Floor Statements

Madam President, 49 years ago, the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Roe v. Wade. By an overwhelming, 7-2 vote, the Justices declared that a woman's choice to have an abortion is a constitutionally protected right.

For nearly five decades, the Supreme Court's holding in Roe v. Wade has ensured that millions of Americans can access their essential, reproductive healthcare rights. But today, Roe v. Wade is hanging by a thin thread. A majority of the current conservative Court appears poised to overturn Roe at the first opportunity. It is up to Congress to safeguard the protections guaranteed under Roe v. Wade by passing the Women's Health Protection Act, also known as WHPA.

For decades, abortion opponents have waged a relentless assault on women's right to choose. And for decades, the Supreme Court--even with conservative majorities--has protected the core principles of Roe. But the tides are turning rapidly.

In December, the Justices heard oral arguments in the case of a Mississippi law banning nearly all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Because the Mississippi law is clearly unconstitutional under Roe and its progeny, it was blocked by lower courts. But this Supreme Court, with its far-right majority, granted review anyway. And in their questioning, several conservative Justices seemed ready to overturn Roe.

This threat to women's health and freedom is unprecedented. In the words of U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of the Federal Government: ``The Court has never revoked a right that is so fundamental to so many Americans and so central to their ability to participate fully and equally in society.''

Even without the threat from the Supreme Court, the right of women to control their reproductive health and lives is under attack. Last year, lawmakers in 47 States introduced more than 560 laws imposing new restrictions on reproductive rights.

In the face of this unprecedented assault on reproductive rights, Congress must step up and pass WHPA. WHPA would protect the right to access reproductive healthcare, free from medically unnecessary restrictions, no matter where you live.

I commend Senator Blumenthal--the lead sponsor--and all of my colleagues who support this important and necessary measure, and I hope we will have bipartisan support in passing it.

(At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Madam President, most people would be stumped by the question I am about to ask, and that is, when it comes to the commission of crime, what is the largest criminal investigation in the history of the United States? The answer is January 6, 2021. Over 725 individuals have been charged with a Federal crime as a result of that insurrectionist mob that descended on the Capitol.

The reason I raise that is that we are going through regular-- sometimes daily, sometimes weekly--lectures from Republicans about who is soft on crime, who is really on the side of the American people when it comes to defending their homes and their families.

I listen to this debate on a regular basis as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Every single nominee who comes from the Biden White House is subject to being challenged as to whether they are going to defund the police or whether they are soft on crime. Yet I have to say that it is hard to explain that these same Republicans asking these pointed questions to nominees are nowhere to be found when it comes to discussing January 6, 2021. In fact, many of them were cheerleaders and apologists for the very

demonstrators who came into this United States Capitol.

To think that a national political party like the Republican Party of the United States of America branded this insurrectionist mob and their attack on the Capitol as ``legitimate political discourse''--that was the official statement, the unanimous statement of the Republican Party.

Now, a few Republican Senators have dissented. Thank you. But why haven't more? Why won't they step up and say a crime is a crime? If over 700 people descended on this Capitol and are being charged with a crime, they should have to pay the price, whatever it happens to be, because this just wasn't some idle political exercise. At the end of the day, we had 6 people dead as a result of that insurrectionist mob, including law enforcement officers, and 140 law enforcement officers attacked during the course of that day. We all saw the videos. There are plenty of them.

Imagine, if you will, the so-called innocent, legitimate political discourse travelers to Washington just happened to bring bear spray with them so they could spray police in the face with a poisonous compound that could, in fact, harm them and did. Does that sound like a group of political tourists to you? It doesn't to me. These are violent individuals who are being called to task for having assaulted this Capitol, broken down the windows and the doors, came in here aping along these desks in the Chamber, forcing the Vice President of the United States and Senators who were there that day--and I was one of them--to exit by the backdoor for their lives. And here we have this ``We are not soft on crime'' message from Republicans who are making excuses, not to mention the former President, Donald Trump, who said that given the opportunity, he would pardon these demonstrators. It is no surprise in light of what he has done in the past.

But being lectured to regularly by the Republicans about who respects law enforcement and who is soft on crime--most of them cannot answer the basic question of what they would do when it comes to the January 6 demonstrators, and the answer they give is totally insufficient.

Madam President, you know personally, because you were here on the floor yesterday, that isn't all of it. I listen to all this talk about prosecutors doing their job, and I can't help but think what we went through yesterday on the floor of the U.S. Senate when the junior Senator from Arkansas, a Republican Senator, stood here and vainly tried to defend what he is doing.

