile issue that 
in 2006 the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan 
resolution 368 to 31 condemning the murder of Officer Faulkner and 
urging the French town to change the name of its street.
  I must say the disgust with Mr. Abu-Jamal's celebrity status isn't 
defined by partisanship. In fact, five of today's Senate Democrats were 
in the House of Representatives in 2006 when that resolution was 
passed. Four of those five voted in favor of that resolution, rejecting 
the political celebrity of a murderer.
  In short, this case is about much more than hyper-technical legal 
challenges to the imposition of the death penalty. It has become, quite 
plainly, a cause. So it is with that background that I would like to 
discuss the nominee's involvement in that matter.
  In 2009, Mr. Adegbile was Director of Litigation for the NAACP's 
legal defense fund, and it was in that role that he worked as an 
advocate on Abu-Jamal's behalf. The nominee and the legal defense fund 
first got involved when they volunteered as an amicus and then later as 
lead counsel for Abu-Jamal's post-conviction proceedings.
  In this first phase, the legal defense fund alleged that Philadelphia 
prosecutors discriminated against African-American jurors in the jury-
selection process during the trial. After the Third Circuit rejected 
that argument, the nominee submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. 
Supreme Court urging the Court to take the case and hear the same 
arguments. The Court declined to hear that case.
  After this effort failed, in 2011 the legal defense fund signed on as 
Abu-Jamal's lead counsel for his post-conviction challenges. It was at 
this point the nominee again challenged the conviction in the Third 
Circuit but this time under a different theory.
  The nominee argued that the jury instructions were constitutionally 
infirm. The Third Circuit agreed, and the Supreme Court refused to hear 
further argument.
  Now, keep in mind that Abu-Jamal never ran the risk of lacking 
adequate legal counsel. Highly motivated attorneys, highly motivated 
law professors, and legions of activists have represented him for 
years. They have filed literally hundreds of motions and briefs on his 
behalf. So this isn't a case of the nominee and the legal defense fund 
intervening to vindicate the rights of an indigent defendant who has 
been denied due process, nor is this a case of a lawyer stepping in to 
defend an unpopular client who couldn't otherwise find a lawyer. Abu-
Jamal has enjoyed the zealous representation of some of the country's 
best lawyers for almost three decades.
  In short, this is not John Adams defending the British soldiers after 
the Boston Massacre. That is not what is happening. The first attempt 
to challenge the conviction was unsuccessful, so the nominee and the 
legal defense fund redoubled their efforts and mounted a second 
challenge under a different theory. This was a cause in search of a 
legal justification.
  We know this, of course, because the statements and press releases 
that the legal defense fund made at the time confirmed the 
understanding that this was a cause.
  The nominee's colleagues and co-counsels explained the legal defense 
fund's motivations for getting involved in this case at a rally for 
Abu-Jamal in 2011. A lawyer with the legal defense fund said:

       There is no question in the mind of anyone at the legal 
     defense fund that the justice system has completely and 
     utterly failed Mumia Abu-Jamal, and in our view, that has 
     everything to do with race, and that is why the legal defense 
     fund is in this case.

  In fact, when the legal defense fund signed on as lead counsel in 
2011, their press release declared:

       Abu-Jamal's conviction and death sentence are relics of a 
     time and place that was notorious for police abuse and racial 
     discrimination.

  Again, this is, in fact, a cause. It was a cause premised on the 
notion that this country's most notorious cop killer, Mumia Abu-Jamal, 
was a victim rather than a murderer, and the police officers and 
prosecutors and the entire judicial system were to blame, not the 
person who did the killing.
  At bottom, this is why the law-enforcement community is so staunchly 
opposed to this nomination. That is why the Fraternal Order of Police 
calls this nomination a ``thumb in the eye of our Nation's law 
enforcement officers.''
  That is why Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams wrote this 
in his letter of opposition:

       Despite the overwhelming evidence of guilt, his lawyers 
     have consistently attempted to turn reality on its head, 
     arguing that Abu-Jamal was framed, and that it was he, rather 
     than Officer Faulkner, who was the victim of racism.

  District Attorney Williams went on to say:

       Aside from being patently false, moreover, these claims are 
     personally insulting to me. As an African-American, I know 
     all too well the grievous consequences of racial 
     discrimination and prejudice. I also know that Abu-Jamal was 
     convicted and sentenced because of the evidence, not because 
     of his race.

  Finally, that is why Maureen Faulkner, whose husband was murdered by 
Abu-Jamal, wrote two letters to the Judiciary Committee, and why she 
wrote this:

       Officers who knew Danny and who, like him, put their lives 
     on the line every day, must now witness Adegbile, a man proud 
     to have chosen to aid the murderer of their friend, singled 
     out for honors and high office by the Government of the 
     United States. It is an abomination to now reward Adegbile as 
     if he had done something wonderful.

  So to my colleagues and to the President of this body, for the 
reasons I have outlined here, I cannot support this nomination. I don't 
believe he is the right nominee to lead this office at this time. I 
will oppose this nominee, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Madam President, I would suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The clerk will call the role.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the time spent in quorum 
calls this morning be divided equally between the two sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I rise this morning to speak on the 
nomination of Debo P. Adegbile as the candidate to serve as the 
Director of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. He 
would be the assistant attorney general in the Justice Department if he 
were to be confirmed.
  It was 3:55 a.m. on December 9, 1981, when 25-year-old Philadelphia 
police officer Daniel Faulkner was brutally murdered in the line of 
duty.
  A few weeks ago, Officer Faulkner's widow Maureen Faulkner pleaded 
with the Senate Judiciary Committee to listen to her story. It is a 
heartbreaking story. It is a story about how 32 years

