Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Susan DeClercq to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Born in Seoul, South Korea, Ms. DeClercq received her B.A. from the University of Michigan and her J.D. from Wayne State University School of Law. After clerking for Judge Avern L. Cohn of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Ms. DeClercq worked at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meager & Flom, LLP as an associate, where she worked on a variety of matters, including white collar defense and commercial litigation. During her tenure at Skadden, she coauthored an amicus brief on behalf of Members of Congress in the 2003 Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger, which considered the use of affirmative action policies in college admissions. She then went on to serve as a Federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Michigan for 18 years, where she led substantial investigations and handled hundreds of cases at every stage of litigation, from inception to post-judgment. The American Bar Association unanimously rated Ms. DeClercq ``qualified'' to serve on the district court, and she has the strong support of Senators Stabenow and Peters. With more than two decades of litigation experience--the vast majority of which has been in government service--Ms. DeClercq is well positioned to handle the demands of the Eastern District of Michigan from day one. I thank my colleagues for supporting her nomination.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Judge Brendan Hurson to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Born in Washington, DC, Judge Hurson received his B.A. from Providence College and his J.D. from the University of Maryland Carey School of Law. After clerking for Judge Margaret B. Seymour of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Judge Hurson began his legal career at Schulman, Hershfield, and Gilden, PA as an associate, where he worked on a variety of civil and criminal litigation matters on behalf of individuals, small businesses, and small to mid-size corporations. He then went on to work as an assistant Federal public defender in both Maryland and the U.S. Virgin Islands, where he appeared in court routinely, litigated substantive motions in close to 40 Federal cases, and tried 18 cases to verdict. In February 2022, Judge Hurson was appointed to serve as a U.S. magistrate judge for the same district to which he is nominated. In his time on the bench, he has written approximately 77 opinions. The American Bar Association unanimously rated Judge Hurson ``well qualified'' to serve on the district court, and he has the strong support of Senators Cardin and Van Hollen. Judge Hurson's deep ties to the Maryland legal community, combined with his significant courtroom experience, make him an excellent addition to the Federal bench. I thank my colleagues for supporting his nomination.

Mr. DURBIN

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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 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.

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. I yield the floor.

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. Mr. President, another point I would like to make is that over the weekend, we managed to avoid a government shutdown with a 45- day extension, a bipartisan continuing resolution. Keeping the lights on is a win for the American people. It used to be considered just normal procedure around here. Now it is a reason for celebration and victory because we have such a discordant and dissident group heading up Congress on both sides of the Rotunda. I am disappointed that, unfortunately, the continuing resolution did not include critical funding for the war in Ukraine. It is impossible to explain to my constituency why, when the Ukrainians are in the midst of fighting and dying every single day for their nation against the war criminal Vladimir Putin, this Congress somehow or another managed to pass a spending bill for 45 days and not include more funding for the Ukrainian cause. This assistance is absolutely essential to make sure we stop the aggression of Russia against this tiny country. A small group of isolationists and Russian sympathizers--largely MAGA extremists in the House--threatened to hold the entire country, the United States, hostage over this funding despite the overwhelming bipartisan support for Ukraine. Ronald Reagan and John McCain must be turning over in their graves. I am glad that after the vote on Saturday, Senators Schumer, McConnell, Murray, Collins, Coons, and Graham released a joint, bipartisan statement reaffirming the Senate's commitment to supporting Ukraine and addressing the funding in the weeks ahead. I couldn't agree more. Let's keep this in perspective. The American people have been generous to Ukraine, but this critical assistance that has halted and reversed Russian aggression accounts for only about one-half of 1 percent of all the Federal spending in our country. So for a modest investment by U.S. standards, we are keeping hope and freedom alive in Ukraine while they are offering their lives. Our European allies have stepped up and provided even more assistance than the United States, and I am glad they have. It is a joint effort. Quite simply, Putin is willing to keep sending Russian conscripts to their death in the hopes that we in the democratic transatlantic alliance will get tired of his war of tyranny. I hope we never do. Putin is counting on the West, NATO, the United States to grow weary of his Ukrainian war of attrition. We cannot let him prevail by this approach. We have to be organized and unified in our effort.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on a separate issue, I would like to address the announced retirement of U.S. GEN Mark Milley. On January 17, 1961, 3 days before he was to leave office, President Dwight Eisenhower addressed the American people. His political farewell to the Nation surprised a lot of people. They expected him to give the ``old soldier's speech,'' like Douglas McArthur. Instead, Eisenhower surprised many by issuing a strong warning about the dangers of the ``military-industrial complex.'' He described that complex as a ``conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry'' and ``[w]e must not fail to comprehend its grave implications'' of that alliance. His words were a warning to his successors of one of the many dangers they could face in the coming years. The words are often quoted because they were so surprising. I thought of President Eisenhower's warning just last Friday when I heard the parting words of another military leader who served our Nation with wisdom, courage, and unwavering devotion--GEN Mark