[Senate Hearing 117-689]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 117-689

                      CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE
                   NOMINATIONS OF HON. LISA O. MONACO
                     TO BE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
                        OF THE UNITED STATES AND
                 VANITA GUPTA TO BE ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY
                      GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               ----------                              

                             MARCH 9, 2021

                               ----------                              

                           Serial No. J-117-3

                               ----------                              

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        www.judiciary.senate.gov
                            www.govinfo.gov
                            
                               __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
48-864 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                 
                           
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                   RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chair
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa,     
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California             Ranking Member
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             JOHN CORNYN, Texas
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      TED CRUZ, Texas
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              BEN SASSE, Nebraska
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey           JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
ALEX PADILLA, California             TOM COTTON, Arkansas
JON OSSOFF, Georgia                  JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
                                     THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
                                     MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
             Joseph Zogby, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
      Kolan L. Davis, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                        March 9, 2021, 9:30 a.m.

                    STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

                                                                   Page

Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Illinois.......................................................     1
Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa.     4

                              INTRODUCERS

Markey, Hon. Edward, A U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Massachusetts introducing Hon. Lisa O. Monaco, Nominee to be 
  Deputy Attorney General of the United States...................     6
Warner, Hon. Mark, A U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia 
  introducing Vanita Gupta, Nominee to be Associate Attorney 
  General of the United States...................................     7
Kaine, Hon. Tim, A U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia 
  introducing Vanita Gupta, Nominee to be Associate Attorney 
  General of the United States...................................     8

                                

               STATEMENTS OF NOMINEE HON. LISA O. MONACO

Witness List.....................................................    83
Monaco, Hon. Lisa O., Nominee to serve as Deputy Attorney General 
  of the United States...........................................    10
    prepared statement...........................................    84
    questionnaire and biographical information...................    86

                               QUESTIONS

Questions submitted to Nominee Hon. Lisa O. Monaco by:
    Senator Durbin...............................................   116
    Senator Klobuchar............................................   118
    Senator Grassley.............................................   119
    Senator Lee..................................................   137
    Senator Cruz.................................................   145
    Senator Sasse................................................   153
    Senator Hawley...............................................   154
    Senator Cotton...............................................   156
    Senator Kennedy..............................................   159
    Senator Tillis...............................................   161
    Senator Blackburn............................................   192

                                ANSWERS

Responses of Nominee Hon. Lisa O. Monaco to questions submitted 
  by:
    Senator Durbin...............................................   194
    Senator Klobuchar............................................   197
    Senator Grassley.............................................   198
    Senator Lee..................................................   228
    Senator Cruz.................................................   243
    Senator Sasse................................................   256
    Senator Hawley...............................................   259
    Senator Cotton...............................................   261
    Senator Kennedy..............................................   266
    Senator Tillis...............................................   267
    Senator Blackburn............................................   285

                                LETTERS

Letters Received by the Committee With Regard to the Nomination 
  of Hon. Lisa O. Monaco To Be Deputy Attorney General of the 
  United States

    Alliance for Justice (AFJ), Washington, DC, March 8, 2021....   289
    Anti-Defamation League (ADL), New York, New York, February 
      19, 2021...................................................   291
    Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense, Washington, DC, February 
      21, 2021...................................................   295
    Crime Victim/Survivor Services and Allied Professionals' 
      Support, February 26, 2021.................................   297
    Current State Attorneys General, February 25, 2021...........   301
    Environmental community groups, February 21, 2021............   307
    Everytown for Gun Safety, New York, New York, March 11, 2021.   310
    Fair and Just Prosecution, New York, New York, February 23, 
      2021.......................................................   311
    Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA), 
      Washington DC, February 19, 2021...........................   313
    Former colleagues of Hon. Lisa O. Monaco, March 1, 2021......   314
    Former deputy directors, Federal Bureau of Investigation 
      (FBI), February 1, 2021....................................   318
    Former senior officials of the U.S. Department of Justice, 
      February 18, 2021..........................................   320
    Former State Attorneys General, February 1, 2021.............   323
    Former United States Attorneys, February 8, 2021.............   329
    Fraternal Order of Police, Washington, DC, February 10, 2021.   336
    International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), 
      Alexandria, Virginia, February 3, 2021.....................   337
    Local prosecutors, February 17, 2021.........................   339
    Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA), February 3, 2021.....   342
    Major County Sheriffs of America (MCSA), Alexandria, Virginia   344
    Mueller, Hon. Robert S., III, former director, Federal Bureau 
      of Investigation (FBI), February 9, 2021...................   345
    National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV), 
      Washington, DC, March 1, 2021..............................   347
    National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives 
      (NOBLE), Alexandria, Virginia, February 21, 2021...........   349
    National Sheriffs' Association (NSA), Alexandria, Virginia, 
      March 2, 2021..............................................   350
    United States Chamber of Commerce, Washington, DC, March 8, 
      2021.......................................................   351

                                

                   STATEMENTS OF NOMINEE VANITA GUPTA

Witness List.....................................................    83
Gupta, Vanita, Nominee to serve as Associate Attorney General of 
  the United States..............................................    12
    prepared statement...........................................   352
    questionnaire and biographical information...................   355

                               QUESTIONS

Questions submitted to Nominee Vanita Gupta by:
    Senator Durbin...............................................   495
    Senator Grassley.............................................   496
    Senator Graham...............................................   515
    Senator Cornyn...............................................   516
    Senator Lee..................................................   524
    Senator Cruz.................................................   530
    Senator Sasse................................................   550
    Senator Hawley...............................................   552
    Senator Cotton...............................................   555
    Senator Kennedy..............................................   574
    Senator Tillis...............................................   576
    Senator Blackburn............................................   607

                                ANSWERS

Responses of Nominee Vanita Gupta to questions submitted by:
    Senator Durbin...............................................   609
    Senator Grassley.............................................   611
    Senator Graham...............................................   644
    Senator Cornyn...............................................   645
      Attachment I...............................................   659
      Attachment II..............................................   660
    Senator Lee..................................................   661
    Senator Cruz.................................................   676
    Senator Sasse................................................   715
    Senator Hawley...............................................   720
    Senator Cotton...............................................   724
    Senator Kennedy..............................................   755
    Senator Tillis...............................................   759
    Senator Blackburn............................................   789

                                LETTERS

Letters Received by the Committee With Regard to the Nomination 
  of Vanita Gupta To Be Associate Attorney General of the United 
  States

    Alliance for Justice (AFJ), Washington, DC, March 8, 2021....   794
    American Association of People with Disabilities, Consortium 
      for Constituents with Disabilities, Washington, DC, et al., 
      March 8, 2021..............................................   796
    American Federation of State, County andMunicipal Employees 
      (AFSCME), Washington, DC, March 8, 2021....................   799
    American Law Institute project Principles of the Law: 
      Policing, reporters and advisers, February 24, 2021........   800
    Anti-Defamation League (ADL), New York, New York, February 
      19, 2021...................................................   804
    Asian Americans Advancing Justice/AAJC, Washington, DC, et 
      al., March 8, 2021.........................................   808
    Asian Americans Advancing Justice/AAJC, Washington, DC, John 
      C. Yang, president, March 5, 2021..........................   811
    Chertoff, Hon. Michael, former Secretary, U.S. Department of 
      Homeland Security, Washington, DC, February 4, 2021........   813
    Communications Workers of America (CWA), Washington, DC, 
      February 22, 2021..........................................   814
    Constitutional Accountability Center, Washington, DC, March 
      8, 2021....................................................   815
    Crime Victim/Survivors, Advocates, and Justice Professionals 
      Support, February 19, 2021.................................   819
    Current and former police chiefs and sheriffs from across the 
      United States, February 26, 2021...........................   824
    Current State Attorneys General, February 25, 2021...........   833
    Current State Attorneys General and former officials of the 
      U.S. Department of Justice, March 5, 2021..................   839
    End Citizens United/Let America Vote Action Fund, March 8, 
      2021.......................................................   843
    Environmental community groups, February 21, 2021............   844
    Everytown for Gun Safety, New York, New York, March 11, 2021.   847
    Faith leaders representing Christianity in the United States, 
      March 3, 2021..............................................   849
    Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA), 
      Bethesda, Maryland, February 19, 2021......................   852
    Former State Attorneys General, February 1, 2021.............   853
    Fraternal Order of Police, Washington, DC, February 10, 2021.   859
    Futures Without Violence, San Francisco, California, February 
      23, 2021...................................................   860
Letters Received by the Committee With Regard to the Nomination 
  of Vanita Gupta To Be Associate Attorney General of the United 
  States--Continued