[[Page 3800]]

ago a coldblooded killer murdered her husband and how political 
opportunists then seized the chance to deny her justice and propagate a 
very pernicious set of lies.
  It is also a story about how President Obama's current nominee to 
head the Civil Rights Department, this fellow, Debo Adegbile, joined in 
this gross abuse of our legal system. Unfortunately, our colleagues on 
the Senate Judiciary Committee--our Democratic colleagues--did not 
allow Maureen Faulkner to testify when the committee was considering 
this nominee. I think Maureen Faulkner deserves to be heard. I think 
she has a right to be heard. We have heard a lot of voices and a lot of 
arguments in this discussion. I think Maureen Faulkner's voice deserves 
to be heard.
  Since she was not permitted to testify before the committee, I wish 
to read to my colleagues in the Senate the letter she sent to all of 
us, and I will begin now. Maureen Faulkner writes:

       Dear Senators, while I would have preferred to do so 
     personally, I'm writing this letter appealing to your sense 
     of right and wrong, good and evil, as you consider the 
     nomination of Debo Adegbile to be the next head of the Civil 
     Rights Division of the Department of Justice.
       Thirty-three years ago my husband, Philadelphia Police 
     Officer Daniel Faulkner, was violently murdered by a self-
     professed ``revolutionary'' named Mumia Abu-Jamal.
       I was 24 years old.
       While most of my friends spent their summer at the Jersey 
     Shore, I sat in a hot steamy courtroom and watched in horror 
     and disbelief as the man who murdered my husband tried to 
     turn the courtroom into a political stage where he could spew 
     his hatred and contempt for this country and our judicial 
     system.
       At the moment my husband's blood stained shirt was 
     displayed by the evidence handler, Mumia Abu-Jamal turned in 
     his chair and smirked at me; demonstrating his contempt for 
     law enforcement.
       Thankfully, a racially mixed jury that was selected by Abu-
     Jamal while representing himself, found him guilty.
       The following day they sentenced him to death for the 
     brutal act he committed.
       That's when my second nightmare began.
       For three decades, my family and I endured appeal after 
     appeal, each rooted in lies, distortions, and allegations of 
     civil rights violations.
       And year after year, judge after judge, the conviction and 
     sentence were unanimously upheld.
       Then, thirty years after the fact, my family, society and I 
     were denied justice when three Federal District Court judges 
     who have found error in every capital case that has come 
     before them, overturned the death sentence.
       Today, as my husband lies thirty-three years in the grave, 
     his killer has become a wealthy celebrity.
       He pens books and social commentaries critical of our 
     country.
       He regularly uses his nearly unlimited access to the prison 
     telephone to do radio programs, has cable TV in his cell and 
     is permitted to hold his wife, children and grandchildren in 
     his arms when they visit.
       Old wounds have once again been ripped open and additional 
     insult is brought upon our law enforcement community in this 
     country by President Obama's nomination of Debo Adegbile.
       While publicly demonstrating that he doesn't even know my 
     husband's name, Mr. Adegbile feigns sympathy and caring for 
     my family and me.
       In reality, Mr. Adegbile was a willing and enthusiastic 
     accomplice in Mumia Abu-Jamal's bid to cheat us of the 
     justice we had waited so many years for.
       Mr. Adegbile freely chose to throw the weight of his 
     organization behind Mumia Abu-Jamal, and he has publicly 
     stated that he would get Mumia Abu-Jamal off death row.
       Mr. Adegbile holds Mumia Abu-Jamal, a remorseless 
     unrepentant cop killer, in high esteem.
       We know this because attorneys working under Mr. Adegbile 
     stood before public rallies held in support of my husband's 
     killer and openly professed that it was ``an extreme honor'' 
     to represent the man who put a hollow based bullet into my 
     husband's brain as he lay on the ground, wounded, unarmed and 
     defenseless.
       And while Mr. Adegbile and those who support his nomination 
     will undoubtedly argue that he did not personally make such 
     statements, he did nothing to counter or stop them.
       In the end, like so many attorneys before him, Mr. 
     Adegbile's allegations of civil rights abuse rang hollow.
       Mumia Abu-Jamal's death sentence was overturned not because 
     of civil rights abuse as alleged by Mr. Adegbile, but because 
     three judges with a personal dislike for capital punishment 
     conveniently determined that the wording in a standard form 
     given to a jury might have confused them.
       While Debo Adegbile may be a well-qualified and competent 
     litigator, through his words, his decisions and his actions 
     he has clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that he is not the 
     best person to fill this important position.
       Certainly there are others with similar qualifications that 
     would be better choices.
       I would argue that Mr. Adegbile's decision to defend a cop 
     killer should preclude him from holding any public position.
       Your decision means a lot to me personally.
       The thought that Mr. Adegbile will be rewarded, in part, 
     for the work he did for my husband's killer is revolting.
       Throughout my long ordeal I have frequently been labeled a 
     racist by many who support my husband's killer simply because 
     he is black and I white.
       I have also been asked to throw my name, my voice and my 
     support behind political candidates from both parties.
       In each case I have declined.
       I have always believed that my husband's death and my quest 
     for justice transcends politics and race.
       From my heart, I'm asking you to do the same thing.
       Set aside any partisan feelings you have and do the right 
     thing today when you vote on Mr. Adegbile's confirmation.
       Please spare my family and me from further pain.
       Sincerely,
       Maureen Faulkner.

