Business meeting to consider pending calendar business.

Good morning. On today's agenda, three bills, seven nominations. We'll be voting on five of those seven nominations. Colin McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, National Fraud Division; James Bishop, U.S. Attorney, Mid District, North Carolina; Brian Barber, Marshal, West District of Louisiana; Stephen Lewis, Marshal, East District, Missouri; Priscilla Perez Lopez, Marshal, Southern District, Florida. We'll also be voting on two bills, the Combating Illicit Xylazine Act and H.R. 2159, Count the Crimes to Cut Act. The third bill and the remaining nominations must be held over for future consideration. Today we're considering Colin McDonald, nominee to lead the Justice Department National Fraud Enforcement Division. Republicans and Democrats can agree that rooting out fraud to protect the American taxpayers is a critical goal. Mr. McDonald is a career public servant and an expert in fraud protection. He is highly regarded because he's prosecuted hard cases and has prosecuted them well. Mr. McDonald is the right person for this job, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination. The thrust of today's meeting will be to continue our committee's long-standing and bipartisan work, and emphasis upon the word bipartisan, to protect Americans from the scourge of illegal drugs. The Combating Illicit Xylazine Act, which I lead as Senator Cortez Masto being the lead sponsor, Democrat from Nevada, it responds to the startling increase that we've seen in overdoses and deaths involving xylazine. It comes to mind that this is a Democrat-led bill for Mr. Thomas, I think it was Mr. Thompson in the back end of the Wright County Courthouse that yelled out to me one time, "How come you guys can't get along?" In other words, he was questioning about why we don't have enough bipartisanship. So I would like to say to Mr. Thompson, I think that was his name, that this is a Democrat-led bill and I and 13 other Democrats and 14 other Republicans are trying to get it passed. So don't ever think that things don't get done in a bipartisan way. There might be too much partisanship, but not as much as a lot of people think. This bill will classify this highly toxic drug, xylazine, as a Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act, while at the same time protecting legitimate use by veterinarians, farmers, and ranchers. This bill has been a top priority of both Democrat and Republican administrations. Mr. Thompson, did you get that? The Biden-Harris administration asked Congress to, quote, "make xylazine a Schedule III drug," end of quote, in its, in what is called the, this quote was in what's called the Counter-Fentanyl Legislative Proposal. And on her first day in office, Attorney General Bondi doubled down on that same request. These two administrations didn't agree on most things, but they agreed on the importance of what we're doing here in this committee today. That's why this bill, again to repeat for Mr. Thompson, 14 Democrats and 15 Republicans are supporting it. I want to thank Senator Cortez Masto for her leadership and partnership on this critical issue. For those who don't know, xylazine is an animal tranquilizer legally used in large animals and livestock on a regular basis. It's not approved for human use. In humans, xylazine causes vital functions like breathing to plummet and to do it to potentially fatal levels. Over the past decade, it's increasingly appeared on the streets mixed with fentanyl and other narcotics, and you know it by its street name, tranq. Xylazine has caused an increasing number of fatal drug poisonings involving fentanyl because it compounds sedative effects when mixed with opioids. The overdose reversal medicine, Narcan, doesn't work on xylazine. This drug is dangerous because it's a cheap way to cut other deadly drugs like fentanyl and heroin. Dealers use it to maximize drug profits and doing it at the expense of human lives. The data tells a harrowing story. The maps that I hope you put up here, the maps I'm about to show you are from the Center of Disease Control and illustrate how this drug has ravaged our country. In 2020, most states didn't collect data relative to xylazine, but even with limited data, if you look at 2020, oh you have it, if you look at 2020 map, you'll see 571 deaths in Pennsylvania, 431 in Maryland, all connected to xylazine. Now if you look at 2024 map, you see a startling increase in deaths where xylazine was detected. Thirteen states with 150 or more deaths, 230 people from Illinois, 235 from Missouri, 269 from Tennessee, 874 from Pennsylvania, 343 from Maryland, 218 in New Jersey, 345 in Connecticut, 727 in New York. This data tells a story, and it's what we're here today about. Former DEA Administrator Milgram during the Biden administration explained, quote, "DEA has seized xylazine-fentanyl mixtures in 48 of 50 states. We know where this xylazine comes from. It comes from a powder, as powder from China and as liquid diverted from veterinary supply chains. Despite all this, xylazine is not yet a controlled substance. This is why it is so important for it to be scheduled," end of Mr. Milgram's quote. DEA has tried to administratively schedule this drug since the Biden-Harris administration, but they ran into problems that requires Congress now to act. Under the current law, DEA can't create a special carve-out for lawful users of xylazine like vets and farmers. Quite simply, the DEA can't schedule this on their own without harming the agriculture community. So we're here today to do what DEA can't do by regulation. Few people know the pain this drug can cause more than the families who've lost loved ones to poison like xylazine-fentanyl. Some are here today as I think you can see. Many others are watching across the nation. I see some of you have photographs of your loved ones. I want to thank every one of you for coming today. Some of you traveled 10 hours, I've been told, and I'd like to have those of you that have lost a loved one to these drugs, if you'd please stand for two seconds. Thank you very much for coming and have our love for your loss. Thank you. Now instead of plunging into despair and grief, you stood up to the fight and to do that to save other families from the horror you experienced. Mrs. Shannon Miller, Ohio, lost her daughter two years ago. Her grandson found his mother cold. Tomorrow would be Shannon's daughter's 37th birthday, but because of xylazine, she's now forever 35. Mrs. Deborah Dino-Zenos is here today from Garfield, New Jersey. She lost her son Ricky to xylazine overdose as well. She wrote to the committee, quote, "My son Ricky should be here today. Instead, our family lives with the reality that a hidden substance in the drug supply took his life before he ever had a chance to know it was there. I respectfully urge the committee to act quickly on S. 545 so that fewer families have to endure the same heartbreak," end of quote. Mrs. Denise Prince traveled here today to honor her son Joey. When she lost Joey three years ago, his toxicology report listed fentanyl and xylazine as the cause of death. She told us, quote, "Even if I had found my son sooner, I most likely would not have been able to save him due to the effects of xylazine, which cannot be reversed by Narcan," end of quote. Mrs. Debbie Malat also came here today from New Jersey. She lost her son Jesse when he took a pill he didn't know had fentanyl and xylazine in it. Mrs. Kimberly Schirer lost her son Jordan after he fought addiction his entire life. She recalls in her letter that even if she had had Narcan, it couldn't have saved Jordan from xylazine. The story show us, these and a lot of other stories, that this legislation isn't an abstract policy debate. We're talking about taking action to keep parents from losing children and children from losing parents. I can't tell you every story this morning, but I want to let everyone who shared their painful story to us know we hear you. You are why we're here today. Before Senator Durbin, I'd like to enter into the record letters and documents supporting the bill. Department of Health and Human Services urging this committee to pass legislation, quote unquote, "as written." A letter from the DEA saying the same thing. A copy of the Biden-Harris counter-fentanyl legislative proposal calling on Congress to, quote, "make xylazine a Schedule III drug," end of quote. A memo from Attorney General Bondi, first days in office, calling on Congress to add xylazine to Schedule III. An article from Bloomberg Government describing efforts of the Office of National Drug Control Policy to advance this legislation. And then letters from more than a dozen law enforcement organizations urging passage of the bill. Multiple letters from individuals who lost loved ones from xylazine and fentanyl and from a coalition of more than 200 family advocacy groups. And finally, a letter from the American Veterinary Medical Association supporting this legislation. So without objection, these will be entered in the record. Senator Durbin.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. It was two years ago when Catherine Cortez Masto asked to meet with me in my office and discuss this legislation. She is an accomplished legislator, before that was the Attorney General of the state of Nevada. And she worked long and hard on this concept of dealing with xylazine, which was new on the horizon, people trying to understand what was happening with this veterinary drug that was being laced into fentanyl and the like. She convinced me two years ago, and I want to personally thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is not the first, I'm sure it won't be the last time you've reached across the aisle to do something on a bipartisan basis that helps everyone. This is an issue we can agree on. The victims' families here today are a grim reminder of the price that's been paid already by so many people for this terrible drug. I will gladly support this bipartisan legislation and thank you for making certain that it was brought before this committee on a timely basis. We are also considering some nominees where we do have some differences and I'd like to say a few words.

