Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there are some people in the world who can be captured by a single word. For JoAnne L. Cicchelli, who passed away in August, that word is joy. JoAnne lived her life in search of finding joy for herself and creating it for others. JoAnne was born in Monroe, MI, and her childhood was filled with love, laughter, and learning. She attended Monroe High School and went on to attend Michigan State University in East Lansing, MI--an affiliation she was proud to display to the world, as evidenced by the Spartan green helmet bumper sticker that adorned her car. At Michigan State, JoAnne discovered the joy of education. She attended college during the 1960s, a time when young people all across the Nation were becoming increasingly politically active. JoAnne's college years, like those of many college students, were a time of discovery and exploration, engaging new ideas, people, and points of view. She developed an earnest desire to know more about the world around her, a desire she would carry with her for the rest of her life. Life would lead JoAnne to Illinois--which eventually became home--and where she discovered the joy of teaching. In her early career, she served as an educator, teaching fifth grade and then high school history. She would come back to the field of education years later, when she would join Prime-Time School Television, a nonprofit organization that connected teachers, families, and public television. I can only imagine how passionate, dedicated, and enthusiastic a teacher she must have been. Her students were lucky to learn from her. Understanding the importance of local education policy, she was also deeply involved in the community of Frances W. Parker School, a school in Lincoln Park, IL, where her daughters, granddaughters, and nephews all attended. She also served on the board of Christopher House, a social service agency supporting families from birth through high school. After JoAnne played a pivotal role in helping them launch their middle school, they named it in her honor. In October 2018, I was fortunate enough to attend the groundbreaking of JoAnne L. Cicchelli Middle School, which now stands as a fitting tribute to JoAnne's dedication to education, learning, and children. Anyone who knew JoAnne also knew she was deeply passionate about politics. She first entered the political realm following the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. She started as a precinct worker during mayoral campaigns, became a strategist, and ultimately served as the office manager for 43rd Ward Alderman Edwin Eisendrath. She loved Chicago and all who call the city home. As an intellectual force, JoAnne could keep up with the best of them, but not everyone could keep up with her. JoAnne met her match in the early 1980s when she met former Chicago alderman, my friend William ``Bill'' Singer. They bonded over shared interests: politics, art, travel, and food, and in 1995, JoAnne and Bill were married in Florence, Italy. Their support and love for one another formed the foundation of their love for others. But more than anything, JoAnne had a gift of connecting with people, making everyone she came across feel heard and valued. Whenever she would enter a store or sit down at a restaurant, she would immediately ask the saleswoman or server for their thoughts on the latest news, what was going on in Chicago, or politics. But these were not empty questions to fill moments of silence. She cared to hear what they had to say because she believed that every person had a role to play in making the world a better place. She longed to connect and find the joy in others. JoAnne had a profound appreciation for beauty. In between discussions of how to expand access to education to more children or confront the issues of the day, she found herself most at home tending to her garden, deriving joy from the beauty of the natural world. Loretta and I were lucky to have called JoAnne our treasured friend. To her husband Bill; her two daughters Elizabeth and Katherine; her three grandchildren Grace, Eleanor, and Beatrice; and to all of her family and friends who are also mourning this tremendous loss, we extend our sincerest sympathies. JoAnne was a light that brightened the lives of all of those in her orbit, and the world feels a little less luminous without her. We will miss her dearly.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask the Chair to execute the order from yesterday with respect to the confirmation vote on the Costello nomination.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 700.