Do you know what he is doing? You do personally. He is stopping the appointment of U.S. attorneys, Federal prosecutors, in State after State, and he is stopping the appointment of U.S. marshals who keep those courtrooms safe and the judges safe and transport prisoners and seek out fugitives. He is personally stopping them from being appointed in the ordinary course of business in the U.S. Senate.

You have to ask yourself why. There must be a problem with their qualifications. No. There is not a single question being asked about the qualifications of these individuals.

Mr. Frierson in the State of Nevada, a person whom you and Senator Cortez Masto described on the floor yesterday who would be the U.S. attorney there, clearly is well qualified for that position. The same is true in Illinois.

Our choice, Senator Duckworth's and my choice for the U.S. marshal to serve in the Northern District of Illinois, is an individual with 30 years--30 years--of law enforcement experience, a chief of police in one of the larger suburbs in the city of Chicago.

Do we need the U.S. Marshal's Office to be reinvigorated and dedicated to its purpose? Of course we do. It wasn't that many years ago when the family of one of our highly respected Federal judges was literally murdered in their home by a deranged individual who didn't care for the way he was treated by that judge. It is a very real question of personal safety. Yet one Republican Senator from Arkansas is stopping the appointments of these U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals to execute the laws of the land.

Don't tell me you respect law enforcement, and don't tell me you want to fight crime and then turn around and tie the hands of the Department of Justice, keeping U.S. attorneys off the job and U.S. marshals away from their responsibilities. That is the reality.

If we are going to get serious about fighting crime--and I believe we should--it is all hands on deck. Every Federal law enforcement official should be doing their part. They cannot do their part when the junior Senator from Arkansas stops us from even approving their appointments to these positions. These appointments remain vacant, and we pay a price for it.

When we receive lectures from the minority leader or from others on the floor about respect for law and law enforcement, I would say he ought to start with his own caucus. He ought to call in the junior Senator from Arkansas and say: Enough. You are stepping on our message. We are trying to show that we are for law and order, and you are stopping the appointment of U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals who are dedicated to that purpose and risk their lives to do so.

That is not consistent with good law enforcement or sound law and order as far as I am concerned.

(Mr. BOOKER assumed the Chair.)

Let me conclude by saying that the nominees who come before the Senate for these judicial positions are a wide variety of individuals with amazing backgrounds--incredible backgrounds--and who are consistently rated unanimously ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. It is true that some of them used to sit at the other table in the criminal courtrooms, not at the prosecutor's table, but there is nothing wrong with some balance on the court, making sure that we have all points of view considered and certainly, above all, the law considered.

We hear, from time to time, compelling anecdotes, such as the one given by the minority leader related to Louisville, KY. I am not familiar with the details. But if we are serious about making America safer, we need to pull together on a bipartisan basis. We need to approve President Biden's budget, which provides more resources for law enforcement but also more resources for violence intervention.

The Presiding Officer knows personally, as mayor of a large city in New Jersey, that we can't arrest our way out of the crime problem in America. Certainly, we should pursue law enforcement measures and responses when necessary and apply the law without question, but it takes more than that. If we are going to reach into the communities around America and try to stop this violence before it occurs, then we have to look at other approaches.

I am happy to report that last week we announced the introduction of the Violence Against Women Act. This is a measure which, for 3 years, we have been trying to find common ground. We did it. We finally did it.

I want to salute Senator Feinstein as the lead Democratic sponsor. I was happy to join her.

I also want to salute Senators Lisa Murkowski and Joni Ernst, from Alaska and Iowa, respectively. They have done such extraordinary work in putting together a bill.

You say to yourself: How does this fit in with violence against women, the question of crime in America?

Well, I can tell you--the Presiding Officer knows this personally, and it is worth repeating--that I went to the juvenile facility in Cook County years ago and said: Who are these teenagers who came to the Earth in the usual way and then turned to gangs and guns and killing wantonly? What happened to these kids along the way?

Well, there are plenty of reasons and issues related to mental health, but one of the things that was compelling was the observation that over 90 percent of them had been victims of trauma. Trauma comes in many forms, not just physical trauma but to witness trauma on another person or to be a victim yourself, to have a home where there is no support, no encouragement, and no values being taught. Those kids are the ones who end up, many times, in these predicaments.

What can we do about it?