Milley, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In his farewell address, General Milley spoke of those in uniform who have died defending our freedoms, of the many who have shed blood and sacrificed limbs in that cause, and of brokenhearted Gold Star families who have lost loved ones. Then he said that the U.S. military exists for one purpose, in his words: ``to defend democracy.'' ``Our military,'' he said, ``is unique among the world's militaries.'' Why? Because, in General Milley's powerful words, ``We don't take an oath to a country. We don't take an oath to a tribe . . . to a religion . . . to a king, or queen, or a tyrant or a dictator. And we don't take an oath to a wannabe dictator.'' We take an oath, he said, to the Constitution, to the ideas, ideals, and values of democracy. That, he said, is our ``moral North Star.'' Obviously, General Milley has a sense of history. He realizes that despite the strength of our military, the real strength of America is written in the Constitution, which we have all sworn to uphold. He rose to the occasion time and again, particularly under former President Donald Trump. I had private conversations with him over the years. The question I had to ask him was very carefully scripted. I said to him: If you were given a choice between Commander in Chief or the Constitution, which one prevails? He said: That is simple--the Constitution. That was the North Star he lived by as general of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He served our Nation in uniform for 43 years. He was a combat infantryman and Green Beret. General Milley served 5 years in combat zones, including Iraq and Afghanistan. He knows the meaning of service and sacrifice, and he knows the value of offering your life for this country and its Constitution. He was appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by former President Trump and continued in the post under President Biden. His four years as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were some of the most tumultuous in recent history. They included many successes. They included helping Ukraine to defend against Russia's illegal invasion and helping to unite NATO. The NATO alliance has never been stronger. And we can thank President Biden, but also General Milley and all those in uniform who made that possible on our side of the Atlantic. We need to make sure that that security alliance is stronger in the years to come to stop war criminals like Vladimir Putin. There were also grave dangers, including an armed insurrection against the government of the United States right here in this Chamber, under General Milley's watch. I know he measured carefully exactly what response we could bring to the occasion; that insurrection mob was a total surprise to so many. But his greatest test may have been containing the impulses of a former President who didn't understand the role of the military--and I have to offer, I don't think he basically understands the Constitution--a President who reportedly wanted to use troops, American soldiers, to suppress legitimate demonstrations by the public, exercises of their right to speech, and who prized loyalty to himself over loyalty to our Constitution. That was the force General Milley was up against. In recent days, that former President has told his followers that in times past, General Milley's actions would have resulted in execution. Can you imagine he said that, former President Trump said that of General Milley? Once again, a thinly veiled exhortation to political violence from the former President. As members of this Senate, we take an oath to protect and defend not a party or a President, but the ideals and values of our Constitution. May we all honor that oath with the same dignity, courage, and strength of character as General Milley. And my parting word is gratitude to his family, to his wife Hollyanne, his son Peter, and daughter Mary. I thank the family. How many sleepless nights must have been a part of that household, wondering if the father and the husband would come home safely. Well, he did, and thank God he did, because he brought America home with him. He deserves some time off. He said he is going to try to get some rest. But I am sure he is going to be in demand. A man of his character and reputation deserves it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my honor to represent the State of Illinois and the city of Chicago. I cannot tell you how many times Members of the Senate and the House in the other party have gone to the microphones to condemn the city of Chicago and its crime rate. Let me tell you point-blank, there is too much crime in the city of Chicago, but it is not the only city in America that suffers from that problem. Cities large and small have problems every single day with violent gun crime. My hometown of East St. Louis is a tiny little town of 20,000, 25,000 in comparison to the large metropolis of Chicago. Yet the rate of gun violence there is even higher in East St. Louis than it is in Chicago. We have to do everything we can to deal with it. Let me tell you what ``everything we can'' means. It means we have to look at the flood of guns coming into these cities from out of State, primarily, without background checks, that are getting into the hands of criminals, who are turning around and killing innocent people. To ignore this flood of guns in the United States of America and condemn crime is to basically take a position that you are not going to look at reality. And that is what we are faced with. We have to have a sensible policy when it comes to background checks, universal background checks, to make sure guns are not ending up in the hands of people who will misuse them. When they confiscate thousands of guns every year, which they do in Chicago, they find that they come from the surrounding States, which have lax laws, if any, when it comes to checking the background of purchasers. That is a critical element. If you raise that issue on the floor of the U.S. Senate, you will have the whole side of the aisle--the other side--coming here and waving their arms about Second Amendment rights. I want to tell you, we need common sense when it comes to guns and gun safety. I want that to be part of the conversation on making our cities safer. The second thing I want to really raise is personal to the Senate. If you want to stop crime in the streets of Chicago or any city--Cleveland or Chicago, for example--one of the first things you need is a competent, aggressive criminal prosecutor, a person known as a U.S. attorney who works as part of the 85 U.S. attorneys across the United States enforcing the strong Federal laws we have enacted. So why don't we have a U.S. attorney in the city of Chicago? Why don't we have a U.S. attorney in the city of Cleveland? Because of the objections of one Republican Senator who has come to the floor over and over again to stop these appointments from taking place. The nominees have been cleared. They have gone through background checks. Both sides, Democrats and Republicans, have approved them. They are sitting on the calendar, and they cannot move because one Senator from the State of Ohio, a Republican Senator, refuses to lift his hold and give us a chance to vote on them. So you can give all the speeches you want on the floor of the U.S. Senate from every Member on the other side about how we have to end crime in the city of Chicago, but do me a favor. Speak to this one Senator and convince him that a competent, aggressive criminal prosecutor as U.S. attorney in the city of Chicago is one step toward that goal. To ignore that and to let him hold up this nominee is just unfathomable and inexcusable.