    Gender justice organizations; reproductive health, rights, 
      and justice organizations; and anti-violence organizations; 
      March 5, 2021..............................................   862
    Grayson, Hon. Trey former Commonwealth of Kentucky Secretary 
      of State, Florence, Kentucky, January 21, 2021.............   866
    Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association 
      (HAPCOA), Washington, DC, February 6, 2021.................   868
    Holden, Mark V., former general counsel and senior vice 
      president, Koch Industries, February 2, 2021...............   869
    International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), 
      Alexandria, Virginia, February 3, 2021.....................   871
    Jewish organizations: local, state, and national groups, 
      March 8, 2021..............................................   873
    Justice Action Network and Coalition for Public Safety, 
      Washington, DC, February 24, 2021..........................   876
    Latter-day Saints from across the United States, March 8, 
      2021.......................................................   878
    Lawyers and advocates familiar with the Tulia, Texas, case, 
      March 5, 2021..............................................   881
    Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, 
      DC, March 8, 2021..........................................   884
    Lawyers for Good Government, Houston, Texas, et al., March 8, 
      2021.......................................................   887
    Leaders in bipartisan movement to reform criminal justice 
      system, February 3, 2021...................................   950
    Leaders of diverse faiths, March 1, 2021.....................   952
    Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The, 
      Washington, DC, March 5, 2021..............................   954
    LGBTQ organizations: national, state, and local groups, March 
      8, 2021....................................................   959
    Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA), February 3, 2021.....   962
    Major County Sheriffs of America (MCSA), Alexandria, Virginia   964
    Medlock, Hon. Harold E., retired Chief of Police, Charlotte, 
      North Carolina, February 26, 2021..........................   965
    NAACP, Baltimore, Maryland, March 5, 2021....................   967
    NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), New York, New 
      York, March 2, 2021........................................   970
    National Alliance to End Sexual Violence (NAESV), Washington, 
      DC, February 11, 2021......................................   974
    National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives 
      (NAWLEE), West Townsend, Massachusetts, February 21, 2021..   976
    National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), Washington, DC, 
      March 16, 2021.............................................   977
    National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV), 
      Washington, DC, February 16, 2021..........................   979
    National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW), Washington, DC, 
      March 1, 2021..............................................   981
    National Education Association, Washington, DC, March 8, 2021   983
    National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives 
      (NOBLE), Alexandria, Virginia, January 30, 2021............   984
    National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT), 
      Washington, DC, February 26, 2021..........................   985
    National Sheriffs' Association (NSA), Alexandria, Virginia, 
      March 2, 2021..............................................   986
    National Sheriffs' Association (NSA), Hon. David J. Mahoney, 
      president and Sheriff, Dane County, Wisconsin, March 1, 
      2021.......................................................   987
    NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, Washington, DC, et 
      al., March 1, 2021.........................................   989
    Norquist, Grover, founder and president, Americans for Tax 
      Reform, January 29, 2021...................................   991
    People For the American Way (PFAW), Washington, DC, March 8, 
      2021.......................................................   992
    Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), Washington, DC, 
      February 8, 2021...........................................   994
    Prosecutors from across the United States, February 25, 2021.   996
    REFORM Alliance, New York, New York, March 3, 2021...........   998
    Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Montgomery, Alabama, 
      March 8, 2021..............................................  1000
    Steele, Hon. Michael S., Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, 
      February 22, 2021..........................................  1003
Letters Received by the Committee With Regard to the Nomination 
  of Vanita Gupta To Be Associate Attorney General of the United 
  States--Continued

    Thompson, Hon. Tony, Sheriff, Black Hawk County, Iowa, March 
      3, 2021....................................................  1005
    Ujima, National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black 
      Community, Washington, DC, February 22, 2021...............  1007
    United States Conference of Mayors (USCM), Washington, DC, 
      February 4, 2021...........................................  1008
    Vera Institute of Justice, Brooklyn, New York, February 25, 
      2021.......................................................  1010
    YWCA USA, Washington, DC, March 8, 2021......................  1011

 
                      CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE
                   NOMINATIONS OF HON. LISA O. MONACO
                     TO BE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
                        OF THE UNITED STATES AND
                 VANITA GUPTA TO BE ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY
                      GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2021

