Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) on Thursday introduced legislation that would make permanent a committee that facilitates information-sharing between federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies.

The Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative’s advisory committee, also called the Global Advisory Committee, was created by the Justice Department in 1998 to create effective information-sharing policies by bringing the law enforcement officials together. But the panel must cease its operations and re-establish itself every two years.

“The Global Advisory Committee has already achieved great success in bringing together local, state, tribal and federal agencies to develop consensus information-sharing solutions,” Durbin said on the Senate floor Thursday. “With congressional authorization and a consistent funding stream, the committee can build upon that success in a way that will benefit justice and public safety agencies across the nation.”

Durbin noted that the committee has created the “National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan” and “Fusion Center Guidelines,” which have helped communities improve their information-sharing. He also said the committee is slated to help the DOJ in the creation of new information-sharing tactics for improving correctional information, sharing criminal information and fighting gang crime.

The bill is co-sponsored by Democratic Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Patty Murray of Washington.

The Senate passed legislation by voice vote Wednesday night to address the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine.

The Fair Sentencing Act would establish an 18-to-1 sentencing ratio for crack and powder cocaine offenses. The current decades-old sentencing law sets a 100-to-1 ratio, requiring the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence for the possession of five grams of crack cocaine as it does for the possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine.

“After more than 20 years, the Senate has finally acted on legislation to correct the crack-powder disparity and the harm to public confidence in our justice system it created,” Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a news release. “Although this bill is not perfect and it is not the bill we introduced in order to correct these inequalities, I believe the Fair Sentencing Act moves us one step closer to reaching the important goal of equal justice for all.”

According to the release, the bill also would refocus federal resources on large-scale, violent drug traffickers and increase the penalties for the worst drug offenders.

The measure, introduced last year by Assistant Majority Leader Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), unanimously was approved the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 11.

As originally introduced, the bill would have required the same sentencing guidelines for powder cocaine and crack offenses, establishing a 1-to-1 ratio. Democrats have argued the law tends to disproportionately target blacks because crack is typically used in poorer urban communities. After negotiations with Republicans, Democrats on the committee eventually agreed to the 18-to-1 ratio.

“I know this agreement is not everything we would like. Frankly, it is not everything that I would like either,” Durbin said at the committee markup. “But this is a historic day. The Senate Judiciary Committee has never reported a bill to reduce this crack-powder disparity.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions of (R-Ala.), the panel’s ranking minority member, said that the bill reported out of committee strikes the right balance in addressing concerns that the current sentencing guidelines unjustly targets blacks and the needs of law enforcement officials.

“Despite my belief that parity was the better policy, I have joined with Senator Durbin and support the progress represented by his compromise with Senator Sessions,” Leahy said in the release. “I urge the House to act quickly so that the President can sign this historic legislation into law.

The House Judiciary Committee approved its version of the legislation in July. Unlike the Senate bill, the House legislation eliminates mandatory minimum sentences for cocaine and crack offenses.

The Justice Department has expressed support efforts for eliminating the differences between crack and powder cocaine sentencing. Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer said at a House hearing in May that the current sentencing policies are “hard to justify.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation Thursday that takes a significant step toward reducing the disparity between sentences for powder cocaine and crack cocaine.

Crack cocaine (iStock)

The committee voted, 19-0, to approve the Fair Sentencing Act. Before approving the measure, the panel voted, 17-1, to reduce the 100-to-1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine penalties to 18-to-1. As originally introduced by Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a member of the panel, the bill would have established the same sentencing guidelines for powder cocaine and crack offenses.

The decades-old sentencing law currently gives the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence for the possession of five grams of crack cocaine as it does for the possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine. The bill endorsed by the panel Thursday would give the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence for the possession of 28 grams of crack cocaine as it does for the possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine.

Democrats have said the law tends to disproportionately target blacks, because crack is typically used in poorer urban communities.

“I know this agreement is not everything we would like. Frankly, it is not everything that I would like either,” Durbin said Thursday. “But this is a historic day. The Senate Judiciary Committee has never reported a bill to reduce this crack-powder disparity.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the panel’s ranking Republican, said that the bill reported out of committee strikes the right balance in addressing concerns that the current sentencing guidelines unjustly targets blacks and the needs of law enforcement officials.

