Tom Cotton

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. This is exactly the point. Privacy waiver or not, what does it matter? Here is what we do know. Here is what we do know. That none of these four know why they were denied representation or why they haven't had a determination. We know that. And we know that they were sent back on unrestricted active duty to the special operations group. I think the Department of Justice political leadership owes these brave law enforcement officers an answer before it hangs them out to dry and exposes them to risk of financial ruin and bankruptcy.

Mr. COTTON. I yield back.

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I am surprised to hear the Senator from Illinois continue to refer to this as a political issue or a political story when we have career law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line to defend Federal property from leftwing street militias. And they are worried if they can put the food on the table for their children, if they can buy them gifts at Christmas, if they can put braces on them, if they can send them to summer camp. I don't consider that a political issue; I consider it standing up for law enforcement--not just these four but every deputy marshal around the country who forms the backbone of the Marshals Service, the backbone of the Marshals Service all across the country, who have to wonder if maybe they are going to be the next one to be hung out to dry by the Department of Justice if they confront a rioter with the wrong politics. This is not a political issue. Now, the Senator from Illinois continues to speak about confidentiality and attorney-client privilege as if this is all information that has been communicated to these four marshals and they just don't want to share it with us here in the Senate. That is not the case. Three of them, I would say, haven't heard anything. In a lawsuit that is almost 18 months old, they have been told nothing yet. That is why they have had to go out and retain their own counsel. One of them was denied representation with no more basis than saying it is not in the interest of the United States of America. Well, forgive me if I don't trust Vanita Gupta to determine what is in the interest of the United States when it comes to defending law enforcement. These marshals are told that these determinations are final and there is no appeal and there is no recourse. Well, I am the recourse now. The Senator from Illinois keeps talking about these urgent law enforcement needs in his own State of Illinois. I would point out that the position that is empty has been empty since 2018. If it was so urgent, the Senator from Illinois could have cooperated with the Trump administration and tried to fill it then. These U.S. attorney positions that are empty--President Biden fired all U.S. attorneys a year ago. If it was so urgent to have Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys in position, he could have asked them to continue to serve until he was able to find suitable replacements. The Senator from Illinois also said: Well, Senator Cotton got his letter responded to. I am not looking for some courtesy exchange of letters here; I am trying to protect four U.S. marshals who defended the Portland courthouse from a leftwing street militia, who have been hung out to dry, imperiling the confidence of all marshals across the country in whether or not their political leadership at the Department of Justice will back them up when they are in a controversy. The Department still won't answer that. They won't take any steps to answer it. They simply hide behind confidentiality and privilege just like they are hiding behind it with these four U.S. marshals--after 18 months. What is so complicated? As the Senator from Illinois said, they are representing 70 others. What makes these four so different? Maybe they engaged in misconduct. Is that possible given the fact that they are all on unrestricted active duty in the Special Operations Group, the element of the marshals most likely to have to use violence, to include lethal violence? Would Merrick Garland and Vanita Gupta really send them back out on the streets if they had engaged in misconduct in Portland? These marshals deserve better, and they could get better if the Department of Justice would just agree to represent them or if they would give a satisfactory, fact-based answer about why they are not representing them. Maybe some of my Democratic colleagues could call Merrick Garland or Vanita Gupta and ask them for such an answer or maybe just call them and say: Why don't you represent these four marshals? That seems like the obvious, satisfactory outcome for everyone here: U.S. marshals are represented in court, as they should be, and we can go back to fast-tracking Department of Justice nominees. But until we get to that outcome, we won't be fast-tracking Department nominees because I will continue to stand up for these brave men of law enforcement who deserve better from this Department of Justice.

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I feel like we are ships passing in the night here. I could go on and on about the exploits of these deputy marshals when they were Rangers and Green Berets and what they did in combat. But my Democratic colleagues aren't getting the heart of the matter: why they are being denied representation for defending the courthouse in Portland. So I will direct a question to the Senator from Minnesota through the Chair: Does she believe that these four U.S. marshals should be represented in court like all other marshals are being represented?

Mr. COTTON. If that is a question for me, I reject the premise of your question. I am not harming law enforcement; I am standing up for law enforcement. Once again, if you deny four U.S. marshals legal representation because they stood up to leftwing street militias--which may be unpopular in certain quarters of your party--then you cause every marshal across the country and, for that matter, every law enforcement official across the country to doubt whether their political superiors are going to defend them in the future. Look, if you want to have a broader debate about law enforcement, I can, but we are going to be here for a long time. It is your party that voted in lockstep for the FIRST STEP Act that let thousands of violent felons back on the street who have now committed innumerable violent crimes. It is your party that marched and chanted in the streets for defunding the police. It is the Democratic floor leader who blocked my resolution in the summer of 2020 to condemn the ``defund the police'' movement. You all voted in lockstep to confirm Vanita Gupta, the Associate Attorney General, who is responsible ultimately for these decisions, even though I and other Republicans cautioned you she would use her position to wage a war on the police from the Department of Justice. That is what is happening now. I am standing up for law enforcement.