                              United States Senate,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in 
Room 216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin, 
Chair of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Durbin [presiding], Leahy, Feinstein, 
Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono, Booker, 
Padilla, Ossoff, Grassley, Cornyn, Lee, Cruz, Hawley, Cotton, 
Tillis, and Blackburn.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
           A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Chair Durbin. This hearing will come to order.
    Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing 
on the nominations of Lisa Monaco to be Deputy Attorney General 
and Vanita Gupta to be Associate Attorney General. These are 
the No. 2 and No. 3 positions of leadership in the Justice 
Department.
    Ms. Monaco, Ms. Gupta, welcome to you and your families. We 
are happy to have you here.
    As I discussed at Judge Garland's hearing, the Justice 
Department is at an existential moment after 4 tumultuous years 
under President Trump. Too often during the last 
administration, the Justice Department essentially served as an 
arm of the White House committed to advancing President Trump's 
personal and political interests.
    Judge Garland made it clear that restoring the Department's 
independence and integrity is the highest priority for him and 
for his leadership team. This transformation is essential. Our 
Nation faces challenging security threats, both here and 
abroad, and we know from the morning headlines out of Minnesota 
that we are also, as a nation, confronting important questions 
about race and inequality in our society.
    The public must have the assurance that the Justice 
Department is ready to respond to the threats facing us and is 
dedicated to ensuring equal justice under the law. I believe 
these nominees can meet that challenge.
    As Merrick Garland said of them, and I quote, ``They have 
the skills that I do not have. They have experiences that I do 
not. I need this leadership team if I am going to be 
successful.''
    Simply put, Lisa Monaco may be the most qualified 
individual ever nominated to serve as Deputy Attorney General. 
As President Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor, she 
coordinated the Federal Government's response to a wide variety 
of security risks, including natural disasters, pandemics, 
terrorist attacks, and cyber threats. I worked with her. I know 
that President Obama trusted her skill and judgment.
    Just as important, Ms. Monaco has experience at nearly 
every level of the Department of Justice. She served as an 
assistant U.S. attorney, counselor and chief of staff to the 
Director of the FBI, Associate Deputy Attorney General, 
Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, and Assistant 
Attorney General for the National Security Division. For that 
last role, the Senate confirmed her by voice vote.
    Lisa Monaco knows the Department. She is ready to hit the 
ground running, and she is well positioned to help restore the 
morale of the Department's career professionals.
    Vanita Gupta is well qualified to be the Associate Attorney 
General. She would be the first civil rights lawyer and the 
first woman of color in our Nation's history to serve in that 
position. Ms. Gupta has already had an amazing career. From 
2014 to 2017, she led the Department's Civil Rights Division. 
In this role, she led the Department's work on a broad range of 
critical issues, including voting rights, policing reform, 
enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act, and protecting 
our military from discrimination and predatory practices.
    She developed a reputation for bringing together 
stakeholders from diverse backgrounds to address tough 
challenges. I want to spend a moment about her early career, 
which I think tells us so much about her.
    Ms. Gupta started her legal career with the NAACP's Legal 
Defense and Education Fund. I was fortunate enough a few years 
ago to be given a book called, ``Devil in the Grove,'' by 
Gilbert King. It was the story of Thurgood Marshall and the 
NAACP's Legal Defense and Education Fund. It is one of the 
best.
    It tells the story how Thurgood Marshall, African American, 
on trains, headed to the South to defend African Americans who 
had been accused of serious felonies. It was risky. It was 
dangerous. It was controversial. But it was the right thing to 
do in the cause of justice.
    You cannot read that account without coming away with a 
great admiration for his courage to risk his life for others, 
which he did time and time again. As they said in the book, he 
fought countless battles for human rights in antebellum 
courtrooms where white supremacy often prevailed. At night, 
when he was out of the courtroom, he had to worry about night 
riders and Klansmen and whether they would try to take his 
life. It is hard to imagine being an effective attorney 
worrying at any moment that someone might kill you.
    I tell that story because I believe there is a parallel 
here. While Vanita Gupta was with the NAACP's Legal Defense and 
Education Fund, she led a landmark effort to exonerate nearly 
40 wrongfully convicted individuals in the small town of Tulia, 
Texas. I asked John Cornyn, and he said he had been by Tulia up 
in the Panhandle of Texas.
    The individuals she was defending were almost all African 
American. They had all been convicted of drug charges based 
solely on the false testimony of one undercover officer. This 
officer was eventually revealed to be both dishonest and 
overtly racist.
    Ms. Gupta's clients were ultimately pardoned by Republican 
Governor Rick Perry, and the State of Texas paid a $6 million 
settlement. There is a parallel, there is a historic parallel 
to Thurgood Marshall's effort as an African American to go to 
the place where he was not welcome and to defend those who had 
no lawyer. Ms. Gupta's experience in Tulia, Texas, parallels 
Thurgood Marshall's life and his work at the Legal Defense 
Fund.
    In recent years, Ms. Gupta has been the president and CEO 
of one of the largest and most distinguished civil rights 
organizations in the country, the Leadership Conference on 
Civil and Human Rights. It is sad and pitiful that this 
exceptional nominee has been targeted by a right-wing dark 
money organization, which is running television ads that make 
patently false claims.
    I cannot say it any better than The Washington Post, which 
called the ad they are running against her ``a baseless smear 
campaign,'' which is ``categorically dishonest,'' and that is 
``mainly notable for the magnitude of lies and distortions it 
crams into 30 seconds.''
    This ad claims that Ms. Gupta supports defunding the 
police. But as The Washington Post wrote, ``Awkwardly, there is 
zero proof of that, including in the ad's own footnoted 
citation.'' I am disappointed that some of my Senate colleagues 
are repeating the claims in this ad. It is the height of irony 
that anyone would criticize this well-qualified Justice 
Department veteran after we sat silently by while there was no 
Senate-confirmed Associate Attorney General for nearly 3 years 
during the Trump administration, an unprecedented leadership 
vacuum.
    In reality, Ms. Gupta worked closely with law enforcement 
during her tenure at the Justice Department. She led the 
Department's efforts to reform policing practices while also 
improving relations between police departments and the 
communities they serve. Do not take my word for it. Ms. Gupta's 
nomination has received the support of virtually every major 
law enforcement organization in the country.
    Consider a few of their statements. The Fraternal Order of 
Police wrote that Ms. Gupta ``always worked with us to find 
common ground, even when that seemed impossible.''
    The president of the National Sheriffs' Association wrote, 
``I strongly believe that Ms. Gupta is exactly the type of 
leader who is needed in the Justice Department today. She 
possesses immense credibility among law enforcement leaders and 
community leaders. She is an effective communicator and a 
bridge builder.''
    The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association wrote, 
``Ms. Gupta has a proven history of working with law 
enforcement agencies, correction officials, advocates, 
stakeholders, and elected officials across the political 
spectrum.''
    She has formed partnerships with many conservatives. 
Consider a few of the conservative leaders who have submitted 
strong letters of recommendation. Grover Norquist, president of 
Americans for Tax Reform. Here is what he wrote about Ms. 
Gupta: ``An honest broker, someone with an ability not only to 
understand, but also appreciate different perspectives. She was 
someone who sought consensus.''
    Mark Holden, the former general counsel of Koch Industries, 
wrote, ``I respected and admired how Ms. Gupta was not 
ideologically driven, but instead was principled and solutions-
oriented. She worked incredibly hard to find solutions where 
some saw none.''
    And Michael Chertoff, who served as Secretary of Homeland 
Security under President Bush, wrote of Ms. Gupta, ``She is a 
relentless advocate for fairness and the rule of law. I am 
grateful that there are leaders like her who will be serving 
this country.''
    I am grateful, too, that distinguished leaders like Ms. 
Gupta and Ms. Monaco are ready to come back into public 
service, even when that means enduring this process and some of 
the things that come from it.
    Now I would like to turn to the Ranking Member, Chuck 
Grassley.

         OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY,
             A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

    Senator Grassley. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And welcome, everyone, as we are here to consider the 
nomination of two candidates for leadership of Justice, Lisa 
Monaco to be Deputy Attorney General and Vanita Gupta to be 
Associate Attorney General.
    I extend a warm welcome to the candidates and the nominees, 
as well as their families and friends.
    Lisa Monaco is nominated to serve the second-highest 
ranking position in the Department, a serious job, and I 
applaud President Biden for nominating a serious person for the 
position. Ms. Monaco has worked to keep Americans safe from 
violent criminals, terrorists, and cyber threats. She is the 
type of mainstream pick I would expect from the Democratic 
nominations--or administration.
    Vanita Gupta has been nominated to serve the Department of 
Justice as its third-highest ranking official. While the Deputy 
Attorney General generally runs criminal law enforcement, the 
Associate Attorney General is in charge of the civil side of 
the Department. Ms. Gupta comes before this Committee with an 
impressive career advocating on behalf of various liberal civil 
rights organizations. She has worked with my office in the past 
on criminal justice reform, and I appreciate what we have been 
able to do in that area. And obviously, I appreciate the 
cooperation of Senators Durbin and Lee in that same area.
    I am now going to turn to some things that I had a private 
discussion over the phone with Ms. Gupta on. I told her I would 
bring these things up in the Committee meeting and maybe in my 
questions. I think that she will have her work cut out for her 
showing us that she can represent all Americans in the role 
that she is being selected for.
    While some of her career has been admirable civil rights 
litigation, much of it has been strident liberal advocacy. Her 
public persona has often been very partisan. So a legitimate 
question: Will this advocacy affect her work supervising civil, 
antitrust, environment, civil rights, and tax evasion? To 
answer those questions is why we have a hearing like this.
    Her Twitter feed has painted Republicans with a broad 
brush, describing our national convention last year as three 
nights of ``racism, xenophobia, and outrageous lies.'' So a 
legitimate question: How many of our colleagues in this room 
were there? Of course, Ms. Gupta has, in fact, launched Twitter 
attacks on some of them directly. Will that kind of partisan 
political advocacy affect her legal advocacy in the role where 
she represents all Americans?
    She has attacked the character of many judicial nominees, 
most of whom are now sitting on the Federal bench. She called 
the confirmation of now-Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney 
Barrett, ``illegitimate.'' She called Judge Kavanaugh ``a 
privileged lifelong partisan'' whose testimony was 
``horrifying.''
    She personally signed salacious opposition research dumps 
on 39 different circuit nominees over the last 4 years. Judges 
have thick skins, but the fact is that her name is going to be 
on hundreds, maybe thousands of briefs before those judges 
whose characters she frequently maligned. So a question: How 
will she square the kind of even-keeled legal advocacy we 
expect from our country's top civil lawyer with the kind of 
unfair political advocacy championing against the very judges 
she will be appearing before?
    Her list of controversial statements is long. Ms. Gupta's 
prior experience in the Civil Rights Division also is of 
concern. Whether it is the use of grant programs and consent 
decrees to federalize local law enforcement, the use of Justice 
Department slush funds to funnel money to liberal, nonprofit 
political allies, or attempts to restrict school choice in 
Louisiana through decades-old desegregation orders, there is a 
lot to be concerned about.
    In the weeks since President Biden took office, we have 
seen stark changes to the Justice Department, suggesting a 
rapid return to the Holder era. We need to find out from the 
nominee if she will help run the Justice Department for all 
Americans or be President Biden's progressive-wing person. And 
there, I am repeating how Holder referred to himself vis-a-vis 
President Obama.
    I would like to end by reiterating Ms. Gupta's help on 
criminal justice reform and acknowledge the strong support she 
has received from law enforcement organizations. But the fact 
is that the Associate Attorney General's portfolio includes 
almost no oversight over criminal prosecution or Federal law 
enforcement. The kinds of targets that will be in her agenda 
are conservative nonprofits, those who work in natural resource 
extraction, pro-lifers, religious employees, Google 
competitors, college students, Republican legislators, and I 
suppose you could go on and on, but I will stop there.
    They are the ones who are concerned about Ms. Gupta's 
nomination, and it is up to her to show us during this hearing 
and the QFRs that she will get that all these interests do not 
have any concern.
    And before I close, I would like to say how I approach some 
of the things that deal with the issue of equality. There is a 
big difference between equal protection and equal outcome. 
Equality means equal treatment, unbiased competition, 
impartiality judges outcome. Equity means equal outcomes 
achieved by an unequal treatment, biased competition, and 
preferential judgment. We all need to go by what the 
Declaration of Independence said: It is self-evident that all 
people are created equal.
    I yield.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Grassley.
    We now have reached the formal introduction phase. I would 
like to welcome one of our colleagues, Senator Ed Markey of 
Massachusetts, joining us remotely, who will introduce Ms. 
Monaco.
    Senator Markey, the floor is yours.