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from Michigan (Mrs. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it is interesting that we have got a new argument. Previously, he said: I have no objection to these nominees. I just don't like the process. I want a vote. I said: Fine. You can have a vote. Now when we ask for a vote on the two remaining nominees for U.S. attorney, he is finding fault with those individuals. I hope he will take the time--and I know he is a fair person--to read the record about what Ms. Perry did when she worked for the State's attorney, Kim Foxx. It is true there was a controversial case before her office and that she was the chief ethics officer in the Cook County State's Attorney's Office. She served in that office at the time the Jussie Smollett matter was being investigated, but Ms. Perry' role as chief ethics officer was limited to recommending that State's Attorney Foxx recuse herself and that the office seek the appointment of a special prosecutor. Notably, Ms. Perry resigned from that office a few weeks after the prosecutors initially agreed to drop the charges against Mr. Smollett. She has never been implicated, and to throw her name into this situation is unfair. I am sure the Senator from Ohio doesn't want to do that. So listen to what he suggests--and I am glad Senator Reed is on the floor, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Does it sound familiar? We have a group of people--of nominees--who have come before us who have been considered throughout history in a routine, unanimous consent way, and now the Senator from Ohio says we have to go one by one and have a cloture motion on each one of them. You and I both know, having been here a few years, what that means. It is physically impossible, whether we are talking about officers in the military or U.S. attorney nominees, to say we will just stack them up on the calendar and go through cloture votes, and it is unnecessary. If we didn't single out a single U.S. attorney nominee in the Trump administration but gave voice votes to all 85, it is an indication of an effort of good will and bipartisanship even when we are suspicious of what the political agenda may be of that Department. To hold some of these people--the U.S. attorney for his own home State, the city of Cleveland--to hold this person to this kind of scrutiny that goes way beyond anything we usually have been involved in is unfair to her, and it is unfair to the process and the system. I am going to return to the floor. The Senator from Ohio and I are going to be pretty familiar fixtures on this floor because if you say something in the Congressional Record, as he did--that all he wants is a rollcall, and we offered a rollcall, just as I did, and he denies it over and over--he has some explaining to do. If he thinks that standing up for the MAGA process here is something the American people admire, I beg to differ with him. We understand that the Department of Justice has an important job to do to keep us safe in our communities, and for someone to say--for a Senator from the U.S. Senate to say, ``I will hold all [DOJ] nominations. . . . We will grind [the Justice Department] to a halt,'' really? That is your agenda? That is why you came to the Senate? If the Department of Defense is being ground to a halt because of the promotions of officers and to do the same thing at the Department of Justice, and we are facing a government shutdown because of MAGA Members of the House of Representatives, the American people have a good picture, a good photograph, of the future if we go down one particular path in terms of the future of politics in America. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Senate's need to swiftly confirm any U.S. attorney nominees. Two days ago, I came to the floor to request unanimous consent for the Senate to take up and confirm four pending U.S. attorney nominations that were being held up by one U.S. Senator, the junior Senator from Ohio, Senator Vance. Two days ago, he said: My position is we should have a full Senate vote on each one of these . . . Justice Department nominations. He also said: [I]f it's so important to confirm these folks, bring them to the floor for a vote. But now that is exactly what he is attempting to prevent today. For decades, the Senate confirmed U.S. attorney nominees of both political parties by voice vote or what is called unanimous consent in the Senate after they had been reported by the Judiciary Committee. Before the beginning of the Biden administration, the Senate had not required a rollcall vote on the confirmation of a U.S. attorney since 1975--almost 50 years. In fact, during the Trump administration, Senate Democrats allowed every one of Trump's U.S. attorney nominees--all 85-- to move through the committee and be confirmed by voice vote, unanimous consent. Let me tell you, as a Democrat in those days, I knew what I was getting with these U.S. attorneys working for Jeff Sessions, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and William Barr. I knew what was going to happen, but I respected the tradition of the Senate. Now Senate Republicans have decided to change the rules and are blocking the confirmation of these critical law enforcement officers. I have faced this before. Republicans had said they were going to object to U.S. attorneys but fortunately had better thoughts on the subject as time progressed. Now, this year, the Senator from Ohio has proudly announced that he will--I will quote him, in fact: ``I will hold all [DOJ] nominations. . . . We will grind [the Justice Department] to a halt.'' Grind the Justice Department to a halt. U.S. attorneys are too important to be used as political pawns in a national debate. They lead our Nation's effort to prosecute violent criminals. Don't tell me that you are for law and order, but you want to stop criminal prosecutors