Please go ahead.

This committee will consider nominees who will help the President as he approaches his take on our justice system. Colin McDonald is nominated to head the so-called National Fraud Enforcement Division, which the administration created out of thin air. There were already offices in the Justice Department responsible for investigating and prosecuting fraud. But over the last year, the Trump administration has systematically dismantled these offices. Meanwhile, the President has engaged in an unprecedented fraud spree, more than doubling his net worth since returning to office. The office of President has been very, very good to the Trump family. Fraudsters who make massive contributions to the President are regularly rewarded with pardons. Let me be specific. In April 2024, the founder of Binance was sentenced to prison and ordered to pay a $50 million fine for money laundering. He then brokered a deal to channel $2 billion into Trump's family crypto business. The President pardoned him shortly after and he didn't pay a penny in fines. Binance accounts have funneled about $1.7 billion to Iranian entities linked to terrorism. But the Trump family's crypto company, the World Liberty Financial, continue to partner with this agency. Trevor Milton was convicted of securities fraud, ordered to pay nearly $700 million in restitution to investors. He learned how to escape the $700 million fine when he and his wife donated $1.8 million to President Trump's reelection campaign. The President Trump then turned around and pardoned him and his wife once he returned to office. Paul Wiederhorn, convicted fraudster, indicted in 2024 for stealing $47 million from his business. Later that year, he sponsored a $100,000 donation to President Trump's inaugural committee. A few months later, Trump's Justice Department dropped the case completely. Do any of my Republican colleagues have the courage to condemn this corrupt pay-for-pardon scheme? When the White House announced the creation of the new fraud division, Vice President Vance claimed it would, quote, run out of the White House, under his and President Trump's supervision. Can anyone with a straight face argue this new division operating under the President's thumb will be a nonpartisan law enforcement agency? Clearly the real purpose of the division is to weaponize fraud enforcement against the President's opponents. Last month, I wrote to Attorney General Bondi seeking more details about this new fraud division. She still hasn't responded. I know she's very busy, but you would think over the course of several months she would. The committee should not consider this nomination until these questions are answered for both sides of the aisle. Today the committee will also consider Dan Bishop, another MAGA extremist who has been nominated to be a U.S. Attorney. Like Ed Martin, Lindsey Halligan, Alina Habba, Darren Smith, Phil Williams, and other Trump U.S. Attorney nominees, Dan Bishop has never been a prosecutor. We couldn't have gotten by with that with a Democratic president, but it's a regular occurrence now. U.S. Attorneys who've never prosecuted a case. He has only the qualifications that really matter to the Trump White House. On January 6, 2021, Bishop voted against certifying the 2020 election results. He falsely claimed, quote, Democrats' attack on our elections was not minor or sporadic, it was coordinated and widespread. Even today, Mr. Bishop refuses to disavow the debunked big lie crackpot conspiracy theories about January 6. In response to my question, he said this about the insurrection that we all personally witnessed and lived through. I've heard credible accounts that black bloc Antifa agitators were in the crowd and among the first to vandalize the U.S. Capitol. So I think that leftists participated in and perhaps instigated the mayhem. As I said last week, President Trump is nominating these January 6 apologists to help interfere in the 2026 election. The President isn't hiding it. He told us and I quote, we should take over the voting. Republicans ought to nationalize the voting, quote, President Trump. Senate Democrats will do everything in our power to resist this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yeah. See, we don't have a quorum yet to get these nominees out, so I think we'll go to the first bill, the Combating Illicit Xylazine Act. This bill is led by Senator Cortez Masto and I'm helping her. It's cosponsored by Senators Klobuchar, Blumenthal, Tillis, Britt, along with 24 other senators of both parties. The bill does what both the Biden and Trump administration have asked Congress to do, place xylazine in Schedule III. It also allows the DEA to track the distribution of this drug, requires the Attorney General to report to us on a proliferation of xylazine. I'll now call up the managers' amendment number SIL26441. Without objection, it'll be adopted.