  To conclude, as the Justice Department's Web site explains, the Civil 
Rights Division ``fulfills a critical mission in upholding the civil 
and constitutional rights of all individuals.'' This requires the head 
of the Civil Rights Division to have an absolute commitment to truth 
and justice.
  There are many highly qualified Americans who can carry out this 
critical mission--and it is a critical mission. Mr. Adegbile's record 
and what he actually has done create serious doubt that he is one of 
them.
  For these reasons I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture on the 
nomination of Mr. Adegbile to serve as Assistant Attorney General for 
the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the nomination of 
Debo Adegbile to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil 
Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. As a representative 
of the city of Philadelphia, the Philadelphia police, and the family of 
slain officer Daniel Faulkner, I feel compelled to voice my concerns 
about this nomination for the record.
  In 2009, while Mr. Adegbile was serving as director of litigation for 
the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal 
Defense and Education Fund, that organization took on the defense of 
Mumia Abu-Jamal. Mr. Abu-Jamal had 27 years earlier been convicted of 
the first-degree murder of Daniel Faulkner, a Philadelphia police 
officer. The political theatrics surrounding this case have deprived 
Officer Faulkner's widow Maureen Faulkner and others of the orderly 
process of justice they should have received as victims of a heinous 
crime.
  I believe strongly that people should have the right to criminal 
defense no matter what the circumstances. However, I am troubled by the 
legal defense fund's involvement in Mr. Abu-Jamal's defense at a time 
when he was ably represented by other counsel. The facts in the murder 
of Officer Daniel Faulkner while in the line of duty are not in 
dispute. The events and theatrics that surrounded this trial and that 
were fueled by the defense team here took an incredible toll on the 
Faulkner family, the law enforcement community, and the city of 
Philadelphia. From as early as the pretrial stage, Mr. Abu-Jamal 
disrupted the court proceedings by demanding representation by a 
nonattorney, refusing to accept judicial rulings on his motions and 
reportedly threatening the judge with violence. Since his conviction, 
Mr. Abu-Jamal and his supporters have engaged in an effort to discredit 
the judges, the Philadelphia police, Maureen Faulkner, and Officer 
Faulkner in this case. For many of my constituents, a vote for this 
nominee would have validated the activities of the supporters of Mr. 
Abu Jamal.
  Mr. Adegbile has had a long and accomplished career as a civil rights 
advocate, including arguing twice before

[[Page 3801]]

the Supreme Court in defense of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a 
landmark piece of civil rights legislation. For years he has been 
actively working to defend voting rights and recently has been engaged 
in efforts to restore the protections of the Voting Rights Act for 
millions of Americans following the Supreme Court's ruling in Shelby 
County v. Holder. Mr. Adegbile's work on the Voting Rights Act is 
commendable, and all Americans benefit from his commitment to ensuring 
equal access to the ballot. I take very seriously my duty to advise and 
consent, and I have considered Mr. Adegbile's history of public service 
as well as my concerns about his involvement in the Abu-Jamal case.
  Pennsylvanians and citizens across the country deserve to have full 
confidence in their public representatives--both elected and appointed. 
The Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights is one of the top law 
enforcement positions in our Nation, and the full faith and confidence 
of the law enforcement community is an important consideration for a 
nominee for this position. The vicious murder of Officer Faulkner in 
the line of duty and the events that followed in the 30 years since his 
death have left open wounds for Maureen Faulkner and her family as well 
as the city of Philadelphia. After careful consideration and having met 
with Mr. Adegbile as well as the Fraternal Order of Police, I decided 
to vote against this nomination.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, Debo Adegbile has the keen intellect, 
life experience, and knowledge sufficient to be an excellent assistant 
attorney general. What an American story we find in his life.
  The son of Nigerian and Irish immigrants, he worked his way up from 
poverty--including periods of homelessness and reliance on welfare--to 
the top of the legal profession. He graduated from Connecticut College 
and NYU Law School and spent the early years of his career in one of 
the most highly regarded law firms in New York. Then he decided to 
start working at the NAACP legal defense fund, ultimately becoming the 
organization's acting president and directing counsel. For those who 
don't know the NAACP legal defense fund, I would commend to them a book 
called ``Devil in the Grove.'' It is a Pulitzer Prize-winning story of 
the work of Thurgood Marshall in the 1940s and 1950s when the fund was 
literally the only voice for those who were poor and Black in America. 
Time and again, Thurgood Marshall would journey to parts of America and 
risk his life to defend someone accused of a crime. They were the only 
ones who would stand and speak for the poor and those who were in 
minority status.
  Mr. Adegbile joined the NAACP legal defense fund, and during his 20-
year career he has gained experience and perspective on a wide range of 
issues, certainly qualifying him for this job with the Civil Rights 
Division. He has widespread enthusiastic support from a broad spectrum 
of civil rights groups, law enforcement organizations, police officers, 
prosecutors, business leaders, government officials, and prominent 
members of both political parties.
  Mr. Adegbile has twice been called on to defend the constitutionality 
of the Voting Rights Act in oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme 
Court. In the year 2013, he was the only--only--African-American 
attorney to argue before the Supreme Court. There is no question about 
his competency.
  He led the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund's legislative 
outreach and public education efforts on the Voting Rights 
Reauthorization Act of 2006 which was passed by a unanimous 98-0 vote 
in the Senate and 390-33 in the House.
  He has represented minorities in case after case involving employment 
discrimination. He led the efforts to repeal the proposition 36 
initiative, California's overly punitive three strikes law, and it 
passed with 70 percent of the votes of Californians.
  In his private practice he has successfully represented pro bono 
clients. His is an extraordinary legal resume.
  As these select career highlights demonstrate, he is an effective 
advocate who can lead the Civil Rights Division. Don't take my word for 
it though.
  The Bush administration Solicitor General Paul Clement stated:

       I've litigated both with and against Debo and have heard 
     him argue in the Supreme Court. I have always found him to be 
     a formidable advocate of the highest intellect, skills and 
     integrity.