from being appointed to the job. They lead our Nation's effort to protect our communities from drug trafficking. I quoted some numbers the other day about drug trafficking and fentanyl deaths in the State of Ohio, the State where one of these U.S. attorneys would be going to work, in the Cleveland area. Ohio runs fourth in the Nation in narcotics deaths, and for the Senate to respond by having one Senator from Ohio stopping the appointment of a criminal prosecutor to go after these cartels or drug gangs is not explainable. So I offered Senator Vance the opportunity to allow us to schedule confirmation votes on all pending U.S. attorneys. I want to read exactly what he said from the Congressional Record, which, of course, is the permanent record of the Senate and will be read by future generations. This was on September 27, 2 days ago. Here is what Senator Vance said: I am the new guy, and I recognize that I am a little naive when it comes to matters of the procedures in the U.S. Senate. But I have had a lot of jobs in my life; and yesterday we passed one vote and today we have passed zero votes. The time that we have spent debating whether we should have unanimous consent over these nominations, we could actually use to vote on these nominations and end this charade and call it out for what it is. If we believe that these nominees must go forward, let's just have a vote on it. Allow me to scrutinize them. Allow my colleagues to vote them up or down. That is a totally reasonable thing to ask of this Chamber and to ask of this leadership; and because of that, I object. Well, I accepted his challenge. I took his words to be heartfelt and truthful, that he wanted votes. So today we had two votes on two of the U.S. attorneys, considered by the Senate, which is exactly what the Senator from Ohio asked for. But there are two more on the calendar that he held up initially. He said on the floor during our debate that these weren't people he was necessarily objecting to but that somebody else in the Senate might be objecting to. I didn't know what that meant, but I wanted to give him the time to find out who that might be. It turns out there is no one else--he is the only objector--even though he said on the record, in the Congressional Record, that all he wanted was a rollcall vote on these nominees. Well, he is going to get the chance to keep his word that he put in the Congressional Record, and he is going to get a chance to have the vote he asked for. It is only fair. If we did it for the first two, we will do it for the others. Let me repeat it again. Senator Vance did not only refuse to move these nominees by voice vote, as the Senate has done for decades, he is now backtracking on his own words from 2 days ago and is refusing even to allow rollcalls on these nominees. This kind of obstructionism is becoming commonplace, I am afraid. If you take a look at this Executive Calendar that we have here, there are pages and pages of military officers who have served this country nobly and honorably who are asking for a simple promotion they are entitled to. They are being held up by another Republican Senator who doesn't want to move forward on this, holding them for 6 months from promotion. Is this the new way of doing business under a MAGA regime? I hope not. Rebecca Lutzko is nominated to be U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Ohio. She is a longtime Federal prosecutor who has served as assistant U.S. attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Ohio for nearly 18 years. As a Federal prosecutor, she handles cases involving prescription drug trafficking, gun crimes, and corruption. Important? You bet it is. April Perry is nominated to be U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. She has significant experience in the private sector and as a Federal prosecutor. She served in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois for over a decade, where she handled narcotics, gang violence, public corruption, and fraud. Important? You bet it is. Ms. Perry specialized in child exploitation prosecutions and spent 6 years as the office's Project Safe Childhood coordinator. Are you concerned, as I am, about the exploitation of children, the trafficking of children, the terrible sexual abuse that is taking place on the internet? Do you think we ought to have the Department of Justice on that case? Of course we should. One week ago, Senator Vance was quoted as saying, ``My objection is not to the specific qualifications of these particular individuals who have been nominated.'' So, here, he is not complaining about any of their resumes or their capacity to do the job and do it effectively. His concern--and he said it publicly, so I think I am going to accurately quote him--his concern is that the former President of the United States was indicted, and he is very concerned about a Department of Justice that would even let that happen. For goodness' sake, things happened in the Department of Justice's activities during the administration of Donald Trump that I objected to, but I didn't stop the appointments of U.S. attorneys under Trump. I didn't stop the people in law enforcement, who are keeping us safe in our communities. These are ably qualified individuals. I am asking Senator Vance: In good faith, keep your word. What you said in the Congressional Record is a matter of record, and you should stand by your word. For that reason, I make the following motion: I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 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; and that the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, we mourn the death of a trailblazer, my colleague and friend Senator Dianne Feinstein. I have been privileged to have known Dianne throughout her entire career in this Chamber and my entire time as well. She was my friend and seatmate on the Senate Judiciary Committee for over 20 years. When you are that close to someone politically--day in, day out, week in, week out--you pick up on the things that mean the most to her. Certainly, her family was the highest priority to her, over all things, but her life experience created what we know as the legacy of Dianne. How many times she told the story of serving on the pardon and parole board for the State of California--the cases that she remembered in detail that had occurred decades ago stuck with her and inspired her when it came to her service on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I think that situation also inspired her when it came to legislation, where she was looking for fairness. We certainly all know her efforts in dealing with the Violence Against Women Act. That was an extraordinary effort by her, on a bipartisan basis with Senator Murkowski, Senator Collins, Senator Ernst, Senator