   INTRODUCTION OF HON. LISA O. MONACO, NOMINEE TO BE DEPUTY 
  ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, BY HON. ED MARKEY, A 
          U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
    And welcome to Lisa and welcome to your brother Mark and 
his wife, Jennifer, who are with you today. And a special hello 
to Lisa's father, who I understand is not in the hearing room 
but is probably watching online.
    It is with great honor and privilege that I have the 
opportunity to introduce Lisa Monaco, who has been nominated to 
serve as Deputy Attorney General, the second-highest position 
at the United States Department of Justice.
    One of Lisa's predecessors, Deputy Attorney General Rod 
Rosenstein, had joked at the start of his tenure about the 
relative anonymity of the position, telling one of his 
daughters not to expect to see his picture in the newspapers 
anytime soon. I have already told Lisa that I am very hopeful 
and quite confident that in this Justice Department, things 
will work out better for her than it did for Mr. Rosenstein.
    I am both relieved and enthusiastic to have someone as 
qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable as Lisa assume such a 
vital leadership role in our system of justice. Lisa is a Bay 
State native, growing up just outside Boston in Massachusetts. 
She received her bachelor's degree at Harvard University, went 
on to obtain her law degree at the University of Chicago Law 
School, and immediately began to take the world by storm.
    Lisa has served in several key positions, including chief 
of staff for former FBI Director Robert Mueller, Assistant 
Attorney General for National Security, and most notably as 
Homeland Security Advisor during the Obama administration. In 
this role, Lisa was faced with one of the greatest challenges 
in her career, and it was a challenge that hit close to home.
    On April 15, 2013, in just her third week on the job as 
President Obama's new Homeland Security Advisor, the Tsarnaev 
brothers bombed the finish line of the Boston Marathon. In a 
moment of terror and crisis, Lisa exhibited the utmost 
professionalism, steady-handed decisionmaking, and genuine 
compassion when our commonwealth and country needed it the 
most.
    Lisa did her best to make sense of the events of April 15th 
to clearly and directly communicate with the American people 
and to remain calm under an immense amount of pressure. I am 
confident that Lisa will approach her new role as Deputy 
Attorney General with the same courage, integrity, and 
fearlessness that she brought to the table throughout her 
distinguished career.
    President Biden could not have made a better choice for 
Deputy Attorney General, and I am proud to support her 
nomination today.
    So we welcome you to serve, and we are pleased to have you 
here. And I look forward to your nomination and your service to 
our Nation.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks to our colleague Senator Markey.
    We are also joined today by Virginia's Senators Warner and 
Kaine, who will introduce Ms. Gupta. They are also joining us 
remotely.
    Senator Kaine. I am sorry.
    Senator Warner, would you like to proceed?

INTRODUCTION OF VANITA GUPTA, NOMINEE TO BE ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY 
   GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, BY HON. MARK WARNER, A U.S. 
               SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

    Senator Warner. Thank you, Chairman Durbin and Ranking 
Member Grassley and distinguished Members of the Committee.
    I do not know if that is my bad reception, or are you guys 
hearing me okay? Is that a yes?
    Chair Durbin. We can hear you. It is rather distorted, 
which is unusual for your presentation.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Warner. I will try to make it quick. While I am 
here to introduce Vanita Gupta, I also want to add my 
endorsement of Lisa Monaco. I think she would be great.
    I think this is getting worse and worse. Is this----
    Senator Klobuchar. Turn it down. That, or just call in.
    Chair Durbin. We think it is on your end, Mark. Now you are 
muted.
    [Discussion off microphone.]
    Senator Warner. Senator Durbin, is that better?
    Chair Durbin. That is much better, yes, sir.
    Senator Warner. All right. You would think as somebody who 
invented cell phones, you would think I would be able to figure 
out a way to----
    Chair Durbin. We were just chatting about that, Mark.
    Senator Warner. Let me put first my two cents in for Lisa 
Monaco, but it is a great honor for me and my dear friend Tim 
Kaine to introduce a fellow Virginian and an outstanding public 
servant, President Biden's nominee to serve as Associate 
Attorney General, Vanita Gupta.
    Ms. Gupta, as we know, served from 2014 to 2017 as 
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights 
Division. She led the division as Acting Assistant Attorney 
General until 2015. Since 2017, she's led one of the country's 
preeminent civil rights organizations, the Leadership 
Conference for Civil and Human Rights.
    And let me echo, Mr. Chairman, what you said. You listed a 
number of her friends on the more conservative side, and I want 
to also point out the fact that Grover Norquist called her an 
honest broker. I can assure you in my many, many years in 
public service, particularly my time as Governor, when we 
changed our tax code, Grover Norquist never called me anything 
even remotely close to a compliment. So the fact that he has 
said this about Vanita I think is a great endorsement.
    You mentioned as well, and I want to echo our mutual friend 
Michael Chertoff, who has spoken very highly of Vanita. Mark 
Holden, the general counsel of Koch Industries, worked with her 
on criminal justice reform. I think Ranking Member Grassley 
mentioned this as well. Vanita did important work on the First 
Step Act back in 2018, which all the Members of the Committee 
did such a great job on.
    A civil rights leader in the thick of issues around 
policing, race, and criminal justice reform, she's actually led 
investigations of police departments in Ferguson, Chicago, 
Baltimore. I think the fact that she's done all that, yet she 
still has this broad support of law enforcement is extremely 
important.
    I think, Mr. Chairman, you also pointed out that she's been 
endorsed by the FOP. She obviously has--the other significant 
efforts: robust enforcement and education efforts to combat 
hate crimes, including the first-ever prosecutions under the 
Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
    And then, finally, I just want to mention, as Chairman of 
the Intelligence Committee, I have worked with many Members of 
this Committee on the misinformation/disinformation efforts 
oftentimes coming out of social media. Vanita Gupta brings a 
great knowledge in this space. She's been willing to engage 
with the leaders of some of these platforms to see if they can 
put forward more responsible behavior because, clearly, when we 
know that democracy itself is at stake in many of these issues 
around social media, having Vanita's voice in a senior position 
at Justice Department I think will be extraordinarily 
important.
    Vanita is a woman of extraordinary talent and intellect. 
She has broad support from the law enforcement community, and I 
recommend her without reservation to this Committee.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Warner. Senator Kaine.

INTRODUCTION OF VANITA GUPTA, NOMINEE TO BE ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, BY HON. TIM KAINE, A U.S. SENATOR 
                   FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