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote to confirm Mary Kay Costello to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. From 1986 to 1994, Ms. Costello served as a staff sergeant in the U.S. Air Force. She then earned her B.A. from Temple University and her J.D. from Temple University Beasley School of Law. After completing law school, she began her legal career in private practice as a litigation associate with Saul Ewing LLP, then moved to Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in 2004. While in private practice, she handled a range of commercial litigation matters. Since 2008, Ms. Costello has served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. She is currently assigned to the public corruption and civil rights unit, and she previously served in the healthcare fraud and government fraud unit and the consumer and commercial fraud unit. She has prosecuted criminal cases involving bribery, drug diversion schemes, and schemes to defraud the government, including successful prosecutions in several illegal drug distribution cases involving ``pill mills.'' Over the course of her legal career, Ms. Costello has tried 11 cases to verdict, all of which were before a jury. Ms. Costello has the strong support of both of her home State Senators, Mr. Casey and Mr. Fetterman, and the American Bar Association unanimously rated her as ``well qualified.'' Ms. Costello is a highly accomplished litigator whose breadth of experience and dedication to service make her an outstanding nominee to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting her nomination.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden), are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call for the cloture motion filed today, September 17, be waived.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, like many Americans yesterday afternoon, I heard reports of what Federal law enforcement is investigating as a possible assassination attempt on former President Trump while he was golfing in Florida. Thankfully, the former President was not harmed, and there were no injuries, and the subject was quickly taken into custody. I am grateful for the work of the Secret Service and their law enforcement partners to keep the President and those around him safe. My staff was briefed by the Secret Service last night, and there is an active investigation into this incident as law enforcement gathers more details about what happened. As I have said many times, there is no place for violence in our country no matter what the motive. It must come to an end.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Kevin Ritz to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Mr. Ritz grew up in Memphis and received his B.A., Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Virginia, his M.S. from the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, and his J.D from the University of Virginia School of Law. After law school, he served as a law clerk to Judge Julia Smith Gibbons on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Memphis. Mr. Ritz then went to work as an assistant U.S. attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Tennessee in Memphis, serving as criminal appellate chief, special counsel to the U.S. attorney, and appellate chief. Mr. Ritz has tried 11 cases to verdict, including 10 jury trials. While serving as appellate chief, he personally wrote more than 200 briefs and argued 37 Federal appeals. Since September 2022, Mr. Ritz has served as the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Tennessee. The Senate confirmed him to that role by voice vote. Notably, both of his home State Senators--Mrs. Blackburn and Mr. Hagerty--returned positive blue slips on his U.S. attorney nomination. In his role as U.S. attorney, Mr. Ritz serves as the chief Federal law enforcement officer for the district and oversees an office of attorneys who engage in defensive and affirmative civil work, appellate work, and criminal work. The American Bar Association unanimously rated Mr. Ritz as ``well qualified'' to serve on the bench. He has deep ties to Tennessee, and his significant litigation background and extensive experience in Federal court will serve him well on the Sixth Circuit. Mr. Ritz has dedicated his entire legal career to public service. I look forward to his continued service as a circuit judge, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Rosen) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there was a time not that long ago when families had a similar challenge across America: what to do with mom and dad. At that time, there wasn't much to turn to. If you were fortunate, your parents, during the course of their lifetime, saved up enough money to take care of themselves. But in my family and many others, it was common to have that spare bedroom for grandma and grandpa because there was no place else to go. It was part of American family life. It caused some hardship. The kids had to double up in the bedrooms, and some of the activities in the family were limited. But you did it because you loved them and they needed help and they couldn't take care of themselves. In 1939, that started to change. A President named Franklin Delano Roosevelt thought, It is time for us to give some relief to these families, to give dignity to seniors in their retirement years. And he created a program called Social Security--now one of the most popular programs in the United States. You don't hear many candidates for President standing up and saying, ``I am going to cut Social Security benefits,'' do you? It is worshiped and venerated and respected and followed by families across America. But the critics in the creation of Social Security called it socialism. Socialism: Too much government, leave us alone; let mom and dad live in that spare bedroom; don't give them a separate savings