  Mr. Adegbile's representation of Mumia-Abu-Jamal does not mean he 
lacks respect for the rule of law, and it certainly should not 
disqualify him from this important civil rights job.
  In fact, his willingness to represent an unpopular defendant in an 
emotionally charged case demonstrates his appreciation for the rule of 
law, as well as his respect for the criminal justice system.
  His critics have attempted to characterize him as someone who 
actively sought out this case, someone who disparaged the officer who 
was cut down in the line of duty, Officer Faulkner, and someone who is 
responsible for Abu-Jamal's death sentence being overturned.
  Each of these characterizations is wrong, inaccurate, and unfair.
  The NAACP legal defense fund was not involved in the Abu-Jamal case 
until 2006, nearly 25 years after the trial of this individual and his 
conviction and 5 years after the death sentence was overturned, being 
converted to life in prison.
  LDF's president, not Mr. Adegbile, made the decision for the 
organization to be involved in the case. Moreover, as Adegbile stated 
before the committee, the briefs he signed ``made no negative comments 
[whatsoever] about the tragic loss of Officer Faulkner.''
  I see the chairman of the committee is in the Chamber, and I know my 
time is short. Let me just say this. Time and again in the history of 
the United States people have stood, understanding the Constitution and 
the responsibility of the bar, to represent unpopular defendants.
  John Adams set the standard when he made the unpopular decision to 
represent British soldiers on the eve of the Revolutionary War.
  The Senate recalled that example in 2003 when it confirmed John 
Roberts to the DC Circuit. At the time, not one single Senator raised a 
concern about then-Judge Roberts providing pro bono representation to a 
man who had been convicted of killing eight people and was awaiting 
execution on Florida's death row.
  What John Roberts did--now the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court--
was entirely consistent with our Constitution and the responsibility of 
those of us in the legal profession.
  I would say at this point we have an extraordinary man, with an 
extraordinary background, who has offered his services to this 
government in an important division where he can serve in a capacity 
that few can match.
  The full scope of his life experience and his distinguished record 
make him well qualified, and I will support his nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I so strongly concur with the statement 
of the senior Senator from Illinois, the deputy majority leader. It is 
similar to statements he has made not only here but in private and in 
public. He has been one of Mr. Adegbile's strongest supporters 
throughout this matter.
  Both he and I know this nominee well. We know he is qualified to be 
the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division in the 
Department of Justice. More than that, we know Debo Patrick Adegbile as 
a real person and not as the caricature we have heard from some on the 
other side. I think all of us have a responsibility to vote yes or no 
on any issue, and at least to deal with the facts as they are, not with 
distortions like some of the ones we have heard about this wonderful 
person.

[[Page 3802]]

  The Civil Rights Division was created in 1957 in the wake of the 
landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and is charged with 
enforcing Federal laws prohibiting discrimination, and upholding the 
civil and constitutional rights of the most vulnerable members of our 
society. From protecting voting rights to combating human trafficking 
to protecting against religious or racial discrimination, we all know 
that more work needs to be done. The Civil Rights Division plays a 
pivotal role in protecting the civil rights of all Americans.
  Debo is a man of the highest character and the utmost integrity. He 
is the kind of proven leader we need at the Civil Rights Division. He 
is a superb lawyer, to begin with. He has a compelling personal story 
of triumph over adversity.
  He is the son of immigrants from Ireland and Nigeria. He was born in 
the Bronx. He grew up in poverty, amidst periods of homelessness, but 
he overcame all these obstacles to attend Connecticut College and the 
New York University School of Law. He then litigated for 7 years at one 
of the Nation's top law firms--picked because he was the best of the 
best of the best.
  He then served as legal director of the NAACP Legal Defense and 
Educational Fund, the LDF. This is a civil rights organization founded 
nearly 70 years ago by the great Thurgood Marshall, who recognized the 
need for people to stand up for the constitutional right of all 
Americans to fair, honest, and competent legal representation. During 
his time at LDF, Debo argued two landmark cases on voting rights before 
the U.S. Supreme Court. The nominee is widely regarded as an expert on 
civil rights law. He has received an outpouring of support from the 
civil rights community.
  Think of some of the people who support him. Congressman John Lewis 
has expressed his ``unwavering support'' for Debo's nomination, stating 
that his ``intelligence, legal acumen, experience, and commitment to 
his craft, reflect deeply on his ability to offer the Civil Rights 
Division outstanding leadership into the future.''
  The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and 83 other 
civil rights organizations called Debo ``a tireless advocate, a skilled 
litigator, and a well-respected member of the legal community who is 
extraordinarily qualified for and suited to this position.''
  And the Congressional Black Caucus stated that he is ``one of the 
preeminent civil rights litigators of his generation,'' and ``offers 
precisely the type of experience, professionalism, and leadership 
skills necessary to run the Division.''
  Support for Debo's nomination extends from the civil rights community 
to supporters business and law enforcement. Kenneth Chenault, chairman 
and chief executive officer of American Express, wrote that he has been 
``continually impressed by his skills and professionalism--along with 
his steadfast commitment to upholding civil rights.''
  The National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives gave 
its ``unwavering support'' to his nomination. We have letters of 
support from Detective Terrance Daniels, a retired member of the New 
York City Police Department; the New York State Attorney General; and 
several district attorneys and Federal prosecutors.
  Paul Clement, the Solicitor General under President George W. Bush, 
said: ``I have litigated both with and against Debo and have heard him 
argue in the Supreme Court. I have always found him to be a formidable 
advocate of the highest intellect, skills and integrity.''
  We have a huge list of his supporters, and I ask unanimous consent 
that the whole list be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Letters of Support for the Nomination of Debo Adegbile to Be Assistant 
                Attorney General, Civil Rights Division

                         (As of March 5, 2014)


                  Current and Former Public Officials

       Drew S. Days, III, Former Assistant Attorney General for 
     the Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice; Congressman 
     Hakeem S. Jeffries, Member of the House of Representatives 
     for the 8th District of New York; Congressman John Lewis, 5th 
     District, Georgia; Governor Deval L. Patrick, Commonwealth of 
     Massachusetts and Former Assistant Attorney General for the 
     Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice; Seth P. Waxman, 
     Former Solicitor General of the United States, Department of 
     Justice.