    Senator Kaine. Well, thank you to the Committee Members, 
Mr. Chair, and Ranking Member Grassley. I am thrilled to be 
here to offer words on behalf of my constituent Vanita Gupta. I 
support her because she is a passionate advocate for justice, 
because she is a consensus builder, and because she is a 
history maker.
    I was a civil rights lawyer for 17 years before I got into 
statewide politics. My first legal job was as a summer intern 
at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and I am thrilled to have 
somebody who has spent her career as a civil rights attorney 
nominated to be the No. 3 official at the Department of 
Justice.
    I faced some challenges in my political career for my civil 
rights work, people complaining about causes that I had 
championed and cases where I had represented people. But 
Virginia voters looked at the fact that lawyers often were 
elected to office who had been prosecutors, lawyers were often 
elected to office who had represented corporations or those 
with significant advantages. So why could not somebody with a 
civil rights background also be entrusted to take an oath and 
follow the law and fight for justice?
    The Chairman talked about her first case. Vanita took on 
this challenge of exonerating 46 people who had been wrongfully 
convicted in Tulia, Texas, ultimately obtaining pardons from 
the Republican Governor of that State. She has got the 
persistence and the focus that would make her a wonderful No. 3 
at the Justice Department.
    She is a consensus builder, as has been mentioned. When she 
was at the Justice Department, she worked on a lot of police 
reform issues and did so in a way that gained the respect of 
police organizations. She is endorsed for this position by the 
Fraternal Order of Police. And I do not want to make that a 
throw-away line.
    I have worked with police departments my entire career, as 
a Mayor of Richmond and as a Governor of Virginia. And I have 
worked to advance their pensions, et cetera. I have never been 
endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police. I have got to talk 
to Vanita and get the secret to that. But, obviously, she has 
done it because she is an honest broker, as Senator Warner 
said.
    Finally, she is a history maker. She is the child of Indian 
immigrants to the United States. She is married to the child of 
Vietnamese immigrants to the United States. She would be the 
first civil rights lawyer to occupy this position at Justice 
and the first woman of color to do so.
    There will be a time in the future where we will not talk 
about firsts anymore because we will have decided not to 
artificially limit the talent pool of who can serve in 
positions like this. But sadly, we are not there yet, and it is 
important to have history makers so that everybody in this 
country can look at the leaders in our Government and say, ``I 
can do that one day.''
    The last thing I will say is this. Since Senator Durbin 
started with the story about Thurgood Marshall, I am going to 
start with my favorite story about the Department of Justice 
and why I think Vanita Gupta would be so wonderful there.
    There was a woman in Virginia by the name of Mildred 
Loving, who in the early 1960s married Richard Loving in 
Caroline County about an hour and 15 minutes south of DC 
Because she was Black and he was white, they violated a State 
law, and after a series of raids on their home, they were 
criminally sentenced and ordered to never come back to Virginia 
again, or they would be thrown in jail. So they moved to 
Washington.
    This was very tough on the couple not to go back. The 
couple had their first child and just wanted to go back home so 
that the grandparents could see their baby. But they could not. 
They were barred from doing it. And so Mildred Loving sat down 
at her kitchen table not far from the Russell Building, where I 
am talking to you now, and she wrote a handwritten letter to 
the Attorney General of the United States Robert F. Kennedy and 
said, ``I am being treated unjustly. Can you help me?''
    Robert F. Kennedy forwarded the case to some attorneys in 
Northern Virginia who represented her all the way to the 
Supreme Court, and the ban on interracial marriage was struck 
down. I want a Department of Justice where any person at the 
end of their tether who thinks that there is no one there to 
help them can sit at their kitchen table and handwrite a letter 
to the Attorney General and expect to be heard.
    With Vanita Gupta as the No. 3 person at the Department of 
Justice, my dream for the Department of Justice would be 
realized because she is the kind of person that people at the 
end of their tether would want to reach out to if they could 
find no one else to help them.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Senator Kaine.
    Will our two nominees please stand to be sworn?
    Do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give 
before this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Ms. Monaco. I do.
    Ms. Gupta. I do.
    Chair Durbin. Let the record reflect that both of the 
nominees have answered in the affirmative.
    Ms. Monaco, you may proceed with your testimony.

 STATEMENT OF HON. LISA O. MONACO, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS DEPUTY 
             ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

    Ms. Monaco. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member 
Grassley, Members of the Committee.
    I am honored to be here today as the President's nominee to 
be the Deputy Attorney General, and I thank Senator Markey for 
his very kind introduction and for the shout-out to my father.
    Without the love and support of my family, I would not have 
been able to pursue a career in public service. I am joined 
today by my brother Mark and his wife, Jennifer. I am very 
grateful for their presence and for the support of their 
children, Nicholas and Sophia; as well as that of my twin 
brother Chris, his wife, Lisa; my nieces Jessica and Julia; and 
my brother Peter and his partner, Nancy.
    When I came before this Committee as a nominee 10 years 
ago, almost to the day, Mr. Chairman, my mother and father were 
sitting right behind me. My mother is no longer with us, but as 
has been noted, my father is riveted to the TV this morning. I 
am deeply grateful to my parents who have taught me about hard 
work, about humility, and about what it means to live one's 
values.
    If confirmed, it will be an honor to work with the 
leadership team nominated by the President, with Merrick 
Garland and with Vanita Gupta, another veteran of the 
Department with whom I am very pleased to be here today.
    The Deputy Attorney General runs the day-to-day operations 
of the Department. Its 115,000 employees work every day to 
uphold the rule of law, to protect the American people from 
domestic and foreign threats, and to pursue equal justice. If I 
am confirmed, I will dedicate myself to protecting our national 
security, ensuring our laws are fairly and faithfully enforced, 
independent of partisan influence, and that the rights of all 
Americans are protected.
    I grew up as a lawyer in the Department of Justice, serving 
in different positions over 15 years across Republican and 
Democratic administrations. Each role reinforced for me that 
with power comes profound responsibility to protect the rights 
and the liberties that we are all guaranteed by the 
Constitution. And it is only if we commit ourselves every day 
to that effort that we can earn the confidence of the American 
people.
    Early in my career as an assistant United States attorney, 
I felt the responsibility to ensure not that cases are won, but 
that justice is done and that each individual defendant's 
rights are protected. As a senior official in the FBI after 9/
11, I helped transform that agency into a national security 
organization focused on preventing the next attack.
    And as the leader of the National Security Division, I 
enhanced the Department's ability to grapple with what was then 
a newly emerging threat, nation-state cyber attackers. Because 
of those experiences, I understand that the Justice Department 
holds a unique place in our Government. It wears two hats.
    It is an executive agency that implements the President's 
lawful policy objectives. That is policy objectives, not 
political objectives. It is also an independent investigator 
and prosecutor and, in this function, must act free of any 
political or partisan influence. Throughout my career, these 
norms have been my North Star.
    Today, the Justice Department is at an inflection point. 
Never has the Department's role in protecting our national 
security and the safety of the American people been more 
important as we battle violent extremism, foreign and domestic, 
and mounting cyber threats from nation-states and criminals 
alike.
    Our response to the shocking events of January 6th, an 
attack that cut to our country's core and I know so personally 
affected many in this room, is nothing less than the defense of 
our democracy. We must renew our work with law enforcement to 
protect public safety and build community trust, even as a 
once-in-a-century pandemic makes a difficult job all the more 
dangerous for frontline officers.
    We must recommit ourselves to the promise of equal justice 
and confront the fact that communities of color and other 
minorities continue to face discrimination in fundamental 
aspects of American life, including in the criminal justice 
system.
    My first job in the Department was as counsel to Janet 
Reno, the first woman Attorney General. She hung a portrait of 
Attorney General Edward Levi in her conference room. It 
signaled, I think, her commitment to independence and 
continuing Levi's post-Watergate work. It symbolized for me 
then and is a reminder to me today that the Department's 
leaders have a duty to remember and reaffirm the values of the 
institution.
    The story goes that when Levi was asked what he thought the 
Department needed most after Watergate, he responded, ``A 
soul.'' I believe that the soul of the Justice Department lives 
in the integrity of the women and men who serve it, in the 
career professionals, and in the norms that are the connective 
tissue keeping our rule of law muscles strong.
    I have already had the great good fortune to work with 
nearly every part of the Department of Justice. I know its 
career lawyers, law enforcement agents, analysts, and 
professional staff are its beating heart. If confirmed, it will 
be my honor to once again serve alongside them.
    Thank you, and I look forward to the Committee's questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Monaco appears as a 
submission for the record.]
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Ms. Monaco.
    Ms. Gupta, you may proceed.