account they can accumulate during their lifetime. If they do it, fine. If they don't, fine too. Socialism. Fast forward to the 1960s. Now we have a new concern: How are we going to pay for the healthcare of seniors now that they are living longer because of Social Security? What are we going to do about it? There was a concern in Washington that the cost of medical care-- surgeries and treatment--was just too expensive for the average person. And so President Lyndon Baines Johnson created Medicare. Medicare was a health insurance program for senior citizens across America. When it started, it ushered in a dramatic change in healthcare in America. The construction of hospitals started expanding their pace across this country. Medicare made a big difference. What did they say about it in criticizing it? Socialism: Too much government trying to provide healthcare for senior citizens. Of course, Medicaid came on its heels, as well, to take care of low-income individuals facing the same challenge. ``Socialism''--we hear that time and again. This morning, the Republican Senate leader criticized efforts to lower pharmacy drug costs across America. He called it prescription drug socialism. Here we go again. Any effort to help the average family who is trying to get by and trying to make ends meet that involves the government is criticized as socialism. The argument was made by the Republican leader that this socialism, this lowering of prescription drug prices, is ultimately going to stifle research and competition. He failed to mention one or two things. First, he failed to mention that virtually every single prescription drug that is now making a difference across America started with government research. The National Institutes of Health--the premier medical research Agency in the world--did the basic research for virtually every single one of these drugs. As much as I admire the private sector--and I do--and as much as I wish the pharmaceutical industry well, the fact is, if they are honest about it, they are simply bargaining with the government that helped them get started to find profitable products. The second thing I want to note that the Republican leader did not mention this morning is that, for decades now, we have allowed the Veterans Health Administration to negotiate drug prices. In other words, what we are now doing in Medicare, we have been doing for veterans. Our theory was our veterans deserve the best, and we have got to be able to afford it as a government, and they have to be able to afford it as individuals. So we negotiated these drug prices. I didn't hear any screaming and hollering about helping our veterans, because it was the right thing to do. Doing that for veterans is virtually the same thing that is happening in other countries. Why are exactly the same drugs that are made in the United States sold in Canada for a fraction of the cost? Because the Canadian Government negotiated--just like the Veterans Health Administration in the United States--for reasonable prices for Canadian citizens. Now we are doing the same thing. Finally, after decades of promise, it is happening. This notion that the top 10 drugs under Medicare are now going to be negotiated so that we can bring prices within reach of the government and individuals is simply an extension of what we have been doing at the VA for years. I have to tell you it makes a difference, a serious difference. Imagine that the Biden-Harris proposal not only allows for negotiating prices down to a reasonable level for Medicare, but it also says that you in Medicare are limited to a $2,000 annual expenditure for prescription drugs. And $2,000 is a lot of money. Don't get me wrong. For a lot of people, it is a hardship to come up with that kind of money, but it is within the reach for most Americans to pay that amount of money. We know that drugs, otherwise, are too darned expensive for them. Now, the critics of that, like the Senator from Kentucky, this morning, call it socialism. I call it the American approach to helping families--a realistic approach that says that pharmaceutical drugs should be affordable. If I understood the position of the Kentucky Senator this morning, he thinks it is a big mistake. I think it is a breakthrough. Finally, we are going to reach the day when we can negotiate prices for those not in Medicare who will be helped as well. So I wanted to start my remarks with that.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote to confirm Laura Provinzino to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Born in St. Cloud, MN, Ms. Provinzino received her B.A. from Lewis & Clark College, her B.A. from Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar, and her J.D. from Yale Law School. After law school, she served as a law clerk to Judge Diana E. Murphy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Minneapolis. Following her clerkship, Ms. Provinzino worked at Robins Kaplan LLP as a litigation associate, where her work involved civil litigation and criminal defense. Since 2010, she has been an assistant U.S. attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota. She handles all aspects of criminal investigation and prosecution and has prosecuted a wide variety of Federal