“We are dealing with a real law enforcement issue that needs to be handled and the sentences need to be adjusted in a way that’s significant, meaningful and makes a real difference, but also doesn’t inadvertently undermine the ability of our law enforcement community trying to make our neighborhoods safer,” Sessions said.

The House Judiciary Committee approved its version of the legislation in July. Unlike the Senate bill, the House legislation eliminates mandatory minimum sentences for cocaine and crack offenses.

The Justice Department has expressed support efforts for eliminating the differences between crack and powder cocaine sentencing. Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer said at a House hearing in May that the current sentencing policies are “hard to justify.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed today two top Justice Department nominees whose nominations had languished on the Senate Executive Calendar for much of last year.

However, the panel lost its quorum — and its ability to conduct business — before it could consider the most high-profile nomination, that of Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel.

At the end of 2009, the Senate returned all three nominations to the White House. President Obama promptly renominated them in January.

Mary L. Smith (Schoeman, Updike & Kaufman)

The panel today voted to report out of committee Tax Division nominee Mary L. Smith by a 12-7 vote. The committee endorsed Office of Legal Policy nominee Christopher Schroeder by a 16-3 vote.

As they did in her first committee vote last June, Republicans unanimously voted against sending Smith’s nomination to be Assistant Attorney General to the Senate floor. Republican senators have complained that Smith has virtually no tax law experience. The committee initially approved her last June 11 on a party line vote of 12-7.

“The Assistant Attorney General is not the kind of position that you probably would want someone learning on the job,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said at the committee meeting today.

Democrats defended Smith, noting her past work as an in-house counsel at Tyco International and as a DOJ trial attorney.

“She has more litigation, management and Justice Department experience than previous Tax Division nominees,” said Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin. He added that litigation is the “bread and butter” of the Tax Division.

Christopher Schroeder (Duke University)

On Schroeder’s nomination to be Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Policy, the Republican vote was split, with only Jon Kyl (Ariz.), John Cornyn (Texas), and Tom Coburn (Okla.) voting against Schroeder, who would be vetting judicial nominations if he is confirmed.

Schroeder, a Duke University law professor, has been a critic of President George W. Bush’s national security policies, which is a source of concern for some Republicans. The panel first reported him out of committee by voice vote on July 28, 2009.

“I find it very troubling that someone with those views would be vetting the judges nominated by the president,” Kyl said.

Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the panel’s ranking Republican, said Schroeder, a former chief counsel on the committee to then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), said the professor is a “strong partisan.” But the Republican senator said Schroeder’s views shouldn’t disqualify him from leading the Office of Legal Policy, because the office “has some political component to it.”

“The nominee is smart and capable,” Sessions said.

The panel also held over several judicial nominations and DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics nominee James P. Lynch. The committee will consider Lynch and Johnsen at its meeting next Thursday.

“I must admit I am troubled by the number of nominations that get held,” panel Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) complained. “Vote them up, or vote them down.”

This report was updated at 2:02 p.m.

Sen. Leahy, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which passed the media shield bill to the full Senate on Thursday (file photo by Ryan J. Reilly / Main Justice).

A bill protecting the right of journalists to keep their sources confidential passed the Senate Judiciary Committee today by a 15 to 4 vote.

The legislation has been endorsed by Attorney General Eric Holder and media organizations.  But Sen. Jeff Sessions, the panel’s top Republican, said the bill would protect “criminal leaking of classified information” and “hamstring the government’s ability to keep its most vital operations confidential.”

Several amendments failed, including one introduced by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) which limited the definition of a journalist.

The legislation broadly defines journalists to include bloggers, citizen journalists and freelancers.

Durbin said that definition was too expansive and would cover politicians on Twitter, holding up examples of some of his colleague’s tweets.

Sessions said the bill doesn’t “state with sufficient clarity who qualifies as a journalist.” The Alabama Republican added in a statement, “This is a serious concern. The shield could potentially apply to everyone from high school kids in a journalism class to those producing tracts for extremist groups. We are rushing into perilous and uncharted waters.”

But Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, pointed to what he called the anonymous “blogs” of Benjamin Franklin, and said journalists writing under pseudonyms should not be excluded from the bill.