Patty Murray, and so many others. In addition to that, she recounted many, many times that terrible, unimaginable tragedy when the mayor of San Francisco was killed along with Harvey Milk, a commissioner. She was there at the bloody scene afterward. She recounted that so many times in the midst of her debates over an assault weapons ban. Think about that assault weapons ban. It was almost the holy grail in politics. So many people said that is the one thing we absolutely have to do; it has to be done. She did it. She, along with Senator Schumer, who was then a House Member, put together the bill that established an assault weapons ban and reduced the number of deaths in America by gunfire. They did it, and she was the leader, inspired by that terrible tragedy with Mayor Moscone. I can also remember, there was a time, years ago, when we engaged in debate in this Chamber on stem cell science and biology. It was a complicated debate. Many of us liberal arts lawyers were lost as they went into the detail. Dianne not only led that debate; she had mastered the subject. And time and again in the caucus, when we would discuss it, she would be the one to stand up and straighten everyone out on the basics. She was a gifted person in that regard. But I do want to say that there is one thing that Senator Collins noted that I noted many times. Members of the Senate, in the committee hearings, were given a notepad in front of them--the Senate Judiciary Committee was no exception--and a pencil nearby to make notes in the course of our business. Sitting next to Dianne all those years, I can't tell you how many flowers I saw her draw on those notepads. I asked her for one, one time. She signed it, and I have kept it. But it is an indication of the sweetness and the elegance in her life; that, on the one hand, she could be arguing the most serious life-and-death issues in the committee but, on the other hand, show that kind of dignity and determination to bring the human side to the debate. She was one of the best, and I was honored to call her a friend. There were many times that she made the rollcall in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the last year or 2, when I know it was an extraordinary sacrifice. She was going to show up because that was her responsibility. I respected her so much for that. And the committee divided 11 to 10, I needed her. She knew it, and she was there. She answered the call. She served California with such distinction. She often talked about her beloved Golden State, but we all know that she was also a treasure to the Nation. Dianne Feinstein inspired many, particularly many women, to public service. She served California well, and she served our Nation, and it was my honor to serve with her. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is that time of year again--ending the month of September, starting a new fiscal year. We have a responsibility we accept as Members of Congress to do some things: Answer rollcalls, respond to our constituents, keep the lights on in the Federal Government. The third issue is one which we are contesting this week. The Senate, I believe, has taken a responsible, thoughtful approach to this. It gets down to basics. There are 51 Democrats, 49 Republicans, effectively, and most measures of consequence require more than a majority vote. So the decision was made by both Senator Schumer and Senator McConnell to put together a continuing resolution, which is a stopgap spending measure, on a bipartisan basis so that we would have bipartisanship as the starting point. They achieved that. They achieved that in a way that surprised a lot of people because we had a procedural vote in the Senate on the Senate bipartisan continuing resolution and 77 Senators voted in favor. Now, 77 Senators in the U.S. Senate is more than just a supermajority; it is a pretty impressive number, and it doesn't happen very often. On Tuesday evening, the Senate Appropriations Committee chair, Senator Patty Murray of Washington, working with Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine, released a text of the bipartisan continuing resolution. It spelled out what we think needs to be done to keep the government open and functioning for about 6 or 7 weeks, until November 17, giving us time to negotiate a budget for remainder of the year. I would quickly add that the efforts of Senator Murray and Senator Collins in the Appropriations Committee leading up to this moment were historic in nature. It has been more than 5 years, I believe, since we have come to the floor and actually debated spending bills and actually amended spending bills on the floor. We usually are faced with short- term spending bills or omnibus bills that combine the entire budget in one massive piece of legislation. But Senators Murray and Collins had us moving in the right direction, a bipartisan direction, and that is evidenced as well in their efforts in this continuing resolution. This continuing resolution does more than keep the lights on. It includes crucial emergency assistance and program extensions. It includes $6.5 billion to maintain our commitment to Ukraine and $6 billion to help FEMA respond to federally declared disasters, including one in my State of Illinois, where 20 counties are working to recover from the impact of summer storms. It would prevent a lapse in funding for critical healthcare efforts, like community healthcare centers. I am sure the Presiding Officer has visited many of these centers in his State. I have in my State. It really is one of the more amazing products coming out of the Affordable Care Act. I can remember when Senators met at the last minute and demanded that we fund these community healthcare clinics as part of the bill. It was a stroke of genius. It meant that people of limited means would have access to quality medical care. I have said, and it is not political puffery, that if I were seriously ill, I would gladly visit one of these clinics and seek treatment because I think they are that good. Also, there is the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. It is one thing to give a speech about families and mothers, mothers surviving pregnancy, and about children, young children, getting off to a strong start in life; it is another thing to put bread on the table. The WIC Program puts bread on the table. In our continuing resolution, we keep the lights on at that Agency. It is the right thing to do. We would also extend the authorization to the Federal Aviation Administration through December 31. How important is safety in airline travel? Critically important. If you remember the last time there was a threat of shutting down the government, it was the people responsible for regulating and keeping our planes safe that convinced us we could no