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, again, I feel like we are ships passing in the night, not getting to the point here. So I will address a question to the junior Senator through the Chair, slightly differently than when I spoke to the Senator from Minnesota. If officers are returned to unrestricted Active Duty on the Special Operations Group, does the Senator believe that they should be represented for past incidents of alleged misuse of force?

Mr. COTTON. Unfortunately, they don't have any information to divulge. That is part of my point. The Department of Justice won't tell them why they are not being represented.

Mr. COTTON. To respond to the Senator from Illinois, it is true that President Trump signed the FIRST STEP Act. The FIRST STEP Act was the worst mistake of the Trump administration. Yes, it is true that a number of Republican Senators voted for it. They were wrong. They didn't start demanding that we defund the police in the summer of 2020. They condemned that. They stood up for law enforcement. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON. We keep hearing that this is unrelated, as if I am upset with something the Coast Guard did or the Corps of Engineers wants to improve some water project in Arkansas. These are Department of Justice nominees, and right now, the Department of Justice is not standing up for law enforcement officers by hanging these four marshals out to dry. That is why I am not agreeing to fast-track these nominees. I am not going to agree to fast-track political nominees while the Department of Justice hangs out to dry career law enforcement officers. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, so contrary to what the Senator from Ohio says, I am not offended by the lack of a letter or offended by something someone said. I'm offended that four U.S. marshals--four U.S. marshals had to decide whether they are going to have enough money to buy Christmas gifts for their kids, pay their mortgage next month, put braces on their kids, send them to summer camp because that is the position that the Department of Justice has put them in. To recap, four U.S. marshals were among dozens deployed to Portland last summer to guard the courthouse from leftwing street militias. They were targeted with blinding lasers, ball bearings, fireworks. There was an effort to barricade them into the courthouse and set it afire to burn them alive. Now leftwing activists in leftwing organizations like the ACLU are suing them, and the Department of Justice won't provide them representation, won't even tell them why they are not providing them representation. Maybe they engaged in some kind of misconduct? Maybe it was excessive force? That would be strange, because all four of these deputy marshals are now back on unrestricted active duty with the special operations group of the Marshal Service, the element most likely to be sent into the most dangerous circumstances and have to use violence, including lethal violence. It would be pretty strange to send them back to the special operations group with no restrictions if they engaged in some kind of misconduct in Portland. That is what this is about and what it does to undermine the faith and confidence of every career law enforcement professional in the Department of Justice. So, no, I will not agree to fast-track political nominees to the Department when the Department leadership is hanging out to dry career law enforcement officers.

Mr. COTTON. No, I have not. But I know that the response that that marshal received was that the denial of representation was not in the interest of the United States. No more----