   STATEMENT OF VANITA GUPTA, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS ASSOCIATE 
             ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

    Ms. Gupta. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, 
and Members of the Committee.
    It is a privilege to appear before this Committee today as 
you consider my nomination for Associate Attorney General. I am 
deeply, deeply honored to have been nominated for this position 
by President Biden.
    And thank you to Senators Warner and Kaine for your 
gracious introductions.
    Let me begin by introducing the love of my life, my 
husband, Chinh, and our sons, Rohan and Chetan, who are in the 
room today. My husband serves as the legal director of the 
Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia, and I am really 
proud of our shared commitment to public service.
    I also want to express gratitude to my sister and her 
family and to my parents, Rajiv and Kamla Gupta, who are also 
watching on C-SPAN. My parents are proud immigrants from India, 
and they believe more than anything in the promise of America. 
Growing up, they taught me that loving this country brings with 
it the obligation to do the necessary work to perfect our 
Union.
    That belief is shared by my husband, whose family fled 
violence and war in Vietnam and sought refuge on these great 
shores. It is because of this Nation's welcome and my parents' 
sacrifice and humility that I sit before this Committee today.
    Only one agency in our Federal Government bears the name of 
a value, and by virtue of that name, that value of justice, we 
know that the Department carries a unique charge and North 
Star. It is the sacred keeper of the promise of equal justice 
under the law. And if confirmed as Associate Attorney General, 
I pledge to this Committee and to the American people that I 
will work for justice every day.
    As a lifelong civil rights lawyer, I have committed my 
career to ensuring that the promises made in the Constitution 
are kept and that our Federal laws are fairly and impartially 
applied. That commitment to fairness under the law is the same 
one that I saw every day from the career lawyers at the 
Department of Justice when I led the Civil Rights Division.
    If confirmed, I will aggressively ensure that the Justice 
Department is independent from partisan influence. That 
independence is part of a long tradition, and it is vital to 
the fair administration of justice and preserving the public's 
trust and confidence in our legal system.
    If confirmed, it will be the honor of a lifetime to assume 
the Associate Attorney General's responsibility to oversee the 
fair and impartial enforcement of our laws to protect the 
health, safety, and economic security of all Americans. That 
includes ensuring fair competition and preventing abuse of 
market power that harms consumers; combating environmental 
degradation and promoting environmental justice; enforcing our 
Nation's civil rights laws and prosecuting hate crimes and 
human trafficking; supporting crime victims and survivors of 
domestic abuse and sexual violence; defending Federal laws, 
policies, regulations, and programs and making sure taxpayer 
dollars are safe from waste and fraud; and overseeing grant 
programs that support State, local, municipal law enforcement 
and justice systems and build trust across communities.
    Every day, the extraordinary professionals at the Justice 
Department support and defend the Constitution and uphold the 
rule of law with deep integrity. These are some of the same 
values that animated me in my first cases after law school that 
you have heard about in a small town called Tulia, Texas.
    I was a young lawyer representing people who had been 
wrongfully convicted in a drug sting, which led to then-
Governor Rick Perry pardoning them and a multimillion dollar 
settlement. The Tulia exonerations helped usher in a new era of 
bipartisan criminal justice reform, and Texas led the way as 
one of the first States to start rolling back decades of 
racially unjust mass incarceration policies, saving lives and 
billions of dollars in taxpayer money. Other States, like 
Georgia and South Carolina and Louisiana and Utah, have 
followed suit.
    From that early experience on, I have spent my career 
dedicated to making real the promise of our Federal laws and 
Constitution and leading with my long-held conviction that 
addressing difficult problems requires building consensus. In 
the years following the Tulia exonerations, I built bipartisan 
campaigns with conservative leaders, who are supporting my 
nomination today, to secure safe and smart criminal justice 
policies in other areas as well.
    When I led the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, 
I worked closely with law enforcement, community leaders, and 
residents, listening to their different perspectives and 
struggles. As part of a priority initiative I launched to 
promote religious freedom, I also engaged faith leaders of all 
backgrounds about combating religious discrimination.
    When approaching the most entrenched problems of our time, 
I have been able to forge alliances across the political 
spectrum and build relationships of trust. I am humbled today 
that my nomination is supported by the National Fraternal Order 
of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Major County 
Sheriffs, the National County Sheriffs' Association, Major 
Cities Chiefs, and more.
    As the events on January 6th make plain and clear, our 
democracy and Constitution do not protect themselves. It is 
people of good conscience who do. I am deeply honored for the 
chance to return to work with my fellow nominees and with the 
incredible women and men of the Justice Department to uphold 
our Constitution and Federal laws in pursuit of justice for 
all.
    Thank you again for this opportunity, and I look forward to 
your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Gupta appears as a 
submission for the record.]
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Ms. Gupta.
    Before I turn to questions, I want to lay out a few of the 
ground rules for this hearing. Senators will have 7 minutes to 
question nominees. We are prepared to add an additional 5-
minute round for those Senators who wish to ask additional 
questions. I'd ask our Members to remain within their allotted 
time and note that we will take short, 10-minute breaks 
occasionally.
    I want to make one additional note before I start my own 
questioning. Under the leadership of Chairman Grassley and 
Chairman Graham, we have seen a sincere effort to make certain 
that we were respectful and courteous in dealing with 
witnesses. I know that we will strive to continue that 
tradition today and beyond. So I thank all my colleagues for 
their cooperation in that effort.
    Ms. Monaco, since you've been at the Justice Department, 
things have changed a little. They certainly have changed in 
terms of threats to the United States. If you take a look at 
the course of American history, the Ku Klux Klan seems to 
appear and reappear about every 50 years--1865, the early 1910, 
1915, then again in the 1950s, and here they come again. In a 
different form with different names, but the same basic agenda.
    Christopher Wray from the FBI testified the other day that 
he believed, as I do, that this is a serious threat. As much as 
we need to concentrate on what is happening across the ocean, 
in America today, if we want security in our neighborhoods and 
towns, we need to concentrate on what is happening across the 
street.
    The Department of Justice plays a critical role in that 
regard. Would you comment on that?
    Ms. Monaco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    You are quite right. The Department of Justice's 
responsibility and mission to protect the American people and 
to do so consistent with the rule of law is true whether the 
threats are foreign or domestic. And as Director Wray has, I 
think, observed before this Committee very recently, 
unfortunately and concerningly, the domestic terrorism threat 
is one that is metastasizing across the country.
    I served, as has been noted, through a series of inflection 
points for the Department of Justice, including after 9/11, and 
the time then, and since, in working with law enforcement at 
the Federal, State, and local level, with the intelligence 
community, with career men and women in the Department, I 
recognize that the first thing you need to do is understand the 
nature of the evolving threat. I think that is critically 
important, even as we deploy all the resources that we can to 
address and hold accountable those responsible for the horrible 
attack that happened here on January 6th.
    If I am confirmed, Mr. Chairman, it will be my 
responsibility with all of the components with direct 
responsibility to protect the American people, the FBI and 
others reporting directly to me, it will be my focus to 
immediately get briefed on that investigation, but more 
broadly, to understand what is it that brought us to this point 
where we could have such an attack that I personally never 
thought I would see in my lifetime. What is it that is 
mobilizing people to violence? And how can we deploy all of the 
tools and the resources of the Department of Justice to make 
sure it never happens again?
    Chair Durbin. Thank you.
    Ms. Gupta, two softballs. Do you support defunding the 
police, and would you like to say a few words about Senator 
Grassley's concern with your tweets?
    Ms. Gupta. Thank you, Chairman Durbin.
    I do not support defunding the police. I have, in fact, 
spent my career advocating, where it has been necessary, for 
greater resources for law enforcement and things like body-worn 
cameras, officer wellness and safety programs, and any number 
of measures.
    I think I believe that is why I today enjoy the honor of 
having so much law enforcement support. It would be a great 
honor for me to return to the Justice Department precisely to 
continue to roll up my sleeves and work hand in glove and 
understand the current needs of law enforcement in some of the 
most challenging times that are presented for frontline 
responders.
    I have, indeed, Senator, talked about something that I hear 
reflected from police officers and police chiefs, sheriffs, and 
civil rights activists about the fact that, for too long, we 
have placed almost all or so many of our Nation's social 
problems at the feet of police, from everything from 
homelessness to mental health issues to substance use disorder. 
And when we speak about this, we speak about the fact that law 
enforcement has been dealt this burden of having to deal with 
all of these problems and the need for greater investment in 
mental health services, in community-based drug treatment 
programs.
    And so when I have spoken about investments, it has been 
really about something that I have heard and I have talked to 
at length for years--long before George Floyd was killed--with 