Mr. Chairman? Could I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor?

Sure will be. Yes.

May I say a word on the bill?

Please do. That'd be a good time. Yeah, can I wait? Do we have objection? Proceed.

I would just like to be recognized to speak after Senator Whitehouse if that's possible or after whichever senator.

Oh, it's possible. Do I have any objection to the amendment? No. So the amendment is adopted. And I'll call on you. Anybody can speak that wants to speak.

I'll be very brief, Chairman, and I appreciate the recognition. As a general proposition, what we have done is set up a process for the scheduling of drugs that takes place over at the Drug Enforcement Administration and that brings the expertise of that administration to bear on the question of whether the drug should be scheduled and at what level the drug should be scheduled. That's the ordinary process and I think there's merit to it. If there's something wrong with that process, I think we should fix it. What I worry about is this committee becoming a bypass around that expert process. Now, there's a reason in this case for us to go around that expert process and that is the exemption for veterinarians, which we need to add by statute. But I think we would have done ourselves a service to have gotten a clearer DEA recommendation and have it clear the DEA process before we took it up as a matter of statute. I'm a yes on this bill, but I want to put up a warning flag that if there's a problem with the DEA process, we should fix it. If there's not a problem with the DEA process, we should honor it and we would do better in voting on scheduling matters to have the benefit of that DEA process before we vote. We've got it procedurally backwards in this case. So I think we're doing the right thing here, but I worry that if this becomes a pattern and this committee becomes sort of an amateur bypass around DEA's expertise, we're setting ourselves up for problems in the future. Thanks for letting me say that.

I'm happy to defer to a more senior senator, Senator Coons.

I will be brief. Thank you, Senator Booker. I appreciate your leadership along with Senator Cortez Masto, Chairman, in moving this bill. My home state of Delaware is very close to ground zero of where it began taking lives years ago. And a close friend of my family's, Dr. Sandy Gibney, and my wife have spent years helping those who are addicted to fentanyl, who suffer from xylazine, distributing Narcan, trying to engage in education in our community. I've seen directly the horrific impacts this has on people and the losses in my community. And I just wanted to convey my regrets and my condolences to the families who are here. You represent tens of thousands of families all across the region that I'm from who've also lost children, loved ones, parents to this terrible drug. I do think it's important that as we work to give law enforcement tools to better address xylazine and preserve access for veterinarians, that we keep in mind what we just heard from Senator Whitehouse. The managers' amendment ensures that the DEA and HHS will have to come forward with their assessment of the drug, including critical scientific and medical evaluations that otherwise would have been ignored. And as we continue to move ahead with legislative scheduling bills, we need to follow the science and not let legislative scheduling be a way to either leave the science behind or to avoid so much more that we can do. There are many other things we need to do to address our opioid epidemic, addressing research, demand, access to treatments, access to test strips, and we owe these families and our communities that and more. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Could I add one sentence before Senator Booker? And that is I forgot to express my appreciation to you and to the supporters of this bill for accepting the language that we've recommended that actually gives us access even if after the fact to that scientific review. So I owe you a thank you and I forgot to put it in. Thank you.

Senator Booker. Oh, Senator Booker.

I'm happy to yield to again to a more senior, Senator Klobuchar. Go ahead.

Okay. Well, I just wanted to give the Ag perspective on this and that is that, and I was a cosponsor, it's a really important bill. And while this bill does some really good work and we also work to make sure we preserve the ability of veterinarians who have legitimate uses when treating livestock such as cattle and horses to continue caring for animals. And these legitimate uses cannot be protected if the DEA and HHS go through standard administrative scheduling process. And that's why this was so complicated. And I thank the families for being out there and that we're able to get this done and note that the bill is supported by both law enforcement and the veterinarian community. So thank you.

Senator Booker.

I'm really, I'm really grateful, Chairman, for the recognition and the points that my colleagues have made are really the points of my concern. I sincerely feel like this is Groundhog Day yet again. It is not a matter of debate that our country has been ravaged by substance abuse for decades. It is not a matter of debate that this is one of the greatest crises, public health crises in our country. And I'm going to say it again that if we really were serious as a committee about dealing with this crisis, we would be doing things that are evidence-based, following the science, and having a much bigger public health crisis. There are so many people in my state who have lost people in to drugs, including this horrific one. But there are many parents who continue to cry out for real action from Congress and we do nothing. I have a letter I'd like to enter for the record, please.

Without objection.