The Senate version of the Free Flow of Information Act of 2009 protects reporters’ confidential sources in federal court. Those rights are not absolute, and can be overridden in national security cases. However, under the legislation, the government would have to provide facts to back up its claim that a leak of information harmed national security.

The bill would also extend protection to journalists’ phone and email records held by third-party communications companies.

The media shield legislation was introduced by Sens. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) in February. It would provide protection on the federal level for the journalist-source relationship. Most states already have media shield laws.

“I’m happy with the final language,” Leahy told Main Justice. “It’s been a long time getting here, I tried to make sure everyone had the opportunity to get heard and for all those who said we couldn’t get it out of committee, we did.”

“The Free Flow of Information Act strikes the right balance among the important objectives of protecting our nation, enforcing our criminal laws and ensuring freedom of expression,” said Leahy in a statement. “After years of debate and countless cases of reporters being held in contempt, fined and even jailed for honoring their professional commitment not to publicly reveal their sources, the time has come to enact a balanced Federal shield law.”

The act is supported by more than 70 news media and journalism organizations, including ABC News, the Associated Press, CNN, the National Newspaper Association and the Society of Professional Journalists, according to Leahy’s office.

This story has been updated with a statement from Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)

Mary L. Smith (Schoeman, Updike & Kaufman)

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) last week reiterated his support for the stalled nomination of Mary L. Smith as the head of the Justice Department’s Tax Division, saying that she was fully qualified for the post. Durbin on Wednesday gave a floor speech about the delay, caused by a “hold” on Senate floor action by anonymous Republicans.

Smith, a member of the Cherokee Nation, was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee June 11 without the support of the panel’s Republican members. The Republicans complained that Smith, a partner at the Schoeman, Updike & Kaufman law firm in Chicago, had virtually no tax experience.

The senior senator from Smith’s home state described her as “a highly qualified nominee,” even though she “is not a traditional tax lawyer.” Durbin touted her experience working on tax law and tax policy issues, adding that “Judiciary Republicans are grasping at straws with [the] allegation” that she is unqualified to head the Tax Division.

Durbin’s speech on Smith came Nov. 18 during Senate floor debate on the nomination of Judge David Hamilton to the Seventh Circuit Court.

The full text of Durbin’s statement is below:

Madam President, I would also like to discuss another nominee whom the Republicans have been stalling: Mary L. Smith. She is President Obama’s nominee to be the Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division at the Justice Department. Mary is from my home State of Illinois, and Senate Republicans have been holding up her nomination for over 5 months.

Mary Smith is a highly qualified nominee who has had a distinguished 18-year legal career. After graduating from the University of Chicago law school, she clerked for a prestigious Federal judge and then litigated at a large Chicago law firm. She then worked as a trial attorney in the Justice Department’s Civil Division and as a lawyer in the Clinton White House.

Mary returned to private practice and joined the international law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, where she focused on business litigation. After 4 years at Skadden, she went to work at Tyco International, where she managed what has been called the most complex securities class action litigation in history.

Mary has also been deeply devoted to pro bono work and public service, which really tells the story of a lawyer’s dedication to the profession. She serves on many bar association boards including the Chicago Bar Foundation, which helps provide free legal services to low-income and disadvantaged individuals.

Mary Smith is not only a highly qualified nominee, she is a historic nominee. Mary is a member of the Cherokee Nation and, if confirmed, she would be the first Native American to hold the rank of Assistant Attorney General in the 140-year history of the Justice Department. She would be the highest ranking Native American in DOJ history.

I was sorry to see that when we took up Mary Smith’s nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Republican members voted against her. They alleged she was unqualified for the job because she doesn’t have as much tax law experience as other recent Tax Division nominees.

The Judiciary Republicans are grasping at straws with this allegation. First of all, it is an inherently subjective determination. There is no record of how much time Mary Smith has spent working on tax issues compared with previous nominees.

It is true Mary is not a traditional tax lawyer, but she has worked on tax law and tax policy issues throughout her career. During the years she worked at Tyco International, she worked closely with that company’s tax department on responding to IRS subpoenas and assessing the complex tax implications of the $3 billion settlement of the Tyco securities litigation.

When she served in the Clinton White House she worked with congressional offices, the Treasury Department, and the National Economic Council to address tax disparities between Indian tribes and State governments.