longer play that game. I hope we don't have to go through that experience again. This week, 77 Senators recognized that bipartisanship was the solution to avoiding a shutdown. That includes the leaders of both parties, the Democratic chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the ranking member, whom I have noted. Unfortunately, over in the House, it is just an exercise in chaos. Speaker McCarthy has declared the bipartisan Senate continuing resolution is dead on arrival. Our bipartisan bill, worked out with both sides of the aisle, that won 77 votes, he has dismissed as unacceptable. For reasons beyond my understanding, he has chosen the far-right rebellion of a few MAGA House Republicans over the continued, orderly function of our government. He has chosen to put bipartisanship and politics above the American people. For however long it takes the Speaker to gain control of this small faction of his party, essential social services will be slowed, Federal employees and military servicemembers will go without paychecks for their families. This group of extreme Republicans is intent on slashing millions from social programs, attaching their political agenda for our border before they will even begin to discuss keeping the government open. The American people deserve better. I just left a meeting of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary where Senator Graham raised the legitimate concern about what is happening at our border. We are being swamped with people seeking entry into the United States. This is not unusual. If you look around the world, that is happening in many places. There are so many people now who have been dislocated from their homes that the refugee experts tell us there is no record of such a number in the modern history of the world. It is no surprise that the United States, as a prize destination, is feeling that pressure. Why would it make sense, I would say to Speaker McCarthy, for us to shut down the government and take the men and women who are along the border now, trying to keep us safe, and make a dramatic budget cut in their Agency? It is just the opposite of what we need. We need the resources and the personnel to have an orderly process at our border. Shutting down the government fails to meet that responsibility. The group of extreme Republicans intent on slashing millions on social programs and attaching their political agenda to the border say that they want to discuss these issues before any serious measure is considered. The American people deserve better. We are not a bargaining chip. A shutdown would harm every American who relies on government services. It would halt small business loans and, if you can imagine, stall medical research at the National Institutes of Health and jeopardize nutrition assistance for low-income women, infants, and children. It would delay food safety inspection and deprive children access to Head Start. It would likely cause travel delays because more than 13,000 air traffic controllers and 50,000 TSA officers would be forced to work without pay. It would also furlough 1,000 air traffic controllers who are now being trained for filling the vacancies critically important at that Agency. Shutdowns are slowing down our economy progress and jeopardizing jobs and future economic growth. They also tell the world that, in America, politics can rule. It can get in the way of basically paying our bills, providing service to our people, and conducting day-to-day business that keeps our Nation afloat. The last three government shutdowns led to 56,940 years in lost productivity and cost the government at least $338 million in additional costs and late fees. That is American taxpayer dollars that are being wasted because of this shutdown. The last full shutdown in 2013 reduced gross domestic product growth by $20 billion, and a 5-week partial shutdown in 2018 reduced economic output by $11 billion. I urge my House Republican colleagues to resist making shutdowns a 5- year tradition in their party. If we have the option of keeping the government funded while we continue to negotiate a longer term funding plan, why put the Nation through this pain? Funding the government is one of the essential parts of this job. It is time that we meet our responsibility and do it in a way that doesn't disrupt America's livelihood and well-being. We need to finish the full-year appropriations process and do it in a responsible way. I urge my colleagues in both Chambers to choose bipartisanship and pass the Senate continuing resolution so we can continue the important process of funding the government in a grownup, responsible way for the year 2024. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith), and the Senator from Mississippi (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, regulations enacted in the European Union went into effect that cover more than a dozen of the world's biggest tech platforms. This includes online marketplaces, app stores, and social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram. The European Union regulations address a host of harmful practices, including preventing targeted advertising, minimizing illegal content and hate speech, and, most importantly, protecting kids from horrible content. If companies fail to comply in the European Union, they could be fined up to 6 percent of their annual global revenue. They can also be banned from operating in the European Union countries. This shows that Big Tech can be regulated. It is possible to craft rules to protect our families without breaking the miracle of the internet. In contrast to what has happened in Europe, here in the United States, Congress has failed to regulate high tech. And while we sit on our hands, other nations are moving ahead and shaping the rules of the digital world. Worse than that, while we fail to act, children are left in harm's way. We can, and we must, regulate Big Tech to protect our kids. Let me tell you about one young man named Cornell Johnson. He is from Illinois. He is a man who preyed on 17 victims, ranging in age from 4 to 17 years old and located across 8 States. His tool of choice: Facebook. Johnson would set up profiles claiming to be a woman and then use these Facebook profiles to contact girls all over the country. First, he would entice these girls to send him sexually suggestive images of themselves in various stages of undress. Then he would use these images to coerce the victims into sending him sexually explicit content. He would threaten to post the nude pictures online unless the young victims submitted to his demands for still more explicit images. Horrifically, Johnson also directed his teenaged victims to sexually abuse younger children in their household and send him the images. He was prosecuted and