      Current and Former Prosecutors and Law Enforcement Community

       John I. Dixon, National President, National Organization of 
     Black Law Enforcement Executives; David Godosky, former 
     Assistant District Attorney, Bronx County; former Criminal 
     Court Judge, City of New York; David Raskin, former Assistant 
     U.S. Attorney, Southern District of New York; New York State 
     Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman; Kenneth P. Thompson, 
     District Attorney, Kings County, Brooklyn, New York; 
     Detective Terrance Daniels, Retired, New York City Police 
     Department.


                       Civil Rights Organizations

       A. Philip Randolph Institute; Advancement Project; AFL-CIO; 
     African American Ministers In Action; Alliance for Justice; 
     American Association for Affirmative Action; American 
     Association of Colleges for Teacher Education; American 
     Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD); American 
     Federation of Government Employees; American-Arab Anti-
     Discrimination Committee; Americans for Financial Reform; 
     Anti-Defamation League; Asian American Legal Defense and 
     Education Fund; Asian Americans Advancing Justice--AAJC; 
     Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote (APIAVote); Asian 
     Pacific American Labor Alliance; Asian Pacific American 
     Institute for Congressional Studies; Bazelon Center for 
     Mental Health Law; Black Women's Roundtable.
       Campaign Legal Center; Center for APA Women; Center for 
     Community Change; Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights 
     Under Law; Children's Defense Fund; Colorado Lawyers' 
     Committee; Communications Workers of America; Congressional 
     Black Caucus; The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities 
     Rights Task Force; Demos; Disability Rights Education & 
     Defense Fund; Earthjustice; Fair Elections Legal Network; 
     FairVote; Freedom to Work; Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education 
     Network (GLSEN); Hindu American Foundation; Hispanic National 
     Bar Association; Hmong National Development, Inc.; Human 
     Rights Campaign; International Union, United Automobile, 
     Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW; 
     Iota Phi Lambda Sorority, Inc.; Japanese American Citizens 
     League.
       LatinoJustice PRLDEF; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights 
     Under Law; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law of 
     the Boston Bar Association; Lawyers' Committee for Civil 
     Rights Under Law of the San Francisco Bay Area; The 
     Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; League of 
     United Latin American Citizens; Legal Momentum; MALDEF; 
     Mississippi Center for Justice; NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense & 
     Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF); NALEO Educational Fund; 
     National Action Network; National Association of Human Rights 
     Workers (NAHRW); National Association of Social Workers; 
     National Bar Association; National Black Justice Coalition; 
     National Center for Lesbian Rights; National Center for 
     Transgender Equality; National Coalition for Asian Pacific 
     American Community Development; National Coalition on Black 
     Civic Participation; National Conference of Black Mayors, 
     Inc.; National Council of Jewish Women; National Council of 
     La Raza; National Council on Independent Living.
       National Disability Rights Network; National Education 
     Association; National Employment Law Project; National 
     Employment Lawyers Association; National Fair Housing 
     Alliance; National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund; 
     National Immigration Law Center; National Latina Institute 
     for Reproductive Health; National Legal Aid & Defender 
     Association; National Organization for Women; National 
     Partnership for Women & Families; National Senior Citizens 
     Law Center; National Urban League; National Women's Law 
     Center; Native American Rights Fund.
       People For the American Way; PFLAG National; Poverty & Race 
     Research Action Council; Prison Policy Initiative; Project 
     Vote; Public Counsel; Public Interest Law Center of 
     Philadelphia; Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund 
     (SALDEF); South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT); 
     Southern Coalition for Social Justice; Southern Poverty Law 
     Center; United Food and Commercial Workers International 
     Union; United Steelworkers International Union; Vera 
     Institute of Justice; Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil 
     Rights And Urban Affairs; Wider Opportunities for Women.


             Members of the United States Supreme Court bar

       Lisa S. Blatt, Arnold & Porter LLP; Stephen B. Bright, 
     Southern Center for Human Rights; David W. DeBruin, Jenner & 
     Block; Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford Law School; Jeffrey T. 
     Green, Sidley Austin LLP; George H. Kendall, Squire Sanders 
     LLP; Peter J. Neufeld, Innocence Project; Andrew H. Schapiro, 
     Quinn Emanuel; William F. Sheehan, Goodwin Procter LLP; Paul 
     M. Smith, Jenner & Block.

[[Page 3803]]




                            Other Supporters

       Paul Lancaster Adams, Philadelphia Managing Shareholder, 
     Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.; Abed A. 
     Ayoub, Director of Policy & Legal Affairs, American-Arab 
     Anti-Discrimination Committee; Ken Chenault, Chairman and CEO 
     of American Express; Donna B. Coaxum, Vice President, General 
     Counsel & Secretary, OSI Group, LLC; Alan Dial, Partner, King 
     & Spalding; Randy Hertz, Professor of Clinical Law, New York 
     University School of Law; Frederick R. Nance, Regional 
     Managing Partner, Squire Sanders; LaFonte Nesbitt, Partner, 
     Holland & Knight; John E. Page, Vice President, General 
     Counsel & Secretary, Golden State Foods Corporation.
       Nicholas J. Panarella; Christopher C. Panarella; Former NYU 
     Classmates Anthony T. Pierce, D.C. Managing Partner, Akin 
     Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld; Hilary O. Shelton, Director, NAACP 
     Washington Bureau & Senior Vice President for Advocacy and 
     Policy; James R. Silkenat, President, American Bar 
     Association; Theodore V. Wells, Jr., Co-Chair of the 
     Litigation Department at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & 
     Garrison LLP; Kwamina Williford, Partner, Holland & Knight; 
     Benjamin F. Wilson, Managing Partner, Beveridge & Diamond, 
     P.C.; Pamela D. Zilly, Former President of the Connecticut 
     College Board of Trustees Current and Former Presidents of 
     Connecticut College.