And more recently, she served on President Obama’s Justice Department transition team, and she helped review and analyze the Tax Division, the very office she has been nominated to lead.

The second reason the Republican allegation about Mary Smith’s qualifications is off base is because Mary has more litigation, management, and Justice Department experience than previous Tax Division nominees. Those are critical qualifications to lead the Tax Division. In this respect, Mary Smith is more qualified than her predecessors.

Mary is a seasoned litigator who has had multiple trials and courtroom experience. The head of the Tax Division needs first and foremost to be a person with litigation experience, and Mary Smith fits the bill. She has been a litigator in the Justice Department, in two large law firms, and in one of the largest corporations in the country. Two of the recent Tax Division leaders-whom the Judiciary Republicans hold up as models of what it takes to lead that office-had no litigation experience and never had a single trial.

Mary is also more qualified than some of her predecessors when it comes to management experience. The Tax Division is an office with over 350 attorneys. When she worked on the Tyco litigation, Mary managed over 100 lawyers and a $50 million budget. She managed large litigation teams while working at the Skadden Arps law firm. And during her service in the White House, she helped manage and coordinate the work of multiple Federal agencies. None of the other recent Tax Division nominees had as much management experience as Mary Smith, a fact that has little value to the Judiciary Republicans who voted against her.

Mary also has more Justice Department experience than her recent predecessors. She worked in the DOJ Civil Division as a trial attorney, and she was a key member of President Obama’s DOJ review team last winter. She understands the Justice Department as an institution, and the perspective of the DOJ career staff.

In short, Mary has an excellent background to lead the Tax Division. She has litigation experience, management experience, DOJ experience, and tax experience. None of the previous heads of that office had all of these qualifications combined.

One of those prior Tax Division leaders, Nathan Hochman, has come forward in support of Mary Smith’s nomination. Mr. Hochman was the head of the Tax Division under President George W. Bush, so he’s not exactly a partisan Democrat. Mr. Hochman wrote a letter to the Senate and said the following:

I am confident Mary will provide strong leadership for the [Tax] Division and is a good choice. ….. Mary’s private practice experience in complex financial litigation gives her a working background for the type of cases litigated by the [Tax] Division.

I would suggest that President Bush’s Tax Division leader has a better understanding of what it takes to lead the Tax Division than a handful of Senators.

Ted Olson is another prominent Republican who supports Mary Smith for this position. Mr. Olson is one of the most respected lawyers in America and he served as the Solicitor General at the Justice Department under President George W. Bush. He worked closely with the Tax Division and represented that office in cases before the Supreme Court.

Ted Olson wrote a letter to the Senate and called Mary Smith “a first-rate litigator” and “a fine choice to be this nation’s Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division.”

The Senate has received dozens of other letters of support for Mary Smith, including many from our Nation’s leading Native American leaders. They are eager for the Senate to confirm Mary so she can become the highest ranking Native American in the history of the Justice Department.

The month of November is National American Indian and Alaska Native Heritage Month. We would honor our Native American community by confirming Mary Smith this month.

I urge my Republican colleagues to stop blocking this important nomination and agree to a vote on my Illinois constituent, Mary Smith.

An Illinois man will serve up to seven years in prison for snatching a wallet from the office of a U.S. Attorney finalist, The Belleville News-Democrat reported.

Stephen Wigginton (Weilmuenster & Wigginton)

Illinois Southern District U.S. Attorney candidate Stephen Wigginton, a partner at Belleville, Ill., law firm Weilmuenster & Wigginton, chased down Freddie L. Davis and tackled him to the ground shortly after the man ran off with a staffer’s wallet in July. Davis was convicted of burglary Thursday and will be sentenced Dec. 18.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) recommended this summer that President Barack Obama either keep Southern District U.S. Attorney A. Courtney Cox on the job or replace him with Wigginton.

Wigginton has been with Weilmuenster & Wigginton since 2000. Prior to joining the Belleville firm, he spent eight years as a litigator at law firms. He also served as a criminal prosecutor in the Circuit Attorney’s Office in St. Louis.

The Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed legislation Thursday that would create a new section within the Justice Department Criminal Division to handle human rights crimes.