It's from one of my constituents, Susan Ostermann. Her son, Rory, tragically died. Mrs. Ostermann has been coming to Congress for years to ask us to invest in harm reduction, in evidence-based programs that have been shown to save lives. She has done this because everything we have done since the opioid crisis began, driven by pharmaceutical companies flooding our communities with addictive medications, has led to a black market and enormous demand for even more illicit drugs. And rather than holding companies accountable, rather than investing in the services that could have saved her son's life, we have come back to this committee time and time again to do the only thing we seem to know how to do, which is criminalizing drugs, creating harsh sentences so that people who use them can go to prison, that often don't get kingpins and organizers, but get people who are addicted, get people who need healthcare, get people who are marginalized, swept up into this system, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and actually not solving the problem. This past January, the Trump administration cut $2 billion in funding for substance use programs, evidence-based programs that prevent addiction, that reverse it, that save lives. Think about this right now. We're here in bipartisan resources we passed the Save Lives, $2 billion have been cut, which will mean more lives are lost, and we're saying nothing. At the moment we are debating the scourge of drugs in our communities, the federal government is stripping away the very services that we know work, that in a bipartisan way we have supported. We should be investing more in the programs that actually save the lives of children like the ones that we're talking about today. We should follow science and data. That is the public health response to this crisis. I have filed some amendments, and I filed them because I just see this pattern repeating itself since the time I was in law school. Every time a new substance emerges, the only thing we seem to be able to do is to criminalize it, to put higher and higher penalties, and every time we pay the price for it. Now, we all know the story well at this committee. This was the exact response we're doing now was a response to crack cocaine. We didn't follow the science. We followed fear. We followed alarm. We followed people demanding Schedule I, higher, higher scheduling, and we made mistakes that for years we've been trying to correct, and we still haven't fully corrected them, even though we have bipartisan support. It breaks my heart to think about all the time and resources we've spent trying to fix past mistakes, but yet we're doubling down on the same strategies. Hearings, debates, floor remarks. Again, I filed an amendment that would require the Attorney General to follow the process as Senator Whitehouse says, because this process that we laid out is not what we're doing here. The law provides a process, and that process centers not politics and politicians, but scientific evaluation and medical research. When Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act, it established a clear and specific procedure for scheduling drugs. The Attorney General, through the DEA, identifies a substance it believes should be controlled and requests a scientific and medical evaluation from the Secretary of Health and Human Services. HHS conducts an eight-factor analysis examining abuse potential, pharmacological effects, scientific knowledge, patterns of abuse, risk to public health, dependent liability, and submits its evaluation and scheduling recommendation to the DEA. Under the statute, the scientific and medical findings are binding on the Attorney General, binding. If the DEA disagrees with a recommendation, it has a path. It can provide HHS with additional evidence, request a reevaluation, hold hearings. Now, this is the frustration we have right now. HHS with this process with xylazine recommended Schedule V. It returned as a recommendation. Rather than go through the scientific evidence dictated by the law, rather than present new evidence, rather than hold hearings even, or request a reevaluation, the DEA came to us. It came to Congress to place xylazine on a Schedule III, which is the bill we have and why we're here again. Again, this is Groundhog Day. We have the authority to do this bill, but what troubles me is we are being asked to do the bill without even being provided the information. The federal agencies now in charge, literally, we're about to make this decision and they've refused to share with the full Senate. I have not been able to get my hands on the actual scientific and medical evaluation that HHS conducted. They are refusing to give it to this committee. This is the evaluation that law required. This is the evaluation that was done. This is the evaluation that HHS recommended Schedule V, and this committee isn't even demanding to have that evidence. Why? It should get every member of this committee pause that a federal agency is concealing the very analysis that is supposed to guide our decision-making. And in doing so, I can only assume because that analysis undercut the DEA's preferred outcome. And this matter, this matters in concrete terms. I know what's going to happen here. We're going to pass this legislation. And then you know what's going to happen to the families suffering? We're going to not do anything while the Trump administration cuts billions of dollars from harm reduction, billions of dollars from things that would save American lives, billions of dollars from the interventions we know work in our communities. Heck, I've worked in a bipartisan way to pass some of those evidence-based things that worked that now are being defunded. And in the meantime, the data is now showing about xylazine, something we're not talking about in this committee, that the usage of xylazine is going down. Xylazine since 2024 has decreased without being scheduled. The landscape has changed. And you know why? We all know it, because they're running to other drugs. Every time we turn around, by the time Congress starts working, they're running to other drugs that are killing our children. And what will be our things? Two, three years from now, we'll be having the same committee hearing again while still the underfunded programs that we know work and save lives aren't getting the resources they deserve. So we are not following medical and scientific evidence that we are obliged to do. Xylazine is a substance that farmers and ranchers do, and people are saying we need this bill to do that, but I'm sorry, the evidence is clear. Congress can find a way to let farmers be licensed for it. We've done it for other drugs. Please look at what happened to buprenorphine. I'm sorry, I'm not pronouncing that as difficult, but we've done it before with other drugs. It is killing me that yet again we are not doing what is prescribed by law. This committee does not have a simple scientific report that's being held back from us, and we're rushing to do this, and we'll leave here with the belief that somehow we've done something different that we didn't do with crack cocaine, that we didn't do with the opioid crisis. And frankly, we're sitting by while an administration has undercut the work we have done, followed by science, that actually is helping to save the lives of our children. And so I'm not going to gum this up with the 10 amendments I filed that could help improve this. I'm going to simply ask for an amendment that everybody here should want. Give us the damn report. Everybody here should want that report from HHS that they're refusing to give this committee because I know people on both sides under the last two presidents, everybody here on this committee has been upset when we don't get the scientific information we want. So I simply want to call up that one amendment. Can my colleagues agree with me as you pass this bill, because I know it will pass out of committee, that we should at least have for the record that one scientific document that recommended we get the information that by law we should have. So I would like to ask to bring up my amendment number SIL26415.