  Mr. LEAHY. I have been privileged to work in civil practice, where I 
defended people, and also to have spent 8 years as a prosecutor. I 
stand behind nobody in my support of law enforcement. I was picked as 
one of the three outstanding prosecutors in this country when I was a 
prosecutor. But I believed throughout all that time that everybody who 
was prosecuted deserved the best of representation.
  Despite Debo's expertise, some are opposing his nomination based on a 
single case: Mumia Abu-Jamal's appeal of his death sentence for the 
1981 murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner. I condemn that murder. I 
condemn the murderer for it. But, just as the British in the Boston 
Massacre deserved representation, and got it from John Adams; just as 
the man who murdered a number of people, including a couple of 
teenagers, deserved representation from John Roberts, a Republican who 
is now Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; so, too, did Mumia Abu-
Jamal deserve legal representation.
  The murder of Officer Faulkner was a horrific tragedy, and my heart 
goes out to Mrs. Faulkner and all family members who have lost a loved 
one in the line of duty. Officer Faulkner served bravely to protect our 
community and to defend our system of justice and our Constitution. We 
are trying to defend it too.
  It is officers like Officer Faulkner that drive many of us to support 
programs like the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant program. I might 
point out to some of my friends who stand here in righteous indignation 
against this nomination, saying they are standing up for law 
enforcement, that former Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I began a 
bulletproof vest program that has bought bulletproof vests for officers 
all over this country. It is up for reauthorization. It has saved the 
lives of police officers. Not a single Republican has joined me in the 
effort to reauthorize what was a bipartisan piece of legislation that 
actually saves the lives of police officers. But, they will come down 
here and wax eloquently and misleadingly against this good nominee.
  If you listen to them or you listen to FOX News, you might think the 
nominee himself is a criminal. Of course he is not. These attacks 
launched against this nominee demonstrate a fundamental 
misunderstanding of the role of a lawyer and the very constitutional 
system of justice that law enforcement officers all swear an oath to 
protect. It is time to clear the record.
  First, the assertion that Debo made the decision for LDF to take on 
Abu-Jamal's case is simply not accurate. That decision was made by the 
previous president of LDF. The nominee we are considering today has 
testified under oath that it was not his decision. But once the 
decision was made, and he was appointed to do it, he had a duty, as an 
officer of the court, to do his best to represent his client, no matter 
how distasteful or unpopular.
  Debo's role in the Abu-Jamal case was limited to two Supreme Court 
briefs and one Third Circuit brief. Attempts to attribute more to Debo, 
including the out-of-court statements by other LDF attorneys, are 
unfounded. These remind me of the attacks that were made against 
Thurgood Marshall when he was nominated to the Second Circuit Court of 
Appeals. At the time, Republican Senator Keating provided an articulate 
response of why such attacks are unreasonable and unfair:

       If counsel is suggesting something that Judge Marshall must 
     have the responsibility for every little action that is taken 
     by any lawyer who has been appearing in an NAACP case, he is 
     imposing a standard of responsibility which certainly goes 
     beyond any point of reasonableness. Judge Marshall's conduct 
     and his ethical standards have not been questioned in these 
     hearings. It is ridiculous to suggest that he may be 
     disqualified for judicial service because some other lawyers 
     who appeared in an NAACP case may or may not have done things 
     which counsel considers questionable and where there is 
     absolutely no showing that Judge Marshall has anything to do 
     with the conduct at issue.

  Second, and perhaps more importantly, even if it had been Debo's 
decision to represent Mr. Abu-Jamal, that should not disqualify him 
from public service. Our legal system is an adversary system, 
predicated upon advocacy for both sides. Without this, our justice 
system would be a sham. We do not criticize John Adams; we do not 
criticize John Roberts. Now-Chief Justice Roberts said at his 
confirmation hearing in 2005:

       [I]t's a tradition of the American Bar that goes back 
     before the founding of the country that lawyers are not 
     identified with the positions of their clients. The most 
     famous example probably was John Adams, who represented the 
     British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre. He did that 
     for a reason, because he wanted to show that the Revolution 
     in which he was involved was not about overturning the rule 
     of law, it was about vindicating the rule of law . . . [T]hat 
     you don't identify the lawyer with the particular views of 
     the client, or the views that the lawyer advances on behalf 
     of the client, is critical to the fair administration of 
     justice.