The Human Rights Enforcement Act of 2009, which was approved by voice vote, would lay the groundwork to fold the Office of Special Investigations and Domestic Security Section into the new section. The Office of Special Investigations — which was created to probe Nazi criminals living in the United States — focuses on U.S. citizens who committed human rights crimes. The Domestic Security Section prosecutes non-U.S. citizens who violated human rights laws and are in the United States.

The new section would prosecute torture, genocide, child soldiers and war crimes that are committed by any person who is in the United States. The bill is sponsored by Senate Judiciary human rights and the law chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and co-sponsored by Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.)

Criminal Division chief Lanny Breuer said last month that he supports the establishment of a human rights section. Here are his remarks from a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on human rights enforcement:

“While no structural reform can take place without the approval of the Office of Management and Budget and notification to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, based on my review, I have recommended to the Attorney General that our already outstanding efforts in this area would be enhanced by a merger of the Domestic Security Section and the Office of Special Investigation into a new section with responsibility for human rights enforcement, MEJA/SMTJ cases, and alien-smuggling and related matters.  That new section would be called the Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section. The Attorney General has indicated his support for this change and the Department’s strong commitment to enforcing human rights, and we expect to move forward with this.”

This post has been updated and corrected from an earlier version.

Senate Democrats introduced legislation Thursday that would establish the same sentencing guidelines for powder cocaine and crack offenses.

The Fair Sentencing Act, sponsored by Senate Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and nine other Democrats, would end the 100-to-1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine penalties enacted in the 1980s. The bill would also trigger a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for the possession of 500 grams of either of the substances.

The decades-old law gives the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence for the possession of five grams of crack cocaine as it does for the possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine. Democrats have said the law tends to disproportionately harm blacks, because crack is generally used in poorer urban communities.

“The sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine has contributed to the imprisonment of African Americans at six times the rate of whites and to the United States’ position as the world’s leader in incarcerations,” Durbin said in a statement. “Congress has talked about addressing this injustice for long enough; it’s time for us to act.”

The cosponsors of the bill are Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Judiciary crime and drugs subcommittee Chairman Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), Judiciary panel members Sens. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) and Al Franken (D-Min.) Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) are also cosponsors.

The House Judiciary Committee approved its version of the legislation in July. Unlike the Senate bill, the House legislation eliminates mandatory minimum sentences for cocaine and crack offenses.

The Justice Department supports Congress’s efforts to eliminate the differences between crack and powder cocaine sentencing. Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer said at a House hearing in May that the current sentencing policies are “hard to justify.”

Assistant Majority Leader Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) included a Bush holdover in his recommendations for the next Illinois Central and Southern District U.S. Attorneys, according to a news release from the senator’s office.

A. Courtney Cox (Hart & Hart)

The Illinois senator recommended that President Obama consider retaining Southern District U.S. Attorney A. Courtney Cox in the job he has held since he was appointed to the post by a federal court in November 2007. This is the second Illinois U.S. Attorney that Durbin has asked Obama to keep in place. We previously reported that the Illinois senator requested that Northern District U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald keep his job.

Durbin spokesperson Joe Shoemaker said the Illinois senator did not make his recommendations based on the political affiliations of the candidates. He said Durbin picked the “best qualified people.”

Durbin also suggested that Obama consider lawyer Stephen Wigginton for the Southern District post. He has been with Belleville, Ill. firm Weilmuenster & Wigginton since 2000. Prior to joining the Belleville firm, he spent eight years as a litigator at law firms. He also served as a criminal prosecutor in the Circuit Attorney’s Office in St. Louis.

Stephen Wigginton (Weilmuenster & Wigginton)

Durbin recommended to Obama that Central District Assistant U.S. Attorneys Gregory Harris or James Lewis replace Illinois Central District U.S. Attorney Rodger Heaton, who has held his post since 2005.

Lewis has served as the head of the office’s civil division for two decades. He was a Justice Department Civil Division trial attorney and civil rights lawyer in Mississippi before joining the Central District office.

Harris, the office’s criminal division chief, joined the criminal division at the office in 2001. He worked as a litigator at Springfield law firm of Giffin, Winning, Cohen & Bodewes from 1988 to 2001 after serving an eight year stint as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the office.

A bipartisan committee suggested the candidates to Durbin.

Obama has the final say on all U.S. Attorney recommendations. The Senate must confirm the president’s nominees before they can be sworn in as U.S. Attorneys.