Well, we can probably arrest them after the crime has been committed, but that really doesn't solve the problem. We have got to do what we can to intervene in their lives at a stage when they can be saved. I don't believe that

everyone can be saved, but I do fundamentally believe in redemption and in our responsibility to engage in it.

That is why this Violence Against Women Act is so important. If we can reach into a home where physical or mental abuse has taken place of a spouse or the children and give that person, first, a caring heart-- someone who will listen and hear them out--and then advise them on what to do to keep themselves safe and keep their kids safe and what to do in relation to law enforcement, that is a positive move toward taking violence out of that family and out of America.

So I hope that when we talk about this whole issue of a safer America, which we all aspire to, we do it in a balanced way; that we talk about effective prosecution by members of law enforcement who are playing by the rules and that we also realize it takes more than that. We need an investment in the communities to make a difference. President Biden knows that. He included it in this year's budget and will again in next year's budget. We ought to be standing up and supporting that as well.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Rosen) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) and the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Rosen) are necessarily absent.

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

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

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) are necessarily absent.

Madam President, I rise today to speak about the critical role played by U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals in keeping America safe.

Law enforcement is a team effort, and we need officials at the Federal, State, and local levels working together to stop crime in this country and to keep people safe in their homes and in their neighborhoods.

It was only 2 months ago when I came to the floor of this Senate to request unanimous consent for the Senate to take up and confirm five U.S. attorney nominations. Despite the outstanding credentials of all of these nominees, one Senator, the junior Senator from Arkansas, refused to allow the Senate to confirm five nominees for U.S. attorney positions by a voice vote--a tradition in the Senate. That Senator's objections had nothing to do with the nominees. He said so. They had nothing to do with their records and had nothing to do with their qualifications.

Well, after he was confronted on the floor of the Senate, he lifted his objections. We were able to get those U.S. attorneys confirmed and put them to work, and there is work to be done in every State in the Union to make this a safer nation.

We believe in law enforcement--we believe in it at every level--and when there is delay in putting professionals in place, that delay can cost lives. If you stand up and say ``I don't want to defund the police'' but then refuse to fill vacancies when it comes to law enforcement, that is inconsistent.

Sadly, we find ourselves in the same position today, 2 months later, with the same Senator from Arkansas. He is again objecting to the swift confirmation of U.S. attorney and U.S. marshal nominations. In short, this same Senator is making it increasingly difficult for us to prosecute violent criminals, track down fugitives, and protect Americans from gang violence, cybercrime, terrorism, and fraud.

It is worth taking a moment to consider what U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals do. The positions that they hold are nearly as old as the Nation itself. Both U.S. marshal and U.S. attorney positions were created by the Judiciary Act of 1789, passed by the First Congress, and signed into law by President George Washington.

The specific responsibilities have changed over time, but the core function is the same. This is the Federal answer to enforcing the law, prosecuting crimes, and protecting our communities. U.S. attorneys are charged with prosecuting all Federal criminal offenses. U.S. marshals have the responsibility of risking their lives to protect Federal judges and courthouses, tracking down fugitives, and assisting in locating and recovering missing children, just to mention a few. In short, U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals play a critical role in enforcing the law, promoting public safety, and protecting our communities.

So it is sad that this same junior Senator from Arkansas is blocking the confirmations of six U.S. attorneys and two U.S. marshals today. Doing so threatens public safety across America and puts millions of Americans at risk, including the most vulnerable.

Despite all of the tough talk we hear from many of these Senators on the other side of the aisle about their dedication to law and order and keeping America safe, it is a Republican Senator who refuses to take up and confirm these nominations in an expeditious way.

Before I ask for consent for the Senate to confirm the nominees, I would like to yield to the majority leader.

I thank the majority leader. I would like to just add: There must be those following the debate who are wondering, ``What is the basis for the junior Senator from Arkansas opposing these eight nominees? There must be something wrong with them. There must be something in their background that doesn't add up.''

Consider the variety of individuals who are being held up by the junior Senator from Arkansas: Ryan Buchanan, of Georgia, to be U.S. attorney for the Northern District; Jason Frierson, of Nevada, to be U.S. attorney for the District of Nevada; Andrew Luger, of Minnesota, to be U.S. attorney for the District of Minnesota--and the Senator from Minnesota will speak to that in just a moment--Mark Totten, of Michigan, to be U.S. attorney for the Western District of Michigan; Marisa Darden, of Ohio, to be U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Ohio; Delia Smith, of the Virgin Islands, to be U.S. attorney for the District of the Virgin Islands; Eddie Frizell, again of Minnesota, to be U.S. marshal for the District of Minnesota; and LaDon Reynolds, of Illinois, to be U.S. marshal for the Northern District of Illinois.