crimes. Ms. Provinzino has served as a missing and murdered indigenous persons assistant U.S. attorney since 2023, after previously serving as deputy chief of the violent and major crimes section, deputy chief of the major crimes section, human trafficking coordinator, and Project Safe Childhood coordinator. She has tried 16 cases to verdict, all of which were jury trials. The American Bar Association unanimously rated Ms. Provinzino as ``well qualified'' to serve on the district court. She has deep ties to the District of Minnesota, and she enjoys the strong support of both of her home State senators, Ms. Klobuchar and Ms. Smith. Ms. Provinzino's nomination has also received support from a range of individuals and organizations, including law enforcement officers, former Federal prosecutors, and organizations working to combat human trafficking. Ms. Provinzino's significant litigation background and extensive experience in Federal court ensure that she will be a valuable addition to the district court. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting her nomination.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Rosen) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I watched the debate last night. It was memorable. It was not a good evening for the former President of the United States. I have had more than one person tell me that the people who were watching laughed out loud when he started his rant about immigrants eating dogs and cats. It is an indication, I am afraid, that the former President Donald Trump, when it comes to the issue of immigration, is unhinged. You never know what he is going to say next. But I think that Vice President Kamala Harris made it clear in her explanation that it was within the grasp and power of former President Donald Trump to do something about the border crisis and the immigration crisis and that he not only failed but he designed a strategy to sabotage efforts on a bipartisan basis to do something. Specifically, I can recall--and you can as well--that we were told that there was a bipartisan effort underway to write a border bill. Senator Lankford, a conservative Republican from the State of Oklahoma, joined with Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, a Democrat, to put together, with months of effort, such a bill. We were told hands off. Step away. Let them do this. Let them put something on the floor that is meaningful and is bipartisan and has a chance of passing both the Senate and the House. We were underway, and such a piece of legislation was constructed. But what happened at the last minute? At the last minute, Donald Trump, very publicly, stepped forward and said: I want to stop this bill from passing. I want the bipartisan bill not to pass, and you can blame it on me, he said. You can blame it on me. He stopped the bipartisan effort to pass a bill that would have been helpful to the border in reducing the number of people who have been coming across that border. The Border Patrol Agency--men and women who risk their lives every day in service of this country on the border--endorsed this bipartisan bill. It was an indication that we finally--after 30 years of trying-- may be on the right track when it comes to immigration, at least when it comes to the border crisis. And who stopped it? Donald Trump stopped the immigration reform bill--the bipartisan effort--and publicly admitted it and took credit for it. You didn't hear that last night, did you? No, but there was a lot of complaining about the immigration issue and the border. The simple reality is this: President Trump singlehandedly, personally, threatened those who were going to vote for such a bill. If I remember, only seven Republicans finally did. I wish more had. It wasn't a bill I would have written, but I was prepared to accept it as a final effort for a bipartisan compromise. So I would say to those who watched the debate and wanted to have raised the issue of immigration, they still need an answer as to why Donald Trump stopped the only bipartisan effort in recent memory in the U.S. Senate. 23rd Anniversary of the September 11, 2001, Attacks Mr. President, today marks the 23rd year since one of the darkest days in our country's history, the attacks of September 11, 2001. I can vividly recall that day. I was in this building--just a few feet away--in a room for a morning meeting. We happened to notice on the television set that was playing in the room there that there was some news about a tower--tall building--in New York being struck by an airplane. We didn't know much more about it. Then the second plane went into an adjoining tower, and we knew that something was wrong, dreadfully wrong. Then we looked out on the Mall, down the Mall from the Capitol Building, and saw black billowing smoke coming from the Pentagon. That image is seared into my mind, and that day will forever be imprinted on our Nation's collective memory. Twenty-three years after that devastating day, we still mourn the 2,977 innocent lives lost at the World Trade Center in New York, at the Pentagon in Virginia, and in a field near Shanksville, PA. That includes 343 heroic members of the New York City Fire Department, 71 law enforcement officers who died at the World Trade