We will get back to your 415, I'm sorry. We'll get back to your amendment. We got, we'll go to the nominations now and then we'll come back to your amendment.

Thank you. Thank you very much. But hold on. I'd like to object to going to nominations. I would like to do that.

Go ahead, please. You want to speak on a, did he say he wanted to speak on a nominee?

I'm asking is that we finish this debate.

No, we need to go to the nominees. Then we'll come back to that. So we'll now turn to Colin McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, proceed. Before we call the roll, Senator Durbin wants to speak.

Mr. Chairman, before Mr. McDonald's hearing, I had many questions about this newly created fraud division and still no answers. One thing is clear. He is more committed to scoring political points than he is to fighting waste, fraud, and abuse. Mr. McDonald supervises the so-called Weaponization Working Group, which he co-led with the disgraced nominee Ed Martin prior to his demotion due to alleged improper handling of grand jury material. According to Mr. Martin, the goal of the working group, which Mr. McDonald is part of, was to name and shame the president's political opponents, even if they haven't committed a crime. The working group also employs the infamous Jared Wise, whose name comes up regularly. He stormed the Capitol on January 6, was charged with assault after encouraging rioters who were attacking the police by yelling, Mr. Wise yelled, yell, F them, yell, kill them. During the hearing, Mr. McDonald repeatedly refused to confirm whether he ever witnessed members of the Weaponization Working Group violate the Justice Department manual of the law, and he refused to condemn Mr. Wise's continued employment. Mr. McDonald has demonstrated he's unwilling to stand up to President Trump's extreme members of his administration and grifters. I oppose him.

Clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Graham.

Aye.

Mr. Cornyn.

Aye.

Mr. Lee.

Aye.

Mr. Cruz.

Aye.

Mr. Hawley.

Aye.

Mr. Tillis.

Aye.

Mr. Kennedy.

Aye.

Mrs. Blackburn.

Aye.

Mr. Schmitt.

Aye.

Mrs. Britt.

Aye.

Mrs. Moody.

Aye.

Mr. Durbin.

No.

Mr. Whitehouse.

No.

Ms. Klobuchar.

No.

Mr. Coons.

No.

Mr. Blumenthal.

No.

Ms. Hirono.

No by proxy.

Mr. Booker.

No.

Mr. Padilla.

No.

Mr. Welch.

No by proxy.

Mr. Schiff.

No.

Chairman Grassley. Senator Grassley.

Aye.

On this vote, the ayes are 12, the nays are 10.

The majority of the committee being for Mr. McDonald will be reported. Now we go to James Bishop, Middle District, North Carolina, Senator Durbin.

U.S. attorneys are supposed to enforce the law equally without fear or favor. Bishop's career, however, shows he will use that power to do the president's bidding. As deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, pay attention here, folks, Mr. Bishop was Russ Vought's right-hand man, wreaking havoc across the federal government. Mr. Bishop played a key role in OMB illegally withholding and restricting funds that had been appropriated by Congress. I'm equally troubled by his long history opposing LGBTQ rights. He told the committee that the Supreme Court's holding in Obergefell and other cases were wrongly decided. Mr. Bishop also opposed the Respect for Marriage Act, the legislation passed both chambers of Congress on strong bipartisan vote. He does not have the requisite experience to serve as a U.S. attorney. Do you know what percentage of his legal work has been in the criminal proceedings? Three. Three percent. And he's never served as a prosecutor prior to becoming an interim U.S. attorney. Never served as a prosecutor. We know why he was nominated, he's another MAGA extremist, please vote no.

Senator Tillis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think most people can probably debate various aspects of my personality, but being a yes man or a MAGA extremist is not one of them. I know Dan Bishop well. I've known Dan Bishop for a long time. He was in my county, was in county commissioners before he moved on. He and I have disagreed on certain legislative matters, but I think he's a man of integrity and I encourage everybody to vote for him.

Clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Graham.

Aye.

Mr. Cornyn.

Aye.

Mr. Lee.

Aye.

Mr. Cruz.

Aye.

Mr. Hawley.

Aye.

Mr. Tillis.

Aye.

Mr. Kennedy.

Aye.

Mrs. Blackburn.

Aye.

Mr. Schmitt.

Aye.

Mrs. Britt.

Aye.

Mrs. Moody.

Aye.

Mr. Durbin.

No.

Mr. Whitehouse.

No.

Ms. Klobuchar.

No.

Mr. Coons.

No.

Mr. Blumenthal.

No.

Ms. Hirono.

No by proxy.

Mr. Booker.

No.

Mr. Padilla.

No.

Mr. Welch.

No by proxy.

Mr. Schiff.

No.

Senator Grassley.

Aye.

On this vote, the ayes are 12, the nays are 10.

Majority in favor, the nominee will be reported. Now we go to Brian Barber, U.S. Marshal, Western District, Louisiana. Clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Graham.

Aye.

Mr. Cornyn.

Aye.

Mr. Lee.

Aye.

Mr. Cruz.

Aye.

Mr. Hawley.

Aye.

Mr. Tillis.

Aye.

Mr. Kennedy.

Aye.

Mrs. Blackburn.

Aye.

Mr. Schmitt.

Aye.

Mrs. Britt.

Aye.

Mrs. Moody.

Aye.

Mr. Durbin.

No.

Mr. Whitehouse.

No.

Ms. Klobuchar.

No.

Mr. Coons.

No.

Mr. Blumenthal.

No.

Ms. Hirono.

No by proxy.

Mr. Booker.

No.

Mr. Padilla.

No.

Mr. Welch.

No by proxy.

Mr. Schiff.

No.