law enforcement, about the need to provide them supports and to 
not have them be the only go-to response, holding the burden of 
all of these issues.
    And I will continue, if confirmed as Associate Attorney 
General, to listen to the voices of law enforcement, to 
continue to advocate for their resources so they can do 
everything they need to do to keep our communities safe and to 
have the trust of the communities that they serve.
    On the tweets, Chairman--and I appreciate you giving me 
this opportunity--and I should say to Ranking Member Grassley 
and to the other Members who I understand have these concerns, 
I understand why you have them. I take them seriously. I regret 
the harsh rhetoric that I have used at times in the last 
several years.
    Perhaps I think the rhetoric has gotten quite harsh over 
the last several years, and I have fallen prey to it. And I 
wish I could take it back. I cannot. But what I can commit to 
you and ask that you do is look at my lifelong record. I have, 
from early on in my career, sought out people who do not always 
think like me, people who have very different views, because I 
believe in the importance of building consensus to get things 
done.
    While I have been a lifelong idealistic civil rights 
lawyer, I am a deeply pragmatic person. I am a relationship 
builder. I think that is why I have the trust of law 
enforcement today on some of the most difficult problems that 
we face.
    And I understand that the position of Associate Attorney 
General is a law enforcement position. It has to be strictly 
nonpartisan in every measure. I must represent the full 
equities of the American people and enforce the Federal laws 
and Constitution free from any kind of partisan influence.
    I have done it before. I did it when I was at the Civil 
Rights Division. I have been in the Justice Department before. 
And I can pledge to you today that if I am confirmed, or 
regardless, you will not be hearing that kind of rhetoric from 
me, and I will look forward to working collaboratively to 
continuing to support the leadership of people like Ranking 
Member Grassley, Senator Lee on criminal justice reform 
measures, and other Members, Senator Cornyn and others, who I 
have had the privilege of helping to support these bipartisan 
bills to get things done for the American people.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you. Senator Grassley.
    Senator Grassley. Before I ask Ms. Gupta about the 
environment, slush funds, and Big Tech--I hope we can get 
through those three--I want to make a little statement about 
civil rights that I do not expect you to address in any way.
    But I look at a lot of things about the color of people's 
skin from the standpoint of a Korean daughter-in-law of 45 
years and a granddaughter-in-law of about 3 years from 
Ethiopia. I have learned a lot from them not because of their 
color, but because of what they bring to America in the way of 
work ethic and what they bring to America in the way of family 
values.
    Another statement I would like to make is taking off from 
what I said about the Declaration of Independence in my opening 
remarks. It is self-evident that all people are created equal. 
I also like to follow what Dr. Martin Luther King famously 
said: ``He dreams about his children will one day live in a 
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their 
skin, but by the content of their character.''
    And I am a little put out that I do not hear that very 
often anymore, but on the other hand, I do not hear it 
repudiated by anybody.
    So going to my first question. You received a letter of 
support from environmental groups--Defenders of Wildlife, 
Natural Resource Defense Council, Sierra Club, and many 
others--and across administrations, these groups are frequently 
adverse to the Environment Division, which you would oversee. 
Specifically, your environmental supporters complain that 
President Trump's Justice Department ``actively applied a 
restrictive view of the standing document.'' They seem to be 
confident that you will not do that.
    So why do environmental activists think that you will 
support a less restrictive standing document?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, I have appreciated--I saw that letter, 
and I appreciate that support. I want to be clear that I am 
beholden, if confirmed, to no single organization and to no 
prejudgments about this. My sole guide, if confirmed as 
Associate Attorney General, has to be the Federal laws that 
this body has enacted and the Constitution.
    And as a nominee, I am not privy to all of the documents 
and changes and things like that, but you have my word that I 
will go into this position, if confirmed, without prejudgment 
and beholden to no particular group or a preset agenda.
    Senator Grassley. Do political appointees have the power to 
confer or deny standing under the Constitution?
    Ms. Gupta. No.
    Senator Grassley. Okay. Will you instruct the Environment 
Division to faithfully employ standing doctrines in litigation, 
including Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife?
    Ms. Gupta. Yes.
    Senator Grassley. One natural resource project where the 
Justice Department is opposed to environmentalists is the 
Resolution Copper Mine in Arizona. My longtime colleague 
Senator McCain championed legislation in 2015 allowing this 
mine to exist. It is expected to support 3,700 jobs for 
Arizonans, including many Native Americans, and add an 
estimated $60 billion to the economy.
    The Biden administration has already started to roll back 
the mine's opening, but other aspects of it are still being 
litigated. Would you honor Senator McCain's legacy and defend 
the opening of the Resolution Copper Mine in court, and more 
generally, will you defend other existing natural resource 
projects that are being challenged by environmentalists?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, I appreciate you laying this out. If I 
was confirmed, I would want to get fully briefed and assessed 
on these matters. I am not--I do not know the details of it, 
but I understand the concerns that you are presenting, and it 
would be--I would look forward to circling back with your 
office to hear more about those concerns.
    I would want to understand exactly what the status is of 
this matter in the Justice Department. Again, because I do not 
want to prejudge or go in with prejudgment about any--what any 
group may be expecting of me, I certainly would want to 
understand the facts in the law in this particular matter.
    Senator Grassley. As I told Judge Garland, I am very 
opposed to third-party slush fund settlements. When the 
Government settles an enforcement action, the settlement money 
needs to go directly to victims or to the U.S. Treasury, where 
Congress can decide how to spend it.
    Justice Department lawyers authorizing settlements to 
nonprofits and other third parties are illegally appropriating 
funds. The Associate General Counsel authorizes such 
settlements. When we talked over the phone, you told me that 
the Government isn't here to help special interest groups. At 
the same time, in the past, you have praised settlements where 
third parties benefit, like 2012 Wells Fargo settlement.
    I hope you can assure me, as Associate Attorney General, 
you will not authorize any settlements that direct funds to 
parties other than direct victims or the U.S. Treasury.
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, and I appreciate that you had raised 
that on the call that we had--and thank you again for making 
time to meet with me. I understand there are actually 
regulations in place that strictly limit the circumstances now 
in which the Justice Department can give proceeds of a 
settlement to third parties. And if I am confirmed as Associate 
Attorney General and settlements require my approval, I will 
comply with that regulation.
    Senator Grassley. Okay. Probably this will be my last 
question. A group called Defending Democracy Together has taken 
over $1 million in ads out supporting your confirmation. 
According to published reports, Defending Democracy Together, 
while generally a dark money operation, received significant 
support from founders of eBay, Silicon Valley Community 
Foundation, and the tech-connected dark money umbrella 
Arabella. In other words, Big Tech is spending big money to get 
you confirmed as their regulator.
    Three questions. Why do you think Big Tech wants you to be 
in charge of Antitrust Division, or any technology company 
executives or foundation donors to your Leadership Conference, 
and will you agree to recuse from enforcement action against 
technology companies?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, I will just say, based on my prior 
engagements with tech companies, I would highly doubt that they 
would be excited necessarily about my confirmation. My role as 
a civil rights lawyer has been to push the tech companies very 
hard on any number of issues.
    I did not have any role to play in this ad situation, and 
if I am confirmed as Associate Attorney General, I will bring 
the full force of our country's antitrust laws to bear to 
protect competition, which is so core to our economy, and to 
protecting consumers.
    Your second question? Sorry, Senator.
    Senator Grassley. Were any technology company executives, 
et cetera, donors to your Leadership Conference?
    Ms. Gupta. I do believe that there were a couple of tech 
companies that have given in the past to the Leadership 
Conference. I can get you the list. I do not remember offhand, 
but I want to be very certain and would be happy to answer in 
written questions.
    Senator Grassley. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Grassley.
    Through the miracle of Zoom, the senior Senator from 
Vermont is prepared. Senator Patrick Leahy, proceed.
    Senator Leahy. Thank you. Is this coming through, Mr. 
Chairman?
    Chair Durbin. Senator Leahy, we are having trouble 
receiving you.
    Senator Leahy. Okay. Let me try again.
    Chair Durbin. I do not know if there is a way to adjust 
your broadcast.
    Senator Leahy. I do not know. Is that any better, or is it 
still distorted?
    Chair Durbin. It is still a little distorted, but if you 
will proceed, we will try to make do. Go ahead.
    Senator Leahy. Okay. First off, I would like to say both 
Ms. Monaco and Ms. Gupta----
    Chair Durbin. Senator Leahy? Senator Leahy? Senator Leahy, 
I am sorry to interrupt you, but we are going to have to 
improve your technical performance. I am sure the substance is 
very good.
    Senator Leahy. Okay.
    Chair Durbin. Maybe someone can give Senator Leahy some 
advice on this. In the meantime, I think, Senator Feinstein, 
why don't you proceed.
    Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Just one personal comment. I have been on this Committee 
for more than 20 years. This is the first time I have seen two 
highly qualified women, young women, before this Committee for 