We looked especially at our own nominees very closely to make sure that they were qualified to take on these Federal positions. Several of my colleagues are going to come to the floor today to speak about the nominees being held up by one Senator, so rather than delving into the records of all of the eight nominees, let me just focus on the one in Illinois--Chief LaDon Reynolds, nominated to serve as U.S. marshal for the Northern District.

Chief Reynolds has served the people of Illinois for nearly 30 years. He joined the Oak Park Police Department in 1994, rising steadily through the ranks until his appointment in 2019 as chief.

In addition to his service at the Oak Park Police Department, Chief Reynolds serves on the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board, the Illinois Commission on Discrimination and Hate Crimes, and the Executive Board of the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police. In short, Chief Reynolds is eminently qualified to serve as U.S. marshal for the Northern District of Illinois. There is simply no valid basis to delay his confirmation.

And I have yet to hear the Senator from Arkansas come forward with a bill of particulars of why he has decided to single out the people whom I just mentioned, to deny them an opportunity to make communities safer across America. At a time of high crime and the need for a coordinated effort at every single level, there is absolutely no valid explanation of why these individuals are being withheld from their responsibilities in these communities.

We need to have law enforcement taken seriously and respected. Holding up nominations for no particular reason other than a political issue that may bother the Senator is certainly no reason for us to jeopardize the safety of innocent people living in these communities who depend on these Federal law enforcement officials to do their job.

At this point, I would like to make a unanimous consent request.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nominations en bloc: Calendar No. 660, 661, 662, 663, 739, 740, 741, and 742; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that any statement related to the nominations be printed in the Record and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, try to follow that logic, if you will. The Senator is so committed to law enforcement, he is so committed to U.S. marshals, he won't let us appoint people to fill vacancies.

He takes the case in Portland, OR, where he wrote a letter to the Department of Justice within the last 2 weeks asking for the status of their defense of these 74 individuals. Now, he knows, and we all know, that before we can take any action for anybody, we need a confidentiality waiver, a privacy statement. That is routine in all of our offices.

Each one of these individuals, despite the interest of the junior Senator from Arkansas, has their own legal right to determine whether or not they want to waive any privacy so that they can tell the public or discuss even with the Senator their plight and how they want to address it.

There is also something called the attorney-client privilege, which the Senator, I am sure, is aware of. That, too, is a privilege which allows the individual to deny ordinary access to information if they so choose. It is their decision.

So the complication of the situation is ignored by the Senator from Arkansas. He is valiantly standing for U.S. marshals that he won't appoint. He believes they are important and that they give their lives to their country--and many have--and yet he won't let them stand up and do that on behalf of our communities.

He wants an answer to his letter, and until he gets an answer to his letter, then we are not going to be able to put law enforcement in place to deal with crime in this country. We can make all the statements, run all the ads, make all the speeches on the floor about a concern for safety in our communities, and then the junior Senator from Arkansas says, ``I want you to be safe in your community, but you can't have a U.S. attorney to prosecute those would-be terrorists. You can't have a U.S. marshal for pursuit of fugitives from justice. You can't have a U.S. marshal to protect the courthouse for men and women who go to work there every day and risk their lives for the administration of justice.''

This is upside down. We are talking about 74 individuals. The Department of Justice has said they are going to defend 70 of them. One is a question, I assume, whether he was acting in the scope of his employment, and three are under review. And for that reason, this Senator has decided to stop the administration of justice in these jurisdictions or at least slow it down. That makes no sense whatsoever.

The basis for objecting to these individuals has nothing to do with their individual qualifications. He didn't raise a single question. All he said is, ``Your lawyers are going to have to wait,'' as if these were just lawyers waiting for a fee.

These are men and women willing to serve, as he serves, in public service. It is more than just lawyers--not that there is anything wrong with that category of Americans--but it is individuals who are willing to engage in public service.

And why are we in such a hurry? We are in the second year of this President's administration. It is time to fill these vacancies.

As Senator Schumer said earlier on the floor, there are several on the Republican side who just want to drag this out interminably in the hopes that they can stop the Biden administration from filling these vacancies.

My colleague from Arkansas asked whether the DOJ is representing Federal law enforcement personnel who protected the Federal courthouse in Portland. The FOX News headline about his letter said: ``Cotton places hold on DOJ nominees after refusal to defend US Marshals involved in Portland Antifa riots.''