  It is for this reason that as a nominee before the Senate John 
Roberts was not criticized for choosing to provide pro bono assistance 
to John Errol Ferguson, a prisoner in Florida who had been sentenced to 
death for killing eight people, including two teenagers, in the late 
1970s.
  I agree with what John Adams did. I agree with what John Roberts did. 
I agree with what Debo did, too. Whether it is John Adams or John 
Roberts, the principle that all sides deserve an effective counsel is 
at the bedrock of our constitutional system. We cannot equate the 
lawyer with the conduct of those we represent if we want our justice 
system to endure. After Debo's confirmation hearing in early January, 
the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee himself expressed the 
same sentiment when he said: ``You always have to take into 
consideration that everybody under our constitution is entitled to a 
defense.''
  Some have argued that the Abu-Jamal case is somehow different because 
it became a ``political cause'' and was no longer just a case about 
defending an unpopular client. But regardless of who the defendant 
might be, the constitutional right to a fair trial has nothing to do 
with politics and cannot be dismissed as merely a ``political cause.'' 
In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to accept the district 
attorney's appeal of the lower court decisions, thereby affirming the 
decisions to vacate the death sentence. However unpopular LDF's 
decision to represent Abu-Jamal might be, these decisions by 
independent Federal judges affirm that this case was about defending 
the rights guaranteed by our Constitution and not merely some political 
stunt.
  Finally, while criticism of a nominee's qualifications is certainly 
part of the appointment process, some attacks are--by any measure--out 
of bounds. Last month, while Debo's nomination was still in the 
Judiciary Committee, the Washington Times published an editorial 
caricature of Debo that was racially-tinged, offensive, and beyond the 
pale. I have spoken out against the insulting attempts to defame the 
nominees of Democratic and Republican Presidents, and I do so again 
today. I would also hope that those who are opposing Debo's nomination 
would similarly distance themselves from them.
  Debo Adegbile is one of the Nation's leading civil rights lawyers. 
Those of

[[Page 3804]]

us who have worked with him cannot recognize the caricature that some 
are trying to paint. I have seen him testify before a crowded Senate 
hearing room. I have heard him quietly give counsel in a private 
meeting room. I know him to be a thoughtful, respectful, and competent 
person, a good family man, a good husband and father.
  I regret these attacks. I have been here 40 years. I do not know if I 
have ever heard a time in those 40 years when a person was so 
misrepresented in the attacks against him. I hope now some of those who 
attack him, saying they are standing up for law enforcement, would do 
things like join on the bulletproof vest bill and others they refuse 
to.
  I see the majority leader. I ask unanimous consent that the majority 
leader have whatever time he needs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, Debo Adegbile is the President's nominee 
to lead the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. He is a 
man who renews my faith in the American dream. He is the son of Irish 
and Nigerian immigrants.
  To say he grew up in poverty is an understatement. There were times 
when he and his mom--he was raised mostly by a single mom--were 
homeless. Despite these challenges, he worked his way through the 
educational system and to the top of the legal profession.
  He graduated from prestigious New York University Law School. He 
argued two of the most important civil rights cases of his generation 
before the U.S. Supreme Court. He has received numerous awards for his 
legal prowess and his commitment to civil rights.
  He is one of the Nation's foremost civil rights attorneys. He is 
eminently qualified to lead the office that enforces Federal laws 
prohibiting every type of discrimination, including discriminatory 
voting practices.
  His job--the job of that person who is in the Civil Rights Division--
is to do everything they can do to make sure people have the 
opportunity to vote. We know what has happened around the country. We 
know how Republican Governors and other Republican officials have done 
everything they can to stop voting. Early voting they eliminate or they 
shorten the time period. They take away voting places that make it 
easier for people to vote.
  This is an important position. The person that is best qualified to 
do that is going to have a vote in just a few minutes. Despite all this 
nominee has achieved, Republicans have not given this man a fair shot 
at confirmation. His time at the NAACP, where he worked for 12 years, 
involved many different things. But one of the things he did not do, he 
did not step foot into a courtroom representing that violent murderer 
in Philadelphia that occurred in 1981 when he was 13 years old.
  Although the condemned man was undoubtedly a very bad man, as I 
understand the facts: 3 o'clock, 3:30 in the morning a cab is stopped; 
the murderer's brother is in the cab, just by coincidence. So there 
were a lot of problems in Philadelphia at the time. The murderer gets 
out of the car and shoots a police officer viciously and wantonly, for 
no reason, in the head--terrible murder.
  He was a bad man who was convicted of a heinous crime and given the 
death sentence. When the nominee got into this case, the murder had 
taken place 25 years earlier. Five years before he got into the case, 
the death penalty had already been overturned, was already gone. Where 
did the death penalty overturn come from? That is pretty interesting. 
It came from a Reagan appointee. Then the circuit court affirmed what 
the district court had done. They got rid of the death penalty. That 
district court decision was upheld by President Bush's appointees. I am 
sorry. The district court opinion was issued by an appointee of the 
first President Bush, H.W. Bush. The Third Circuit opinion that upheld 
it was composed of two Ronald Reagan appointees, including one of the 
most famous jurists of all time, John Sirica.
  It is interesting. A person who wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall 
Street Journal not long ago--who is the district attorney--chose not to 
reseek the death penalty even though he is writing op-ed pieces about 
what a bad guy this is, a man who had nothing to do with the case.
  The defendant in 2001 was resentenced to life in prison without 
parole. The death penalty was gone. How can we engage in guilt by 
association? I repeat, the nominee did not step into a courtroom, a 
courtroom for the murderer. He did not write one word in a brief for 
the murderer. He worked at the NAACP and oversaw the litigation and 
signed the brief third down the row. He had nothing to do with the 
appeal as far as arguing it.
  Even the Philadelphia Inquirer, the hometown newspaper where this 
murder of the police officer who was so tragically slain took place, 
said: ``It would be hard to find a better candidate for the position.'' 
I agree with that.

       To argue that [the nominee], one of the country's foremost 
     legal scholars--especially when it comes to civil rights 
     law--should be disqualified from the Justice post because he 
     participated in [these] appeals is an affront to what it 
     means to live in America. This country allows every convict 
     to exhaustively appeal a verdict, even when all the prior 
     evidence appears to have assured his guilt.