Center, and 55 military personnel who died at the Pentagon. Last weekend, the ``60 Minutes'' television show rebroadcast the show on the fire department heroes from the city of New York. There were personal interviews of men who were at the scene and watched their comrades--dedicated firefighters--not only risk their lives but willingly give their lives to try to rescue the victims of September 11. It is a heartbreaking episode and one every American should see if you want to know what heroism looks like. It was an extraordinary effort by all involved and many others who weren't part of that program. We continue to reflect on how these acts of pure evil have forever altered our sense of security and safety and how we must remain faithful to the Constitution while protecting the American people.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the confirmation of four pending U.S. attorney nominations. Currently, in the United States, we have 85 U.S. attorneys. There are several from my State, and depending on your population, it really indicates how many numbers you have. Those U.S. attorney nominations are filled by the incumbent President of the United States. Recommendations are made to the U.S. Senate, and we advise and consent on those nominations. After examinations of their backgrounds, we vote on these individuals to become U.S. attorneys. Now, we have an agreement that has endured for a number of Presidents over a number of years which says that these will be fairly routine--in fact, very routine. The fact is that each one of the U.S. attorney nominations goes through a review by the Senate Judiciary Committee, by both Democrats and Republicans, and if they pass that review without controversy, they move to the floor for a vote. To give you an idea of how that works for the Members on the other side who are relatively new to the Senate, when President Donald Trump made nominations of U.S. attorneys, he made 85 nominations. Each one of those nominations came to the floor of the U.S. Senate, and they were approved by voice vote, unanimous consent. In other words, not even a rollcall was required. It was the routine approval of U.S. attorneys' nominations in a situation where a body like the Senate would have a majority of Democrats but approve a nomination from a Republican President by voice vote--no controversy moving forward. Why is it even important to fill these vacancies? Because these 85 U.S. attorneys are literally the people who implement the policies of the Department of Justice. If the Department of Justice of the United States decides that we are going to have a serious effort under a President to go after fentanyl, for example, or narcotics, for example, or some crimewave in another area, it is the U.S. attorney who runs the play. He is the quarterback in that U.S. attorney's district. So these turn out to be fairly critical. Some of us stayed up late last night to watch the debate, and in that debate, there was a discussion of crime in the United States and what we were going to do to stop it. Well, both of the candidates-- regardless of party--would be in favor of reducing crime. I am assuming that every one of my colleagues who is on the floor now and wishes to speak would put themselves in the same category. We want to stop crime in our States and in our country, and we rely on the Department of Justice to do that. The one who leads the effort in each and every State is the U.S. attorney. In this circumstance, we have four nominees for U.S. attorney who have been waiting patiently for the approval of the U.S. Senate. On seven previous occasions, I have requested unanimous consent--the same process that was followed with every single one of Donald Trump's U.S. attorneys. I requested unanimous consent of the Senate to take up and confirm law enforcement nominees nominated by President Joseph Biden. Each and every time, the junior Senator from Ohio--now running for Vice President of the United States--has objected. I asked him on many occasions when we came to the floor and raised this question: What objection do you have to this U.S. attorney nominee? He said at the time: I don't have any objection to this nominee. I object to the Department of Justice, and I want to stop U.S. attorneys from being appointed nationwide. Communities across America desperately need their top Federal prosecutors in place. U.S. attorneys lead the Nation's effort to prosecute violent criminals and protect our communities from violent crime, child exploitation, terrorism, and much more. The U.S. Attorney's Offices in the four districts I am talking about today are no exception. I just left a meeting this morning. We gathered about 40 or 50 leaders from across the United States to talk about child trafficking. Child trafficking, of course, is a Federal crime, prosecuted by the Department of Justice in each and every one of our States where it happens. I can't think of a more awful situation for a person to live through as those this morning who talked about what they lived through before the prosecution took place and the person was removed from the State. I would not want to play political games with those nominations. Those U.S. attorneys do critical work in each and every State. We felt