Here is the reality. The Department of Justice often represents or pays private counsel to represent Federal employees sued in their individual capacity, but there are some constraints, and I have mentioned them. For example, regulations require that the Department of Justice can only represent employees for actions within the scope of their employment; for example, protecting the Portland courthouse, which clearly is within the scope. And the Department of Justice can only represent them if doing so would be in the interest of the United States. It clearly would be if they are defending against terrorists.

The Senator knows this. Do you know why he knows it? Because the

Department of Justice responded to his letter. He just didn't like the response--it didn't go far enough.

The Department said, ``The Department of Justice strongly supports the provision of representation to federal officers acting in the line of duty.'' The Department also told him that it represents or has paid for private counsel to represent 70 of these employees who have been sued in connection with the events in Portland, while denying only a single request for representation.

I don't know the facts of that denial. I don't know if there has been a privacy waiver signed. I don't know if this individual said, ``I have an attorney-client privilege, and I don't have to tell the Senator from Arkansas or anyone what the circumstances are.'' The Senator from Arkansas is now demanding to know why the Department of Justice denied this one request for representation and why it is still reviewing three others. That is right--he is blocking the confirmation of critical law enforcement officials across the United States until he gets an answer that he likes.

The DOJ has already explained that it cannot comment further--here is what they said--``in light of significant confidentiality interests and applicable privileges.'' As I mentioned earlier the privacy laws and attorney-client privilege.

``DOJ's regulations make it clear that communication about an employee's requests for representation are protected by the attorney- client privilege, and the Privacy Act prevents DOJ from disclosing the personnel record of an employee,'' and that is as it should be.

Let me be clear. These privileges protect the privacy of the very law enforcement personnel whose interests the Senator from Arkansas claims to represent.

My Republican colleagues frequently claim to be the party of law and order, but in this matter and others, they are the ones playing politics with law enforcement because the Department of Justice will not snap to the Senator's request and violate standing Federal laws; because they won't ignore and violate those laws of privacy and attorney-client privilege, he is prepared to endanger the communities and law enforcement until he gets his way.

I have heard my Republican colleagues time and again claiming that the Biden administration and Democratic mayors in big cities are responsible for violent crime. They claim that the increase in violent crime has nothing to do with the fact that America is awash in guns, that the reality is that the increase in violent crime started during the last administration, under President Trump. It is affecting communities led by both Republican and Democratic officials. And it is being driven by gun violence.

FBI statistics show that 77 percent of homicides in 2020 were committed with guns. In Chicago, that number is higher. Ninety-three percent of homicides last year in Chicago were committed by gun.

We face a gun violence crisis. The Judiciary Committee held five hearings last year on ways to reduce it. I am going to continue it this year. But if we are going to address this crisis, we are going to need Senators from both parties to show some courage and to admit that gun violence in America is a real problem.

We also need Republicans to stop defending the violent insurrection that took place right in this Chamber on January 6, 2021. The Senator was present. All of us were. We will never forget that day as long as we live. Five brave police officers lost their lives as a result of what the Republican National Committee in its official policy position calls ``legitimate political discourse.''

This is nothing new. Last year, Congress passed the American Rescue Plan--$350 billion for State and local governments. We made sure that funding was going to hire good law enforcement officials and invested in community violence intervention. Not a single Republican Senator approved it.

There are areas where we are working together on bipartisan legislation, and I hope we will continue to. Last year, President Biden signed three laws in that area.

I hope my Republican colleagues will take a lesson from today. If we are going to stand together, then let us all stand behind the Federal law enforcement team.

When President Trump asked for his team, Democrats in the Senate cooperated and gave those people to him. They weren't the people we would have chosen, but he was President and had the right to do his best to protect this Nation. So does President Biden.

President Biden has called for significant increases for our police in the Byrne Justice Program and the COPS Hiring Program, but this important funding has been delayed by debate over appropriations. We shouldn't delay the appointment of these key law enforcement officials either.

Again and again, Democrats are working to support law enforcement and to keep Americans safe. Sometimes we are joined in these efforts by Republicans and other times not, but there is no benefit to law enforcement when Senators block the confirmation of well-qualified U.S. attorney and U.S. marshal nominees, as we see today.

I urge the Senator from Arkansas to stand up for law enforcement. A political story on FOX is not worth undermining the lives of innocent Americans. We have to end this obstruction and let these nominees protect and serve.