Senator Grassley.

Aye.

On this vote, the ayes are 12, the nays are 10.

Chairman. Chairman. May I be recognized briefly?

Senator, well, let me announce this, the majority Mr. Barber will be reported. Senator Whitehouse.

Thanks, I just wanted to say a word because generally I'm inclined to vote yes on Marshals as long as they have some law enforcement experience. And I voted no on this last one and the problem with me is lack of law enforcement experience. I think it's particularly important when our federal judges are living in an atmosphere of such heightened threat of violence that people who seek the position of United States Marshal, which is responsible for court safety, have real backgrounds in law enforcement and in running investigations. So I wanted to explain that vote because it runs counter to my usual yes on Marshals. Thank you.

Clerk will call the roll on Steven Lewis, U.S. Marshal, Eastern District, Missouri.

Mr. Graham.

Aye.

Mr. Cornyn.

Aye.

Mr. Lee.

Aye.

Mr. Cruz.

Aye.

Mr. Hawley.

Aye.

Mr. Tillis.

Aye.

Mr. Kennedy.

Aye.

Mrs. Blackburn.

Aye.

Mr. Schmitt.

Aye.

Mrs. Britt.

Aye.

Mrs. Moody.

Aye.

Mr. Durbin.

Aye.

Mr. Whitehouse.

Aye.

Ms. Klobuchar.

Aye.

Mr. Coons.

Aye.

Mr. Blumenthal.

No.

Ms. Hirono.

No by proxy.

Mr. Booker.

No.

Mr. Padilla.

No.

Mr. Welch.

Aye by proxy.

Mr. Schiff.

No.

Senator Grassley.

Aye.

On this vote, the ayes are 17, the nays are five.

Steven Lewis getting a majority will be favorably reported. The last one is Priscilla Perez Lopez, U.S. Marshal, Southern District, Florida. Clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Graham.

Aye.

Mr. Cornyn.

Aye.

Mr. Lee.

Aye.

Mr. Cruz.

Aye.

Mr. Hawley.

Aye.

Mr. Tillis.

Aye.

Mr. Kennedy.

Aye.

Mrs. Blackburn.

Aye.

Mr. Schmitt.

Aye.

Mrs. Britt.

Aye.

Mrs. Moody.

Aye.

Mr. Durbin.

Aye.

Mr. Whitehouse.

Aye.

Ms. Klobuchar.

Aye.

Mr. Coons.

Aye.

Mr. Blumenthal.

No.

Ms. Hirono.

Aye by proxy.

Mr. Booker.

No.

Mr. Padilla.

No.

Mr. Welch.

Aye by proxy.

Mr. Schiff.

No.

Senator Grassley.

Aye.

On this vote, the ayes are 18, the nays are four.

Perez Lopez getting a majority will be favorably reported. Now I call on Senator Booker.

I appreciate that. I'm again, I'm hoping what I'm asking for is in no way outrageous or partisan. It's just simply what everybody here on this committee should want. HHS did a full scientific report that backed up their recommendation to the DEA for this drug to be a schedule five. What was in that report? What were the basis of their findings? What were their arguments? We cannot ignore science evidence. This is a simple, simple request is for the 2024 HHS evaluation. We all should be making our decisions with a full amount of information, full facts, full science based upon our opinions. And so I'm simply asking, Mr. Chairman, that my amendment SIL26415 be called up and voted on. This amendment simply requires transparency we need when we take this step. An evaluation was conducted as I've stated, we should see that. The amendment requires the DOJ to publish HHS's scientific and medical evaluations and recommendations before the placement of xylazine on schedule three would take effect. So this does not disturb the placement of it on schedule, does not undermine the sponsor's intention of this bill. It just conditions that scheduling on the publication of medical information that we have and should be privy to.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. Kennedy, I will yield for you anytime.

Before Senator Kennedy, I didn't make clear we're back on the bill now and that's why I called on Senator Booker.

And I truly appreciate it and I appreciate the rational rascal from Louisiana.

Senator, if you could enlighten us, why hasn't, who has the report? Why have they not released it? What is this?

I will tell you this, this is not a partisan thing, it was under both presidents HHS's that this report was not released. I know the former Biden DEA head told members about the report, mentioned the report, told us what was scheduled in the report, but for years I have not been able to see the report. And so I'm not sure why it has not been released, but I think that this committee has been disrespected by people of both parties when we ask for information and we don't get it.

Well, does anyone have an objection to releasing the report?

Let me, I thought we took care of this problem through the manager's amendment because I've worked with Coons and Whitehouse to draft transparency.

I can't, we can't hear you, Mr. Chairman, I'm really sorry.

I'll get closer to the microphone. Thank you, sir. I've worked with Coons and Whitehouse to draft transparency provisions in the manager's amendment. This amendment requires the Drug Enforcement Administration and HHS to submit a report with an assessment of the control factors including a scientific and medical evaluation and law enforcement and abuse evaluation. So we...

Would, would if no one has objection and objection to releasing that report, would you consider incorporating into your management manager's amendment that the report to which Senator Booker is referring be released?

Let me ask Senator Coons and Senator Whitehouse.

Well, I'm an aye vote on Senator Booker's amendment, so I'm not going to be a problem.

Can we make it, I don't care how we do it, if there's no objection, we'll make it part of the manager's package or we call it the Booker Act or whatever you want to do. We're fighting over nothing.

Okay. How about the Booker Rational Rascal Act?

And I want to see what's in this thing.

Senator Kennedy, if we adopt this amendment, it would delay the taking into effect of the legislation we're trying to accomplish to make xylazine put in the substance of the law what how dangerous the drug is.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I don't understand.