Mr. COTTON. No more facts, no more explanation, just like the three who are waiting for a determination and have been waiting for more than a year do not have any fact-based explanation.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Murray and I be allowed to complete our remarks before the scheduled rollcall votes.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, for the past 2 years, our Nation's kids have suffered. They have suffered socially, academically, and psychologically at the hands of Democratic politicians, the Biden administration, and their political bosses in the teachers unions. Although kids are at the lowest risk of hospitalization and death from the Wuhan coronavirus, they have endured and they continue to endure some of the most excessive, extreme, and suffocating COVID restrictions of any population in our country. This treatment has been nothing short of cruel. The politicians and the neurotic public health obsessives who enforce these policies should all hang their heads in shame. There are few things in a kid's life, outside of family and church, that are more important to them than their school. For them, open and happy schools are precious. But for teachers union bosses like Randi Weingarten, they are just useful hostages. For the better part of a year, teachers unions shut down our schools while they shook down politicians for more funding and benefits that they promised would allow them to reopen safely. Yet they kept schools closed. They kept kids masked. Desperate parents watched their socially isolated kids fall behind while they engaged in Zoom schools, but the unions still dragged their feet. When schools finally reopened, our kids faced insane coronavirus protocols. They weren't allowed to sit with friends at lunch. They weren't allowed to play at recess. They had to eat outside on freezing- cold days. And every moment of every day at every school, they were forced to wear a mask. Confused and hyper kids naturally often rebelled, and they have been reprimanded and they have been punished for simply trying to play, trying to make friends, trying to breathe a little easier. Some parents may think that masks work for their kids, and that is fine. If they want to, they can put their kids in a mask. They should be able to choose. But under Democratic-forced masking policies, parents have no choice at all. Tragically, but predictably--not just predictably--predicted--these absurd policies have had severe psychological effects on our kids. Suicide and mental health problems have skyrocketed in the past 2 years. Grades have plummeted, while depression has surged. And as is so often the case, those with the least have suffered the most. But when parents dared to complain on behalf of their kids, they were condemned by teachers union bosses and by Democratic politicians as anti-science and extremists. They were investigated when Attorney General Merrick Garland sicced the Feds on parents who were simply going to school boards to protest these stupid policies. The Secretary of Education threatened to withdraw Federal funding from States and schools who did not have mask mandates. Thankfully, the tide has begun to turn. Sometimes I hear the phrase ``the science changed.'' The science hasn't changed. What has changed is that there is an election coming and Democrats have seen the polling on this question. Now they are running scared, and they want to pretend that they didn't force your kid to wear a mask for 2 years. You see it in States that are run entirely by Democrats: California, New Jersey, New York, the President's own Delaware. Just yesterday, across the river in Virginia, the State senate, to include many Democrats, voted not just to allow parents a choice but to prohibit mask mandates by local schools. Yet, in many places, forced masking remains. Kids as young as 2, 3, 4 are still being forced to wear hot, restrictive, and ineffective masks for hours on end. Yes, ineffective because almost all those kids are wearing cloth masks, which don't even work. And that is not me speaking; that is the CDC speaking. These masks don't even work. Yet the kids are forced to wear them all day long. I can tell you that most Democratic politicians don't think they work either. How do we know that? Look at the candidate for Governor in Georgia, Stacey Abrams--or maybe I should say the Governor of Georgia, since she still refuses to concede the 2018 election and many of my Democratic colleagues have endorsed her view that she is somehow the shadow Governor of Georgia. Just last week, photos emerged of her sitting in classrooms with masked kids grinning ear to ear, the only person not wearing a mask in the classroom. Also, Gavin Newsom, the Governor of California, was yucking it up at SoFi Stadium when the Rams played the 49ers, taking pictures--without a mask--with Magic Johnson and a bunch of other celebrities, while he enforced one of the most onerous mask mandates in the country. What about Eric Garcetti, whose nomination to be the Ambassador to India is in front of the Senate right now, who said that pictures of him without a mask on are fine because he was holding his breath--I guess like Bill Clinton, who didn't inhale. Barack Obama, pictures recently emerged of him standing outside-- outside--on the beach, without a mask, while all the peons who are building his multimillion-dollar beach compound were forced to wear a mask in front of him. And I will let you in on something. The same goes for Democratic Senators. I was in a hearing this week. It was in a small, closed room. Not a single Democratic Senator wore a mask in that hearing in that room. The catch is, the TV cameras weren't on, so there wouldn't be video of them sitting in that closed room without a mask on. But masks in school have become symbols of control and fear. They are not instruments of public health. It is past time for the mask mandates to end and for parents across this country to have a choice. That is why I am asking the Senate to pass my legislation today to require schools that receive Federal funding to give parents a simple choice on whether their kids should wear a mask. If my Democratic colleagues will join me, we can get this done now, today. That is why I urge them to support this bill. And I ask, as if in legislative session, unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3604, which is at the desk; further, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I would simply reply to the remarks of the Senator from Washington, she asserted that I or others who oppose these mask mandates think that we know better. That is the whole point, though. It is not that we think we know better; I think that you, as a parent, know better. You know what is best for your child--not some Democratic politician, not some liberal superintendent, not some neurotic public health obsessive. And, apparently, the Democrats have no problem using these Federal funds when it suits their neurotic policies. After all, the Department of Education last year threatened Federal funding for States and schools that did not permit mask mandates. The whole point of this exercise is this: the Democrats who think they know better than parents to make the choices for the parents' kids. I am disappointed today that my Democratic colleagues want to continue to see kids forced to wear masks in schools across America, but, trust me, change is coming one way or another. It will be because Democratic politicians, like Gavin Newsom, run for the hills or because the American people repudiate them all in November. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, inflation is at its highest level in 40 years. Drug overdose deaths and illegal border crossings are at record levels. The murder rate is its highest since the 1990s. Russian troops are massing on Ukraine's border, and the President of the United States just green-lighted Vladimir Putin to invade. China is continuing its aggression. So what have the Democratic floor leader and Senate Democrats spent the last 2 months doing? Trying to overturn 200 years of Senate rules and customs so that they can do things like ban voter ID nationwide and use your tax dollars to support political campaigns. They tell us that Americans are living under Jim Crow 2.0, and they cite the recent Georgia election law as proof. Well, let's investigate this so-called voter suppression law. Under the new law, the State of Georgia will have 17 days of early voting. If this is Jim Crow 2.0, then I have bad news because the Democratic leader's home State of New York and the President's home State of Delaware were engaged in I guess what you would call Jim Crow 3.0 as recently as last year because New York only had 9 days of early voting and Delaware had no days--zero days--of early voting. Next, I have heard complaints that Georgia has reduced the number of ballot drop boxes in the State, even though they now require every county to have a drop box, as was not the case as recently as 2018, and that Georgia has added new security measures to prevent fraud. Once again, I hate to break the news that the Democratic floor leader's home State of New York had zero ballot drop boxes and that the President's home State of Delaware allowed for just five last year. Of course, one of the Democrats' favorite claims is that all of those terrible Republicans down in Georgia have stopped campaign and political workers from giving food and drinks to people who are waiting in line at the polls. Where could Georgia have gotten such an idea? Well, as it turns out, the Democratic floor leader's home State of New York also has a nearly identical law banning such electioneering near polling places. The Democrats also say that voter ID is a kind of new Jim Crow. That might surprise the 69 percent of Black Americans who support voter ID. Now, what are they up to? This is an especially good question, given the letter that 28 Democrats, still in the Senate, signed on April 7, 2017, to the leadership around here, urging them to oppose any effort-- any effort--to stop the Senate's tradition and custom of extended debate. Some of those Senators are on the floor with us at this moment. I see the junior Senator from Illinois, the junior Senator from Hawaii, and the junior Senator from Maine, the Presiding Officer, for that matter. Many more were down here earlier. I would invite, through the Chair, any of those Senators, if they would like to engage in a colloquy, to explain why they have changed their position since they signed that letter on April 7, 2017. I guess I don't have any takers. I will point out that out of the 28 Democrats who actually signed that letter--