I now yield to Senator Klobuchar.

Madam President, in the interest of allowing the Senators who are wishing to speak an appropriate amount of time and within the confines of our upcoming vote, I ask unanimous consent that there be 40 minutes, equally divided, between the majority and minority; that the majority side be recognized in the order of Senators Rosen, Cortez Masto, Duckworth, and Brown.

Would the Senator from Nevada yield for a point?

The FIRST STEP Act--the Democrats did the FIRST STEP Act, the Republicans were in the majority. It was a bill sponsored by Senators Grassley, Durbin, Lee, and many others. Who signed it into law? Donald Trump signed it into law, this so-called Democratic measure.

Will the Senator yield for a question? I ask the question through the Chair.

Has the Senator been given a privacy waiver by the one marshal that the Department of Justice is not going to defend?

How much time do we have? I am sorry. Go ahead.

Madam President, how much time do we have remaining?

Madam President, that last admission by the Senator from Arkansas tells the whole story. He doesn't even know why the Department is turning down representation of 1 person out of 74. They have agreed to represent 70 of these U.S. marshal employees, and they said they will represent them; and three are under review. One has been turned down; and he hasn't received a privacy waiver, so he doesn't know why. I don't know why either. But you know who is paying the price for it?

Millions of Americans who are asking for Federal law enforcement to be adequately staffed to do their job. The U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals that want to keep us safe and be part of the team to do that. And because this Senator suspects there may be something suspicious about this, he doesn't have a privacy waiver, he is going to hold up those officials throughout the United States and put their communities in peril. Tell me that that is devotion to law enforcement.

I yield back.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

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

Mr. President, I want to take a moment to say a special word of thanks to a former member of my staff who has meant a lot to me and has performed great service in my office.

Corey Tellez was part manager and part legislative magician. She was also my deputy chief of staff. She was one of the first persons I would reach out to. She seemed to always find a way to translate big ideas into legislation and then legislation into law.

Corey is driven by solid values. She has a special talent for management and organization. Every Senator

should be so lucky to have a Corey Tellez on their staff.

Corey joined my staff nearly 11 years ago as my economic policy adviser. Her first assignment was to help craft and build support for a bill called the Marketplace Fairness Act. Here was the goal: give Main Street businesses across America, mom-and-pop shops, a level playing field on which to compete against the giant online retailers by giving States the option to require out-of-State businesses to collect sales tax on online sales, the same way local businesses do.

The big online retailers resisted. Corey would not back down. She worked with the staff in the offices of our main cosponsors--Senators Mike Enzi, Heidi Heitkamp, and Lamar Alexander--and together they came up with a solution that won support on both sides of the aisle and even won the support of some of the giant retailers.

In 2013, the Marketplace Fairness Act passed the Senate. Corey was still working on getting the bill signed into law when, to our surprise, in 2018, the Supreme Court issued a ruling negating the need for it by giving the States the same option our bill created.

Corey had made her mark, and she became a critical part of our legislative team. Six years ago, I moved her up to be my legislative director. Three years ago, she became my deputy chief of staff.

At the end of last year, to my disappointment, she announced she was moving on from the Senate for a new opportunity, working for the Department of the Treasury in their congressional relations office. She is returning to the field she loves, with a special emphasis on international economic policy. I have no doubt she is going to be successful just as she was in the Senate.

Corey first came to the Hill 15 years ago, working in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus as an intern to the office of Representative Henry Cuellar of Texas. She already had a degree in political science and history and a law degree from the University of Illinois.

She worked on the House side as a legislative assistant for Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York and as deputy chief of staff and counsel for Representative Debbie Halvorson of Illinois.

It is an impressive resume, but I think that Corey has put as much effort and passion into advancing the careers of others as she has her own. My own staff is filled with talented men and women whom she encouraged and gave a chance to grow professionally.

There is a danger, when you work with policy and dry legislative text for a long time, that you might forget the people whose hopes and dreams ride on the laws we enact. That never was a problem for Corey. While growing up, Corey's mom was a single mother.

She views every bill and every initiative through the eyes of a proud, hard-working American, just like her mom. Basically, she has two basic questions when it comes to these issues: Are they true to the Constitution? Do they treat working families with fairness and dignity? That was her litmus test for any legislative undertaking. I can't think of a better one.

Since joining my staff, she became a mother too. She and her husband are parents to a little daughter, Elliott.