  I have met with this man on several occasions. I spent the morning in 
my office with him. He is a fine man. What a story of the American 
dream. He has devoted his life to public service. He could be like a 
lot of other lawyers--nothing wrong with that--go out and see how much 
money he can make, but he decided not to do that. He believes in public 
service. He is married, has two beautiful girls.
  But I am afraid he is treated by the Republicans kind of like 
Congressman Watt, Mel Watt, Jeh Johnson, Todd Jones, Circuit Court 
Judge Wilkins. They have distorted this man's good name in an attempt 
to score points politically and block confirmation of a faithful 
defender of voting rights, which the Republicans do everything they can 
to not prevent. They want fewer people voting. They do not want people 
to vote. They especially do not want poor people to vote.
  The NAACP, we know their record. So much has changed in America 
because of their legal defense fund. Thurgood Marshall is the most 
famous of all, but there have been great lawyers who have been part of 
that program. The organization stands for the constitutional right of 
every American to a fair trial regardless of the nature of the crime or 
the content of their character. I think that is what the legal 
profession is all about. That is what I thought it was about when I 
practiced law.
  I represented some very bad people. I did it a lot of time for no 
pay. The NAACP also advances the cause of civic engagement, economic 
opportunity, education, health care, freedom from discrimination. That 
is for all Americans. They are not out representing just African 
Americans--all Americans. But there is no question Mr. Adegbile 
actually specializes in voting rights issues.
  He has worked for years at the NAACP and every other thing he has 
done to safeguard the right of every American to cast a ballot without 
discrimination or intimidation. That is how the legal defense fund got 
involved in this case. He did not step into a courtroom. He did not 
write one single word of any brief. He did not make the decision to 
represent the Philadelphia defendant, who was a very bad guy, nor did 
he appear in court or write a word in this case.
  They have attempted to paint him as sympathetic to the convict. The 
man is still in jail. That is where he should be. The truth is 
lawyers--not all of them but lawyers represent unpopular clients at 
some point in their cause and in their careers. John Roberts, he is not 
known as a great trial lawyer, but he is known as a great lawyer. Chief 
Justice Roberts provided pro bono assistance, for example, to the 
defense of a prisoner on Florida's death row who was convicted of 
killing eight people. That was not brought up during his confirmation 
hearing by us because he had a job to do.

[[Page 3805]]

  As he said, advocacy on behalf of a client is not about overturning 
the rule of law, but it is vindicating the rule of law. This nominee 
has strong support from groups all over America. I cannot express 
strongly enough what a fine man he is. The President of the American 
Bar Association wrote the Judiciary Committee. Here is what he said to 
Chairman Leahy and other members of the committee. He was ``alarmed to 
learn . . . [about] opposition to [his] nomination based solely on his 
efforts to protect the fundamental rights of an unpopular client.''
  That is all it was about this murderer. He was a bad guy, but he is 
entitled to a lawyer. I repeat for the fourth time: The nominee did not 
step into a courtroom for this guy. He did not write a word of any 
brief. He has constantly--this nominee stood for the constitutional 
rights as well as Americans' fundamental right to participate in our 
democracy. He is exceptionally well qualified for the job for which he 
is nominated.
  Opponents have used his defense of the Constitution as a political 
weapon against him. He deserves an affirmative vote, to be judged on 
the body of his work and the admirable qualities of his character. I 
thought that is what we did here. It is a real shame that people are 
questioning whether he deserves this vote.
  I ask unanimous consent that following the cloture vote on the 
Hernandez nomination, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly 
caucus meetings; that at 2:15 p.m. the Senate proceed to legislative 
session and a period of morning business until 3:30 p.m. with Senators 
permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each; that at 3:30 p.m. the Senate 
resume executive session and the consideration of the Hernandez 
nomination with the time until 4 p.m. equally divided between the 
chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee; that at 4 p.m. 
all remaining postcloture time be yielded back on the Hernandez 
nomination and the Senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of the 
Hernandez nomination; that upon disposition of the Hernandez 
nomination, the Senate proceed to the votes on the remaining motions to 
invoke cloture which were filed Thursday, February 27, on Executive 
Calendar Nos. 569, 565, 571, and 636; that if cloture is invoked on any 
of the nominees, with the exception of the Gottemoeller nomination, all 
postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate proceed to vote on the 
confirmation of the nominations; that there be 2 minutes equally 
divided in the usual form prior to each cloture vote; finally, all 
after the first vote be 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I would close by saying I sure hope we get enough votes for 
this good man. If we do not, maybe it is time America had a good 
discussion on civil rights. If this man who is defending the right of 
the Constitution--that is what he has done. Does the Constitution mean 
anything? Should a man who has had nothing to do with the case of a 
violent murderer be used as a scapegoat for the Republicans to try to 
stop people from voting? I hope not.
  We will have a discussion if this good man does not have the votes. 
We will have a discussion on civil rights. I think he will have a lot 
to do with the direction the discussion will take.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant 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 
     Debo P. Adegbile, of New York, to be an Assistant Attorney 
     General.
         Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Richard J. Durbin, Patty 
           Murray, Barbara Boxer, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jack Reed, 
           Carl Levin, Debbie Stabenow, Tom Udall, Martin 
           Heinrich, Christopher Murphy, Michael F. Bennet, Maria 
           Cantwell, Amy Klobuchar, Richard Blumenthal, Tom 
           Harkin.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate on the 
nomination of Debo P. Adegbile, of New York, to be an Assistant 
Attorney General be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cornyn).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 48 Ex.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--52

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Cornyn
       
  The VICE PRESIDENT. On this vote the yeas are 47, the nays are 52. 
The motion is rejected.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by 
which cloture was not invoked on this nomination.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The motion is entered.

                          ____________________