Mr. Chairman, would it be possible to do a perfecting amendment just to have a date certain on the report so that we get it? If we're moving forward with the rescheduling, that's one thing, but why not a date certain on the report as a perfecting amendment?

There's already a date, it says within 12. That's right.

Okay. It's in the bill, my staff says in this legislation and the manager's amendment that the report has to be, we get our report in 12 months.

Mr.

But why in 12 months? I mean, why? Mr. Chairman, I don't want my office moved to Bethesda and I have great respect for you here, but I don't understand why if the report's ready, we just don't tell them to release it and we can't put that in the manager's package or do it separately without delaying everything.

Let me check.

It's not a new report. So can we just have, if I agree with you and Senator Tillis who said it in more precise language, let's set a date certain. For a report that's already prepared that they actually have that you just need to do a stroke of an email send, it should not take 12 months. I'll give them 30 days, whatever the date certain, let's get that dagnab report.

I was thinking Monday.

I love the way you think, my friend. I love the way you think, sir.

It will not take 12 months. Do it. 30 days. I don't know what to do. They're powwowing, we're going to get this worked out.

Thank you, sir.

90 days until after they produce this report. Okay. If you, do you want to amend your amendment so that the legislation goes into effect and the legislation's not delayed for 90 days? Why do you want to delay this administration when we got these people out here? You're talking about history, these people are dead already. We're trying to make sure that nobody else dies as a result of this legislation or that's what this legislation is for. We don't want to delay it, Mr.

I do not- I have no intention to delay-

Well then you're going- are you accepting an amendment to your amendment that it will-

Sir, sir, can I just explain in plain language because you are courageously cantankerous, and I don't want to cross horns with you, sir. I simply want to explain to you what this is. We all know the legislative process. This will pass out of committee today. It's not going to go to the floor tomorrow. There'll be some time before Monday. All I would amend my amendment to say date certain on Monday, release this report. That's- I'm not trying to delay this. This could be done this evening, this afternoon. They have this report. So I'm not trying to delay it, I'm just trying to create the mandate that it be released. You and I both know this bill's not going to hit the floor of the United States Senate. It has to go through a process. In that time they can release a thousand reports a thousand times. And so that's- that's really what I'm asking, and if my colleagues will support me, that's what I'm asking. My amendment simply says release the report and then this bill can move forward. It's not holding up the bill if they release it on Monday, if they release it on April 1st, if they release it on April 27th. We all know the way the Senate works, that's not going to slow the bill down if we get this out in the next few weeks or Monday, frankly.

I would assume with the number of people in the danger of this drug that there wouldn't be any reason to hold this bill up on the floor of the United States Senate. So that's why I would like to have you take out of your amendment the fact that this bill doesn't go into effect until you get the report.

Sir, sir, the bill has to pass through the Senate. It will then have to pass through the House. It will then have to go up for the President's desk to signing. That's not going to happen for- for weeks to months. I'm simply asking for a report. What I'm asking for is not outrageous, it's things that both sides of the aisle have asked before. My amendment simply is saying release the report. It- it should be able to be done before this bill gets to the President's desk to sign.

Mr. Chairman.

Sir, go ahead.

Do we have bipartisan consensus it should be 30 days or sooner?

30 days is- I'll take 30 days. Mr. Kennedy is right, it should be able to be done on Monday, but I'll take 30 days.

Whatever.

The thing is I've been asking for years under two presidents to get a dagnab report that is definitely there that DEA has to reference to me.

Mr. Chairman, I support this legislation. I don't want to delay it. If there's a report that's ready and it's not being released, I would like it released. And I didn't hear any objection on the committee on that. What about the 30 days that- would you accept the 30 days? Whenever, whatever makes you happy.

30 days suits me fine.

Go ahead.

I- I will go with your 30 days.

30 days. Yeah.

Can I just Mr. Chairman, can I just ask, does this mean that- that you- we are going to condition the effective enactment of this act upon the reception of the report?

No.

No, I think that's what we're getting around.

Do you see the problem that the Senator from Missouri just brought up? You're delaying the legislation going into effect.

I- sir, I- I do not- I do not understand how this will in any way affect the bill. It simply creates the mandate and finally the leverage that we as a committee are unanimously saying when there is scientific data that would affect or at least expand our understanding of the problem.

Which amendment number are you seeking?

It is SIL26415. And my- I will strike section four and then section five I'll- I'll- the amendment made by section three shall take effect on the date that is- that is 90 days after the date the Attorney General striking that and putting in the new within 30 days language. Of- from today, from the day this passes out of committee.

So can we- can I ask you consideration of this approach? Can we do this in less than 30 days? Can- can- can I ask Senator Booker consideration?

Yes, sir.

If we can advance this bill and before the bill comes up on the floor of the United States Senate, you have the ability to hold it up, we'll work this out.

That- that is ex- that- that is exactly what this amendment does is it creates the pressure that you're talking about, sir. The plain language of this is like, frankly, this should not be so diff- it's so disrespectful to this committee.

If I could, Mr. Chairman, for one moment, just for clarification, my colleague, my friend from New Jersey has just offered to remove this section of his amendment, section four, that delays the effective date of enactment in exchange for adding not 90 days but 30 days a requirement that the report be released within 30 days. Is that correct?

Yes.

That should remove the appropriate concern of the Chairman, also raised by Senator Hawley and Senator Cruz, and make real the view that I think many of us share that this report should be made public in 30 days. Correct?

Yes, sir.

Good. So to be clear, we have separated the timing for the pro- provision of the report from the timeline of this bill moving forward. They're two separate things, and the bill has a 30-day requirement that it be produced. The- that a report be produced.