that way under President Trump, and that is why we allowed his U.S. attorney nominees to move forward by voice vote. I think President Biden is entitled to the same treatment. The entire Nation has been impacted by the opioid epidemic. Ohio is one of the States that has been hit the hardest. In 2023, nearly 4,500 Ohio residents died from accidental drug overdoses. This story can be told over and over in State after State. The U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Ohio can focus her attention on combating this drug crisis with the DEA's Operation Overdrive. This operation is set up at a location in Toledo due to the city's ``copious violent crimes, including homicides, shootings, assaults, and drug overdoses.'' We are talking about serious prosecutions and a team of effective professionals to fight them, not just in Ohio or in Illinois but around the Nation. Instead, this nomination--one of them today which I am suggesting, the nomination of Rebecca Lutzko--has languished for more than a year because of the objection of the junior Senator from Ohio. It may have helped that Senator to make that decision for some other reason, but it certainly doesn't help the fighting of crime in his home State to have a vacancy in this office. He is harming Americans and undermining public safety across the country for reasons I can't explain. The Senate has a long history of confirming U.S. attorney nominees as I said. We have done it by unanimous consent. We have made it fairly routine, as it should be. All 85 of President Donald Trump's nominees for U.S. attorney were filled by unanimous consent. The Senate has a long history of following that practice. Before President Biden took office, the last time the Senate required a rollcall on a U.S. attorney was in 1975--49 years ago. You have to go back 49 years to find an objection to a U.S. attorney nominee. At the beginning of a new Presidential administration, it is customary for the U.S. attorney to step down and for the new President to select replacements. That is why, during the Trump administration, we moved so many so quickly. Senate Democrats allowed every single one of President Trump's nominees to be confirmed by unanimous consent, many of whom we would not have personally selected, but it is just as a courtesy to a new President to fill the vacancy. It wouldn't have been fair or realistic to force the Senate to debate and vote on every single one of these nominees. Each one of these votes is a process which eats up several days of the calendar. We already do that for nominations for the Federal bench. It would not have been fair or realistic to expect it for U.S. attorneys. So we respected the then- President. We respected our colleagues, and we respected the need for the Senate to have confirmed leadership in the U.S. Attorney's Office. We put public safety and the needs of law enforcement ahead of politics. We have done it always when it has come to U.S. attorneys until now. The Senator from Indiana and some of his colleagues have set an unfortunate standard. They are putting us on a path to require cloture and confirmation votes on every U.S. attorney nominee. Talk about a waste of time. That would be a terrible waste of time. This is entirely unsustainable, which is something everyone here knows. Without Senate-confirmed leadership for U.S. attorneys, public safety will suffer across the United States. Candidates cannot vote to delay these nominations and then stand up and say they are for law and order, and they want to fight crime. We shouldn't be playing politics. I don't know the reason behind this--I believe it is entirely political--but I hope my colleagues will think twice about it. What we do to one another will likely be revisited and become a precedent in the Senate to the detriment of everyone. These highly qualified nominees that I nominate today--the four of them--have the strong support of their home State Senators, including of several members of the Republican caucus. If President Biden has been accused of misuse of the Justice Department, we shouldn't take that out on these individuals who are competent and qualified to keep us safe. Until we confirm them, law enforcement agencies in Iowa, Massachusetts, and Ohio will be stymied in their ability to fight crime. Don't be giving a speech that says ``I want to have a real assault on crime in my State or my district'' and then turn around and stop the prosecutor from being appointed who has that job. Otherwise, that would be a temporary appointment, and the effort cannot be as effective as it might be. That is a loss to the Nation, and it creates a danger to the people living in that particular State. So, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 544, 545, 604, and 605--those are the nominations of Matthew Gannon to serve as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Iowa, Rebecca Lutzo to serve as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, Joshua Levy to serve as U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts, and David Waterman to serve as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Iowa; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without any intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.