Mr. COTTON. I will certainly yield.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, before I move on from this letter, I just have to note that, as I have said several times, 28 Democrats in the Senate today signed that letter. Twenty-seven of them changed their position. There is one signatory who didn't change their position: the Senator from West Virginia. Not only did he not change his position in that letter he signed, he has been consistent from the very beginning. He was also here in 2013 when we started down this path on the Executive Calendar. And there are differences, to be sure, between the Executive Calendar and the legislative calendar. The Senator from West Virginia is the sole signatory still in the Senate who has been consistent throughout, and I want to commend him for that. And I want to note for the record the Senator from Arizona-- apparently, the only other Democratic Senator who will oppose this maneuver--did not sign the letter in 2017 because she was not in the Senate in 2017. So, in conclusion, why are we doing all this? Why are we going down this road? Is it because this legislation is so popular, this issue is so important? You would think it was the top issue on the minds of a majority of Americans. But no, according to Gallup, only 1 percent of Americans list elections and Federal election takeovers as their top priority. Maybe the majority of Americans support the procedural maneuvering here tonight, the overturning of 200 years of Senate rules and customs--nope, wrong again. According to a recent CBS poll, barely a third of Americans support this. And while we are waiting here for the Democrats' doomed charge to overturn 200 years of Senate rules and customs and federalize our elections, Americans are dealing with very real, concrete, kitchen- table issues. Our people are getting poorer. Inflation rose by 7 percent over the last year, the highest rate in 40 years. Wages are failing to keep up. Inflation might not be so bad for some of the millionaires around here, with their stock portfolios and their real estate, but for most Americans it is crippling, and it is most crippling for those who can least afford it. I shouldn't have to point out that people are dying in our communities all across the country. Murder was up by its highest record level in the keeping of modern records last year, and it is up again this year, at a time when we also have 100,000 Americans dying of overdoses, the highest number ever reported--another grim record. Meanwhile, America is being overwhelmed at our southern border. Border Patrol is stopping more than 175,000 illegal immigrants at our southern border each month. We can only guess how many more are getting through. These are all the real problems that the American people have told us repeatedly they want us to address, but we haven't heard much about those problems. We are not here in session this week to debate those problems. The Democrats apparently don't want to acknowledge these crises because they created these crises and they have no solution for these crises. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON. Well, I thank the Senator from Maine for explaining the change in position. I was not seeking an apology, merely an explanation, since I haven't heard that much over the last year or so. I can respond to a few of these points. The Senator from Maine said it was the nature of the issue at stake. Well, first off, I will point out, I have the letter in front of me here. It is very short. It is only two paragraphs long, but there is nothing in there about the nature of the issue at stake, about whether we are talking about immigration or gun control or, in this case, election takeover laws. The Senator from Maine referred to the cheap and easy filibuster. I don't necessarily agree with that characterization, but I would point out that that is exactly the kind of cheap and easy filibuster that was in place in 2017, when 28 Democrats signed this letter. I will also point out that I wouldn't necessarily agree with the characterization that the current filibuster was created by accident in 1975. We are going to have a debate, but the rules and customs under debate today go back to the second decade, the second decade of the U.S. Senate. And, perhaps more importantly, every time those rules have been modified--up to and including the most recent changes on the legislative calendar--they have been modified in accordance with the rules, not using the nuclear option, breaking the rules so we can change the rules. I also note we have had a few other signatories to that letter arrive. We have the senior Senator from Colorado. We have the senior Senator from New Hampshire. We have the senior Senator from Montana. And we have the letter's chief Democratic author, the junior Senator from Delaware. I asked earlier, through the Chair, if any Senators would like to explain their change in position. Since those Senators have joined us, if they would like to explain their change, as well, I would invite them into colloquy.