sentenced to 45 years in Federal prison. Johnson was held accountable for his conduct, but what about Facebook? Johnson could not have committed his crimes without the social media platform. He could not have sexually exploited those 17 children in 8 different States. Yet our current law, as written, shields Facebook from any accountability for the role they played in making Cornell Johnson's crimes possible. Sadly, there are many examples where Big Tech is failing children in America. Earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal exposed how Instagram's algorithms are connecting pedophiles and guiding them to locations where they can purchase child sexual abuse material. The platform permitted searches with terms associated with child abuse so vile that I won't repeat them in this Chamber. Senator Lindsey Graham and I wrote to Meta, Instagram's parent company, in June asking for answers to explain these algorithms. We are still waiting. On X, formerly known as Twitter, Elon Musk reinstated the account of a user who was banned for tweeting an image of a toddler being tortured. As of late July, that image had drawn more than 3 million views and 8,000 retweets. A study released in June found that Twitter failed to stop the uploading of copies of known child sexual abuse material, CSAM. The study also found that Twitter would sometimes allow accounts to remain active until they had uploaded CSAM multiple times. Elon Musk's claims of a zero-tolerance policy for child exploitation on his platform doesn't reflect the disturbing reality. Another company failing our children is Apple. In 2021, the company paused its plan to detect CSAM uploaded to its cloud service. Then last month, Wired published a letter from Apple in which the company confirmed it will make no effort to address child sexual abuse material stored on its platform. Apparently, Apple views permitting this ongoing child sexual exploitation as an acceptable and necessary cost of protecting their right to privacy. But I believe we can live in a world where user privacy and child safety can coexist, and I believe I have written a bill that does just that. My STOP CSAM Act will end Big Tech's free ride and give victims a way to hold these companies accountable for their failure to stop online child sexual exploitation and, in some cases, for their actions that make it worse. Importantly, the bill achieves this goal in a manner that will avoid any unintended impact on technology that protects privacy. The STOP CSAM Act is the product of extensive consultations with stakeholders. It passed out of the Judiciary Committee, which I chair, unanimously--every Democrat, every Republican supported it--and I am working to bring it to the floor. The Senate must act. Our failure to do so will preserve the status quo where our children are being sexually exploited online every single day. What a nightmare. As a father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, you think all the time: What are they looking at on those phones all day long? What is on those screens? What message is being sent to them? What is changing them from that experience? And what can I possibly do as a parent or grandparent to police what is going on there? We need to have the law on our side. Sure, I want to be certain to recognize the basic fundamental constitutional rights in our country, but I have to acknowledge as well that we aren't doing anything at this point. The current law says that these platforms are not responsible for whatever they do or fail to do. It is a get-out-of-jail-free card completely, and it has been that way for decades. We have to wake up to the reality of the year we live in and the reality of life in families across America. Even the most conscientious parents cannot know what is going on every hour of every day with children and these screens. The sexploitation which I outlined here in detail is happening, and what are we doing about it? If we are going to help Americans raise good kids--and we want them all to raise good kids--we have to give them the tools and we have to back them up with laws that say we are going to take it seriously. The European Union has done it, so why not the United States of America? It is time for us to make progress in this area for the good of our children. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the critical role that U.S. attorneys play in keeping America safe from the scourge of drugs--like opioids, fentanyl--gun violence and violent crime. Why are we on the floor? We are on the floor because one Senator has decided to stop the appointment of U.S. attorneys for the Department of Justice across the United States. He has picked four States--one is a pretty red State, Mississippi; California; Ohio, his own home State; and my State of Illinois--to stop the U.S. attorneys from being approved by the U.S. Senate. This is a pattern. The Senator from Alabama, Senator Tuberville, has stopped 300 military officers--career officers--from getting a promotion for more than 6 months. Many of these career officers, women and men, have fought in combat and risked their lives for America. We salute them every Memorial Day. We say that we love our veterans, and I certainly do. I'm sure the Senator from Ohio does too. And yet they are being treated so shabbily here in the U.S. Senate that the leading veterans organization in the United States of America is protesting what this Alabama Republican Senator is doing. He is stopping 300 of the best, highest ranked individuals who will lead our military in the world from being approved in the U.S. Senate for 6 months--more than 6 months. Does he have a specific complaint about any one of them? No. Just, categorically, this is his political approach: Let's stop all the military from a promotion. Is that fair to them and their families? I don't think so. Now let's take a look at this situation. The Senator from Ohio has decided he is upset with the Department of Justice. How upset is he? 