-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

He concluded his remarks--the Republican Senate leader did--by saying:

American families deserve to feel safe in their homes and in their neighborhoods and certainly in the Nation's Capital. It shouldn't take another assault, carjacking, or homicide to convince local leftwing leaders to start actually doing their jobs.

I come to the floor to discuss doing your job and reducing crime in America. I come here once again to discuss the Senate's need to quickly confirm two pending U.S. attorney nominees: Rebecca Lutzko, to the Northern District of Ohio, and April Perry, to the Northern District of Illinois.

I have come to the floor three times in the past 2 weeks to request unanimous consent for the Senate to take up and confirm these pending U.S. attorney nominees who are being stopped by one junior Senator from Ohio.

Keep in mind that both of these nominees, for the State of Ohio and for the State of Illinois, have gone through extensive vetting and extensive efforts to determine whether or not they were prepared and qualified for the job--and it is a big job. They would be the leading U.S. criminal prosecutors in their area and have responsibilities that we know are substantial.

Each time I have come to the floor to ask to give the opportunity to these two young people to lead the U.S. Attorney's Office, Senator Vance of Ohio has come up with a different explanation of why he is blocking their confirmation. It appears that he is not certain in his own mind as to the issue on a daily basis.

As I stated last week, for almost 50 years, the Senate has confirmed U.S. attorney nominees, from both political parties, by either a voice vote or unanimous consent after they have been reported by the Judiciary Committee.

Just look back to the previous Trump administration. In the 115th and 116th Congress, 85 of President Trump's U.S. nominees moved through the Judiciary Committee, and Senate Democrats allowed all 85--every single one of them--to be confirmed by a voice vote or by unanimous consent.

Why would we automatically give to a President of the United States their U.S. attorneys, their representatives of the Department of Justice and the Nation? Because we understand the critical role that U.S. attorneys play in our justice system.

Just take a look at the law, title 28 of the U.S. Code, section 547. It states that ``each United States attorney, within his district, shall prosecute for all offenses against the United States of America.''

Leader McConnell regularly comes to the floor to assert that Republicans are really tougher on crime than Democrats. The obstacles that Senate Republicans have created to confirming Federal prosecutors, and especially Senator Vance's actions over the last 2 weeks, show what an empty argument that is.

Senate Republicans are literally moving the goalposts in the Senate and blocking the confirmation of law enforcement officers who lead our Nation's efforts to prosecute violent crime and protect our communities from drug traffickers, gun violence, terrorism, and so many other crimes.

Is it important in the State of Ohio, where the junior Senator hails from, as it is important in Illinois, to deal with fentanyl deaths? It most certainly is. We understand that thousands of Americans are dying each year because of this deadly narcotic.

Who is fighting them? Leading the fight is our Federal Government and the Department of Justice. We are dealing with an international drug cartel hailing out of Mexico. We are dealing with an effort to take over drug and narcotics control of the United States, Europe, and beyond. Certainly, we need more than local law enforcement to deal with it.

So whom do we put on the case? The Department of Justice. Why is that important? It is important because we need to have the men and women serving in that Department of Justice who are doing this job every single day.

Earlier this year, the Senator from Ohio explained why he is doing this, why he is stopping the appointment of well-qualified and vetted criminal prosecutors in the Department of Justice. Here is what he said:

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

``Grind the Justice Department to a halt''--really? Is that what you want to leave as your legacy in the U.S. Senate, that somehow you managed to diminish the Department of Justice's effort to keep America safe, to keep neighborhoods safe, to stop the spread of narcotics? Is that something you brag about back home? I don't think so.

The average American hopes and prays that someone in Washington is working late at night, lights on, trying to make sure that there is less crime in America. They trust us to do our jobs, and one of them is to make sure the Department of Justice has the men and women they need to be led properly and to be effective.

The junior Senator from Ohio campaigned for this job in Congress, in the U.S. Senate, on the fact that he was tough on crime. He said:

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

I would think he would recognize that U.S. attorneys are too important to be used as political footballs to make some headline or make some tweet, or whatever it happens to be. I would think he would recognize that he is blocking highly qualified nominees who have significant experience as Federal prosecutors and who have qualifications and leadership abilities to serve with distinction.