Mr. COTTON. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma was directly addressed, and I believe he would like to engage in a brief colloquy.

Mr. COTTON. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Oregon. And I want to commend him for principled consistency on this question. He did not sign that letter. In fact, one of the earliest conversations I had with any Democratic Senator in 2015 was with the Senator from Oregon about some of these very questions. He has had these reservations about the cloture rule, about the rights and customs of extended debate. He has not changed his on this position so I commend him. I will point out, he mentioned the nuclear option on the Supreme Court. Of course, that simply followed what the former Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid did in 2013 on the Executive Calendar. I will also point out that that happened in February or March of 2017, if I recall. This letter was written in April of 2017. But if there is no more extended debate on this question--oh, I would invite the Senator from Virginia, through the Chair.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I invite the Senator from Colorado to engage in colloquy.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President: Right now, we are on the precipice of a constitutional crisis. We are about to step into the abyss. I want to talk for a few minutes why we are on that precipice and why we are looking into the abyss. Let me first ask a fundamental question: What is the crisis that calls for the undoing of two centuries of tradition? . . . Are . . . Senators merely doing their jobs as legislators, responding to a generalized public calling for the abolition of the filibuster? Clearly not. It is not the American people at large who are demanding detonation of the nuclear option. [T]he nuclear option is being pushed largely by the radioactive rhetoric of a small band of radicals who hold in their hands the political fortunes of the President. Constitutional scholars will tell us that the reason we have these rules in the Senate--unlimited debate, two-thirds to change the rules, the idea that 60 have to close off debate--is embodied in the spirit and rule of the Constitution. . . . That is what the Constitution is all about, and we all know it. It is the Senate where the Founding Fathers established a repository of checks and balances. It is not like the House of Representatives where the majority leader or the Speaker can snap his fingers and get what he wants. . . . On important issues, the Founding Fathers wanted--and they were correct in my judgment--that the slimmest majority should not always govern. . . . The Senate is not a majoritarian body. The bottom line is very simple: The ideologues in the Senate want to turn what the Founding Fathers called the cooling saucer of democracy into the rubber stamp of dictatorship. . . . They want to make this country into a banana republic where if you don't get your way, you change the rules! Are we going to let them? It'll be a doomsday for democracy if we do. I, for one, hope and pray that it will not come to this. But I assure my colleagues, at least speaking for this Senator . . . I will do everything I can to prevent the nuclear option from being invoked not for the sake of myself or my party but for the sake of this great Republic and its traditions. Those are powerful words, but they are not mine. Every word of my speech today was originally spoken by our esteemed colleague, the senior Senator from New York, Chuck Schumer. Senator Schumer spoke so eloquently in defense of the Senate's rules, customs, and traditions when the fortunes of his party looked a little different. My, how times have changed. Now it is Senator Schumer's fingers that are hovering over the nuclear button, ready to destroy the Senate for partisan advantage. Think about it. The narrowest majority in Senate history wants to break the Senate rules to control how voters in every State elect Senators. Could there be a better argument to preserving the Senate's rules, customs, and traditions? So, before it is too late, let us reflect on the wise and eloquent words of Senator Schumer's, words that are as true today as they were when he spoke them, even if Senator Schumer is singing a different tune today. I yield the floor.