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, he says. Well, let's see. Do the people at the Department of Justice, the U.S. attorneys, do they do anything important? Do we really need them? Well, how about starting with the issue of narcotics: 180,000 Americans died from narcotics last year--180,000. You might know some from your community, your church, your business. And 70,000 died from fentanyl. Let's talk about fentanyl for a minute. What is this narcotic? Well, it is the new and deadliest narcotic on the streets. Let me tell you a story that breaks my heart, because I know this couple. They had a daughter who graduated from college. She went to a party in Chicago. Marijuana is legal in Illinois. She decides to smoke a joint at a party. It has been laced with fentanyl, and she drops dead on the spot--22 years of age. Fentanyl is a deadly narcotic. Where does it come from? It comes from Mexico--mainly from Mexico. Two drug cartels are sweeping the United States and into Europe with the sale of fentanyl that is killing people right and left--last year, 70,000 Americans. Who is trying to fight the scourge of fentanyl? The Department of Justice--the same Agency that this Senator wants to grind to a halt. Are we going to declare a timeout and call Mexican cartels and say: Don't be selling your fentanyl for a while because we are going to make sure you don't have leadership that you need in your department. How can we do something that irresponsible? Don't stand up and say you are for law and order, you are for law enforcement, and then turn around and stop the appointment of U.S. attorneys who prosecute the criminals who are responsible for the narcotics sales. I came to the floor last week and asked unanimous consent for the Senate to take up and confirm these nominations. They are nominations of Todd Gee, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi. If you think this is partisan, let me tell you the whole story. Todd Gee is from Mississippi with two Republican Senators. Both Republican Senators approved his appointment as U.S. attorney. Is this political? Both Republican Senators are supporting the nominee that is being held by another Republican Senator. It doesn't make sense. Tara McGrath--the request was made by the Senator from California just a few moments ago. She wants to be the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California, eminently qualified, no controversy with her nomination. Rebecca Lutzko--now this is interesting--to be U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, the same State as the Senator who is now objecting to it. He approved her. She went through the committee. She came out and was reported to the floor, and now she is being held up. Well, let's take a look here. Does Ohio have a narcotics problem? Let me make sure we get this right. Oh, my. In the last year, Ohio had 5,155 drug overdose deaths, the fourth highest overdose deaths in America. And the U.S. attorney who would be fighting these narcotics with the appropriate task force of the law enforcement is being held up by which Senator? The same State. The Senator from Ohio is holding up his own U.S. attorney to prosecute narcotics criminals. And it is not just drugs. In Cleveland, the largest city in the Northern District of Ohio, the number of homicides is up 30 percent compared to last year. Nearly 90 percent of all overall homicides in Cleveland this year has involved a firearm. The city has seen a 99 percent increase in vehicle grand theft, a Federal crime, so far in 2023. So to deal with the crime in the streets, to deal with the homicides, the firearm violations and the increase in vehicle grand theft, you count on one major prosecutor. Who is it? The U.S. attorney. So you have a vacancy in the U.S. Attorney's Office. The Senator from Ohio approves the person to fill the vacancy and then stops her nomination on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I can't follow his logic, unless you are determined to grind the Department of Justice to a halt, even at the expense of the people you represent, the people you were sent here to protect. Don't tell me you are for law and order in your own neighborhood when you stop the nomination of the U.S. attorney for no controversy. It makes no sense. U.S. attorneys are an integral part of our justice system in overseeing important operations that help protect our communities. They are empowered to prosecute all Federal criminal offenses. They play a critical role in enforcing the law. In the Northern District of Ohio, for example, the U.S. Attorney's Office led the response to a surge in fatal doses from fentanyl. It brought together doctors, State and local law enforcement, addiction specialists, and other stakeholders and created the U.S. attorney's Heroin and Opioid Task Force. This is in the Northern District of Ohio. This U.S. attorney is to fill the spot to lead that, but she is being held up on the calendar--by whom? The Senator from Ohio. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Ohio also recently secured the conviction of a drug trafficker who attempted to traffic 1 kilogram of fentanyl pills, which were made to look like oxycodone, into the State. In addition, the office coordinated with ATF on a 3-month violent-crime-reduction initiative in Cleveland that resulted in the arrest of 59 individuals who have been charged with firearms trafficking, narcotics, conspiracy, and other firearms offenses. Are these important? They would be important in Chicago. They would be important in Los Angeles. They are important, I am sure, in Cleveland and in other cities as well. These convictions are trying to keep people safe in their homes and communities and to reduce violent crime. The lead prosecutor--the lead Federal prosecutor--is a U.S. attorney. It is a vacant position we are trying to fill with a person with demonstrated competence to take it over--and who is holding it up but the Senator from Ohio. I don't understand it. When he ran for office, Senator Vance argued that he would ``fight the criminals and not the cops.'' Well, take a look at what is happening here. In this situation, the people we need to fight these criminals--the prosecutors--are being held up by the Senator before they can be voted on on the floor. He has pledged to be ``tough on crime'' and to support our brave law enforcement officers. In fact, just this May, he introduced a resolution in the Senate, saying he has ``support for the law enforcement officers of the United States.'' His resolution says: [T]he Senate . . . highly respects and values the law enforcement officers of the United States and greatly appreciates all that [they] do to protect and serve. The Senator's resolution then calls on ``all levels of government to ensure that law enforcement officers receive the support and resources needed to keep all communities . . . safe.'' Support and resources are great, but give them the job. The job is still vacant because the Senator is withholding his approval for them to move forward. I say to my colleagues: Reread the resolution he introduced last May, and take your own advice. Give these U.S. Attorneys' Offices the leadership they need to keep their communities safe. Now I would like to engage the Senator, if he doesn't mind, in a question. I listened carefully to what you said earlier in objecting to the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California. What is your position, if you wouldn't mind saying it, in terms of the vote on that nomination?

Mr. DURBIN. So you want a record vote for each U.S. attorney?