According to the junior Senator from Ohio, the Justice Department has been ``weaponized''--a favorite word of the right--simply because former President Trump has been indicted for multiple felonies. So this is retribution. In order to punish the Department of Justice for any part of it--prosecuting or indicting the former President--the Senator from Ohio wants to stop prosecutors--criminal prosecutors--from going to work in Chicago and Cleveland.

What is he going to do about the pending case in New York? There has to be a way for him to stop the Department of Justice, the work by the State of New York, the work by their attorney general. The former President is being sued--I can use the term ``prosecuted,'' but sued-- in court for his business dealings in New York, and he has a case pending in Georgia. What is the junior Senator in Ohio going to do to punish Georgia for having the temerity of indicting the former President as well?

There is simply no basis in reason, fact, or law for what he is doing. The Justice Department under the Biden administration has made a point of demonstrating its independence, focusing on investigating and prosecuting criminal activity, regardless of an individual's political affiliation.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has even appointed special counsels to handle the investigations of the current President and the former President to ensure their independence.

Last week, Senator Vance came to the Senate floor and stated:

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

He explicitly said this in reference to both these nominees. So he is not questioning whether they are qualified for the job; he is just angry because the former President has been indicted by the Department of Justice.

In response, I offered the junior Senator from Ohio the opportunity to end his obstruction and to keep his promise to support law enforcement by allowing us to schedule confirmation votes on four pending U.S. attorneys--exactly what he said in the Congressional Record he wanted. He agreed to it. He released his objection to all four nominees on the condition that we hold rollcall votes on them. He did this publicly in the Congressional Record and privately. He had said that while he couldn't speak for his colleagues in the Senate who may object to some on the floor, he would no longer object.

Last week, we held votes on two of those U.S. attorney nominees. But then Senator Vance changed his mind again. Overnight, he decided he actually does object to even holding a confirmation vote on the two nominees--Rebecca Lutzko to be the U.S. attorney in Cleveland, OH, and April Perry to be the U.S. attorney in Chicago, IL.

Over the last few weeks, Senator Vance offered explanation after explanation on why he is doing exactly what he promised not to do when he ran for office. He promised he would ``fight the criminals--not the cops.'' He has introduced a resolution in the Senate that calls on ``all levels of government to ensure that law enforcement officers receive the support and resources needed to keep all communities in the United States safe.''

Now he has the chance to support law enforcement. Instead, he comes to the Senate floor three times to undermine the U.S. Attorney's Office--even one in his own State that he represents here in the Senate. These are officers responsible for prosecuting drug cartels, sex traffickers, and other violent criminals.

Senator Vance himself has said that Americans will not be safe if politicians keep attacking our law enforcement officers. I fear he is proving that as right.

314 and 315; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Can you imagine what the family in Chicago who is concerned about narcotics and fentanyl deaths in their neighborhood thinks about this argument that somehow there is a grievance and people are mad about some of the things done by the Department of Justice?

Trust me, under the previous administration as well as this administration, as an attorney and a Senator, I can find things to object to. But to deny to the city of Cleveland and the Northern District of Ohio a U.S. attorney to lead their office to stop sex trafficking--that is a political statement this Senator believes is appropriate, that he is going to stop a nomination for someone to move into the U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago and lead the effort to stop the narcotics in our community or the trafficking of thousands and thousands and thousands of guns each year from neighboring States, and he is going to hold up that person because he objects to the way they treated former President Trump? For goodness' sake, that is what is wrong with this country, and that is what is wrong with this Senate.

When one Senator can stop the appointment of a well-qualified individual with no questions asked about her ability to handle the job, either in Cleveland or in Chicago, and to do that because he has a political grievance--I hope I never get to that point, and I hope other Members of the Senate will think twice.

We need to function as a government that is effective and provides safety for the people we are sent here to represent. Having this snit over some political grievance and holding up the effective appointment of prosecutors to do their job is inappropriate.

I will continue to come to the floor and plead the case for safety in the neighborhoods.

Before anyone else decides to come to the floor in the future on the Republican side and criticize crime in the city of Chicago, for goodness' sake, try to explain to the Senator from Ohio that there is a connection between criminal prosecution and crime.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source