With her move to her next exciting assignment, I want to say again: Thank you, Corey, for all that you have given our office, the Senate, and our State of Illinois. I am wishing you the very best of luck in your new position.

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) is necessarily absent.

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

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

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

Madam President, I have come to the floor of the Senate many times over the last several years to discuss an aspect of higher education only few people even know exists. The so-called for-profit colleges.

This disgraceful industry enrolls 8 percent of all postsecondary students in America--8 percent--and yet accounts for 30 percent of all Federal student loan defaults. Those two numbers tell the story. For- profit colleges get 8 percent of the students and are responsible for 30 percent of the student loan defaults. Why? For obvious reasons. They are too expensive. They charge a higher tuition than community colleges or even many private colleges. Secondly, the students don't end up finishing because they get mired in debt. And third, if they end up with a degree, it turns out to be virtually worthless.

When I think of cases that we have looked into in Illinois, in Chicago, of the exploitation of well-meaning students, sometimes the first in their families to go to college, who are lured in by the siren song of the marketing of for-profit colleges--they sign up, sign all the papers, turn over all their Pell grants, then sign up for Federal student loans and other private loans and have a disastrous experience where they can't even finish. They are so deeply in debt or, if they finish, they find their degree was worthless.

How many of those young people I remember coming to me and saying: I was majoring in law enforcement, and I was getting this degree from one of the local for-profit colleges to go into law enforcement. And you know what, Senator? They laughed at me when they saw the name of the school: That isn't a real school; that isn't a real degree.

Senator--they tell me--it is a real debt.

And that is the reality of these for-profit colleges.

I have called for greater oversight of this industry, as they exploit these students and their families. We have called out some of the most vicious predatory players in the industry like Corinthian, University of Phoenix, DeVry, ITT Tech, Westwood--institutions that are more likely to lead students into a lifetime of debt rather than a lifetime of opportunity.

Now, just imagine, if you will, that one of the leading architects of this fraudulent industry was chosen to be one of its watchdogs by the Federal Government. Well, that is the situation we have today. Dr. Arthur Keiser, who embodies the worst of the for-profit industry, is the chairman of the board of for-profit Southeastern College. He is also chancellor and CEO of Keiser University, a so-called nonprofit university that he converted from for-profit status in the year 2011. This so-called conversion to not-for-profit is misleading. The overlap between Southeastern College and Keiser University is well established. For example, multiple executives at Keiser University are also executives at Southeastern.

An IRS filing shows that executives at Keiser University, a supposedly nonprofit school, are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. You know when you hear the term ``not-for-profit,'' you think of charitable institutions, people just barely making enough to get by, service to principles and values. Well, Mr. Keiser and his gang have turned that upside down. They make hundreds of thousands of dollars each year, a hefty salary for part-time employees working for a nonprofit college.

Arthur Keiser is also notorious for shady dealings. I am not making this up or going to a source of fake news for it. These were detailed in a GAO report last year. For example, in the year after Keiser University was converted into a not-for-profit college--not-for- profit--the school paid out more than $34 million to members of Mr. Keiser's family--$34 million? That is right, to Arthur Keiser's family. Not bad for a not-for-profit venture.

Arthur Keiser's financial misdeeds are so grave, so serious, that his own mother has filed a lawsuit against him over shifty financial handlings of the colleges that they cofounded. This would be a dramatic situation comedy were it not for the victims, the students.

Rather than being chastised by this GAO report and lawsuit by his mom, Mr. Keiser is now seeking to dramatically extend his influence within the for-profit college industry. How exactly is he planning to do this? Lucky for Arthur, the power is already in his hands.

Today, Arthur Keiser serves as chair of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, also known as NACIQI. I have never heard of it, but those in the industry know it quite well. NACIQI is the Department of Education's Federal advisory board that approves the creditors who act as gatekeepers for Federal student dollars. So in order to offer a Federal student loan, the Department of Education has to first establish that you are a real school--I mean, a real school with real teachers and classrooms or some other means of teaching students and that your degree is being presented to you in real terms, whether it is really going to help your life. This NACIQI is the watchdog of all the Federal watchdogs when it comes to for- profits. And guess who is the Chair: Arthur Keiser.

As Chair of NACIQI, Arthur Keiser poses a systematic threat to student borrowers. His chairmanship is a major conflict of interest in NACIQI's vital role of maintaining integrity of Federal student aid.

For-profits are already one of the most heavily subsidized sectors in America. I took a look at what these companies, these for-profit colleges, were taking out of the Federal Treasury. They put some of the worst Federal contractors to shame. And of course, they often leave students saddled with debts they will never be able to pay for worthless degrees.