And I know the HHS doesn't want to lock horns with the Chairman of this committee, and I- I would take his word that you will personally make sure this gets released as well, sir. I- I believe in you if you're telling me we're going to get this done.

Let's put it this way, you have my assurance that I'll attempt real hard to get it released.

Well, well with this amendment we're passing, it now- it now mandates that release. So and your- and your battling to make- because we all know both administrations have ignored mandates of this committee before.

I accept your amendment the way it is. We-

Can we- can we call a roll call vote on it please, sir?

Roll call vote on this amendment. Call-

wait, wait, I'm sorry. I just- before we have a roll call vote on an amendment that has been amended, I just want to know exactly what we're voting on before we're going to do a roll call vote. We don't have any text in front of us. I'd just like to know exactly, Mr. Chairman, what we're voting on. I think I support what- what Senator- I want Senator Booker to get his report. I'm all for that. Thank you, sir.

Instead of 90 days, it's 30 days.

And it strikes- for those- striking out Cory everything on- on your amendment here.

Strikes the provision that says the- the bill won't go into effect.

Can I just ask, Senator Booker, you're striking out lines one through eight on your- that's gone. That's gone. And on the next page, page- line four, 30 is re- 90 is replaced with 30.

It is- yes, that line is replaced. The amendment shall require the Attorney General to within 30 days and then- and then we start from line five on the second page. The amendment shall require. Okay. And so the linkage, the- the linkage between the report and the implementation is- is delinked, and this is just a straight-up mandate. Mandate. You're going to give us the report.

Well, but that- that doesn't do it because it still says on lines two through four, the amendment made by section three shall take effect on the date. So-

We've struck that, uh-

Okay. Okay, but you said you struck it on lines two through seven on the first page.

We- we struck that, sir, and we're striking for the record lines one through- four and adding at- at- right before the Attorney General, the amendment shall require the Attorney General to within 30 days obtain- a lot of legal language, but basically to release the damn report.

Are you satisfied, Senator from Missouri?

Yeah, I think- I think I understand what we're voting on, yeah, and I'm supportive of that. I just wanted to make sure that we're delinking. But I- I think we got it. I just want to make sure we get the text right.

I- I know the law school you and I both went to, sir. Yeah, I appreciate that. So-

so- yeah, so in that case, maybe I ought to ask a real lawyer.

Yeah, to your left maybe.

Yeah, right. All right, as a nod to your alma mater, can you include four references to Foucault? [Laughter.] Mr. Chairman, could we have the- proponent of the amendment read the amendment as amended so we all understand exactly what we're voting on?

I mean, it seems to me that this is entirely unnecessary because we all know that once the bill passes out of the committee, it has to be scheduled for floor action. Any individual Senator could object to its consideration, which would then require a vote of the United States Senate and 60 votes to proceed to consider it. So it seems to me like we're making a mountain out of a molehill. I think- could I just ask the Senator from New Jersey, do- you say they haven't released the report, do we know what's in the report?

No, sir, if I- I don't-

Nobody- nobody in the- nobody in the Congress knows what's in the report?

I know what the conclusion of the report was, as I've said.

What- what is the conclusion of the report?

It was the recommendation by the Health and Human Services Department that it be a schedule five drug. But that was based upon scientific research and their eight-part analysis. I just want that analysis. It's something we all should have.

And will you refresh our memory, what is a schedule five drug?

A misdemeanor, not a felony. I- I know it's a misdemeanor, but it allows- it also allows certain actions to be able to be taken by DEA as well. But a schedule five drug, and I could look up the actual- somebody can pull that.

I mean, we know this drug kills people, right?

It would still be schedule three. Yes. But to be clear, this is simply releasing the report, not changing the schedule. It's not changing the decision of the committee, which I clearly cannot change.

Well, I mean, we're talking about releasing a report that you know the conclusion of. And so I don't know why we're wrapped around the axle and delaying the consideration of this bill for something that you already- for information you already have.

I- I do not have the information. This committee does not have the information. This committee should benefit as was written in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 said that we should make our decisions based upon scientific conclusions. We have an agency that spent a heck of a lot of time and a heck of a lot of money that we appropriated to produce a report for Congress and is refusing to give us the report and the scientific data. And so here we are making a decision on the recommendations of the DEA, but not the scientists that we paid salaries of to produce a report that we paid for. The fullness of that information should not be held by Congress. It is germane to this bill, but it's also germane to an issue I've heard both sides of the aisle make time and time again that we do not get the information from the administration that we demand. And so I'm grateful for the colleagues on- on both sides who have said this is not that complicated, it is very simple. I've amended this now to take out any of the delink it as was requested by the Chairman and my colleagues. For dear God, can we vote on that amendment just so I can get this report?

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question?

Yeah, proceed.

Senator from New Jersey, would you yield for a question? Because I just want to make sure, I have no issue with you getting the report. On page two, line 21 through 23, it still- it seems though this is still requiring something more than just the report. It looks as though it's requiring HHS to publish something, and that has not been taken out.

Yeah, okay. So this- I'm going to read report- I'm- I'm now going to shrink this to two paragraphs and hope that my colleagues think that this is not outrageous and that we can work together to get information that should have been given to us four years ago, excuse me, in 2024. Okay. The amendment shall require the Attorney General to within 30 days publish the scientific and medical evaluation and recommendations of the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to xylazine, xylazine as described in section 201(b) of the Controlled Substances Act, and publish the full text of the evaluation and recommendations described in paragraph one in the Federal Register and on the website of the Department of Health and Human Services. So not just we have it, but the public can see the dagnab report as well. Two paragraphs.

Mr. Chairman.

...answer to this last question.

I'd like to move to adopt the amendment as amended.