Now, naturally, you may wonder, how do these for-profits spend all the Federal dollars sent their way?

Well, this is what it is all about. They spend millions on advertising their worthless degrees to underprivileged students.

There was an ad that was running out here a couple years ago, one of my favorites from the for-profits. It showed this young lady; she couldn't have been more than 19 years of age. And she was lounging in her bedroom with her laptop on the bed next to her, talking about how she was going to college in her pajamas. I am not making this up.

They spend millions of dollars just like that, advertising to young people who may not know any better that you have to put in a real effort to get an education. It pays off, but it doesn't come to you sitting in your pajamas.

Instead of reforming the for-profit advertising model, Dr. Keiser is expanding it. He likes this marketing. He has applied some of the same predatory practices to the so-called nonprofit college space.

In 2017, Keiser University--aptly named after himself--which Dr. Keiser claims is nonprofit, racked up the second largest advertising bill of any private nonprofit institution.

Keiser University spent nearly one-fifth of its entire budget on ads and marketing--more than $82 million.

We found some of the colleges that have been investigated in the past were spending more money on advertising than they were on faculty salaries. And it showed.

For the sake of comparison, other nonprofit colleges--real nonprofit colleges--are estimated to spend 1.5 percent to 6 percent of their budget on marketing. Dr. Arthur Keiser, his university spent almost 20 percent.

Southeastern College, Dr. Keiser's for-profit school, reported in 2018 to the IRS that 87 percent of its annual revenue came from student aid. That is close to the 90-percent cap imposed by the 90-10 rule. What does that mean in the big picture? It means this is just a conduit. Follow, if you will, the process. The student sits in the admissions office, and the admissions officer says, We are ready to launch. We are ready to put you in the courses. All you have to do is sign this. Here is your contract, the contract where you are going to seek Federal student aid.

The student signs it, naturally. Got my Pell grant. Got my Federal student aid. It is all going to the for-profit school. Then what happens next? Well, the student has got the debt to pay back for the loan. The school gets the cash. The school turns around--Dr. Keiser turns around and has a big distribution party, and the student finds out 6 months later it is a worthless undertaking, but they have still got the debt to pay.

And unless some action is taken by the Department of Education that proves up fraud and releases that student from his obligation, that is going to be a debt he is going to carry for years. It is going to change his life.

Do Dr. Keiser and his gang care? They have got their money. They have distributed it among themselves. Dr. Keiser has also demonstrated questionable conduct as chair of NACIQI, namely, protecting his own interests at the expense of students and taxpayers. This is a real fox in the chicken coop.

In 2020, under Dr. Keiser's leadership, NACIQI wrongfully penalized the Higher Learning Commission, an accreditor that tried to rescind accreditation from two fraudulent for-profits. Just last year, Dr. Keiser was forced to recuse himself from the review of Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges--or ACCSC.

Why exactly did he have to recuse himself? Because this organization accredited his college, so he was putting the pressure on that entity.

And in Dr. Keiser's absence, the other NACIQI members rightly considered student outcomes in determining whether they would continue as an accreditor. But when Dr. Keiser returned from recusal, he chastised the same members for having the gall to prioritize the needs of students.

So even when he was forced to recuse himself, Dr. Arthur Keiser found a way to use his position as Chair to advance his own interest. This week, I am going to lead a letter with Sherrod Brown, my colleague from Ohio, requesting the Department of Education finally take a hard look at Arthur Keiser's Chairmanship and his obvious conflicts of interest.

It is worth noting that we are not alone in raising these concerns about Dr. Arthur Keiser.

Earlier this month, the House Education and Labor Committee chairman, Bobby Scott of Virginia, also raised the issue of Keiser's manipulative conversion of his for-profit college to nonprofit status.

Time and again, Arthur Keiser has put his own personal priorities over the needs of the students and taxpayers he is supposed to serve. His conflicts of interest have become abundantly clear, and now it is time for the Department of Education to put an end to this party.

Last month, Secretary Cardona announced the Department of Education's priorities. One of them is holding postsecondary institutions accountable for taking advantage of kids.

Right now, the Department of Education has an opportunity to uphold that priority by bringing Arthur Keiser's nefarious conduct to an end. We are going to be watching. On behalf of those students and their families, on behalf of colleges and universities that do a good job, we have got to put an end to this rip-off.

I yield the floor.