two very critical, important positions. And it is really, for 
somebody like me, a very sincere and important moment.
    So I just want to say thank you both for what you have done 
in the past decades. You are obviously both qualified.
    Now let me move ahead. Ms. Monaco, you have had a very 
impressive career in Government, including at the Justice 
Department. You have covered a wide array of issues. You have 
received the Attorney General's Award for Exceptional Service 
for your work on the Enron Task Force. You have helped then-
Director Bob Mueller transform the FBI after 9/11. And as 
Assistant Attorney General for National Security, you led the 
Department's efforts to integrate intelligence with law 
enforcement.
    So what will be your priorities as the Deputy Attorney 
General?
    Ms. Monaco. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for your 
leadership and the time we spent previously during your 
chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee.
    My priorities, Senator, I will want to talk with Judge 
Garland, of course, but here is how I would approach it. First 
and foremost, reaffirming the values of the Department of 
Justice, its independence, its focus and mission on enforcement 
of the Federal law without fear or favor.
    Second, focusing on protecting the American people from a 
range of threats. Unfortunately, we find ourselves not only 
battling, of course, a once-in-a-century pandemic, but facing 
the metastasizing threat of domestic terrorism. We cannot stop 
being vigilant with respect to foreign terrorism, cyber 
threats, the challenge of violent crime that I know is 
something so many of the Members of this Committee are focused 
on. And ensuring that we are focused on the equal application 
and the equal protection of our law when it comes to everything 
from consumer protection to combating environmental 
degradation.
    Those are some of the things that I think we will focus on 
assiduously. And doing so always understanding that the 
Department of Justice employees are there to do their job, just 
putting their head down, doing their work every day. I think 
they do not want to see themselves in any partisan scrum back 
and forth and in the headlines. I think they want the resources 
and the tools to do the job for the American people, and it 
will be my focus and approach, as Deputy Attorney General, to 
make sure they have those tools and resources.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
    Ms. Gupta, in 2007, when you were part of the ACLU, you 
filed a lawsuit about an immigration detention center in 
Taylor, Texas. The issue was specifically about the conditions 
at the center for the children and their families. Children at 
the time were required to wear prison uniforms, and guards 
would threaten to separate children from their families if they 
misbehaved, I have been told.
    You won a settlement in that case that protected these 
children, many of whom were released from the facility with 
their families. At the Department of Justice, what steps would 
you take to ensure that children and their families are 
protected when it comes to immigration?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, thank you for that question.
    The health and safety of children has been something that I 
have long been concerned with throughout my career, and in this 
particular facility, the conditions were quite horrific, and it 
was important that I was able, with other lawyers and 
advocates, to step in to protect the health and well-being of 
these children while complying with our Nation's immigration 
laws.
    And so we litigated actually then against the Department of 
Justice on the other side and reached a really important 
settlement. And if I am confirmed as Associate Attorney 
General, I will be motivated to enforce our Federal laws, to 
protect and enforce our immigration laws. I believe that we can 
have border security and safety for all of our communities 
while ensuring fair treatment of those in our facilities and in 
our communities.
    And that is a dual role and responsibility that I would 
look forward to working, of course, with the Deputy Attorney 
General and the Attorney General, who have even greater 
authority over immigration than I would.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you. And if I can quickly get in 
one last question, the Associated Press reported that hate 
crimes rose to the highest level in more than a decade. The AP 
also reported that the United States recorded the most hate-
related killings since the FBI began collecting data in the 
1990s. Despite this finding, only 13.9 percent of the agencies 
in the FBI hate crimes report indicated that hate crimes 
occurred in their jurisdictions.
    So I would like to ask both of you what steps would you 
take at the Department of Justice to combat the rise in hate 
crimes in this country?
    Ms. Monaco. Senator, you have identified a very pressing 
and concerning issue. The rise in hate crimes is something that 
I take very, very seriously. Also the rise in crimes against 
Asian Americans and the Asian-American community.
    The first thing I would do, Senator, is sit down with 
Director Wray and understand what are the resources that the 
FBI has applied to these issues, what more can be done with the 
data, and how can we get more and better data? Because if we do 
not understand the problem, we can't fight it.
    Ms. Gupta. And Senator, when I was at the Justice 
Department before, hate crimes enforcement was a top priority. 
When Congress enacted the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. 
Hate Crimes Prevention Act in 2009, it gave the Justice 
Department greater tools, but also greater responsibility to do 
everything it can to prosecute hate crimes when they occur.
    I think vigorous enforcement of that law, working with U.S. 
attorney's offices around the country, is going to be really 
important. But also equally important is ensuring that 
communities that may be the most vulnerable to hate crimes 
understand and trust their local law enforcement partners, the 
Justice Department as one that will protect them when these 
types of things occur. And then we have to ensure that we are 
also doing what we can in communities around the country to 
help prevent these crimes from happening to begin with.
    And there is any number of partnerships that the Justice 
Department has had in the past that I believe, hopefully, are 
still ongoing, with community-based organizations to help 
ensure that communities feel safe in reporting these things and 
so the full force of the Justice Department, working in 
partnership with local law enforcement, can react in real time 
when these things happen.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you both. My time is up.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Feinstein.
    Senator Cornyn.
    Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Congratulations to both of you on your nomination. I just 
have one question for you, Ms. Monaco. Will you allow Mr. 
Durham to complete his work as special counsel?
    Ms. Monaco. Well, Senator, as you know, Mr. Durham has been 
allowed to stay on to pursue his work. I have no reason and 
nothing--no reason to think that that is not the right--that is 
not the right decision. And as Deputy Attorney General, it will 
be my job to make sure that he has the resources to do his job, 
and I am committed to doing that.
    Senator Cornyn. Thank you.
    Ms. Gupta, I am trying to reconcile the testimony of my 
friends from Virginia that describe you as a consensus builder 
on one hand and the almost unbroken record of partisan culture 
war that is in your resume. So I just have a few questions to 
maybe help flesh that out a little bit.
    Is it true that you advocate decriminalization of all 
drugs?
    Ms. Gupta. No, Senator, I do not.
    Senator Cornyn. Do you--and I have had this conversation 
with some of my friends in law enforcement, the endorsements 
that you have gotten that you have spoken of--do you support 
the elimination of qualified immunity for lawsuits against the 
police?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, I suspect that you are referring to 
testimony that I gave before this Committee over the summer 
when I was representing the consensus views of the Civil Rights 
Coalition at the Leadership Conference.
    In matters of policy, if I am confirmed as Associate 
Attorney General, my guide--and I know that this issue and many 
others around police accountability the Senate is going to be 
considering in the Justice in Policing Act--we will follow the 
President's policy agenda so long as it is consistent with the 
law.
    I have been talking a lot to law enforcement the last 
several months about all kinds of issues around the tension of 
how to ensure accountability while ensuring that law 
enforcement can do their jobs. And if I am confirmed as 
Associate Attorney General, I will continue to leverage these 
relationships in law enforcement to understand their 
perspectives, and my commitment will solely be to the 
Constitution and Federal law.
    Obviously, the doctrine of qualified immunity is a 
judicially created doctrine and applies to much more, many more 
public sector employees than simply police officers, but that 
will be my commitment.
    Senator Cornyn. Well, I heard your answer, but I didn't 
hear you answer the specific question. Is--do you support the 
elimination of qualified immunity for lawsuits against 
government employees, including police officers?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, from where I sit now today in my 
personal capacity, I do not. I want to understand more the 
perspectives of law enforcement as well as the need. And I 
think we all recognize that I heard it really from every Member 
of the Committee when I testified this summer about the 
importance of ensuring that communities have faith that there 
is accountability when individual law enforcement engages in 
this conduct. I hear it from law enforcement as well.
    And I would look forward to working with law enforcement, 
with Members of this Committee, as you engage these really 
difficult and challenging questions that we are facing as a 
country right now, about how to ensure accountability when 
misconduct happens and how to ensure that law enforcement has 
the support they need to do their job.
    Senator Cornyn. So you no longer support the elimination of 
qualified immunity? Is that your testimony?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, as I said, I was testifying this summer 
representing the views of the coalition and----
    Senator Cornyn. My question is, do you no longer--do you no 
longer support the elimination of qualified immunity?
    Ms. Gupta. I will say I do not come in supporting it, 
elimination, one way or another. My duty, if confirmed as 
Associate Attorney General, will be to follow the President's 
lead on these kinds of policy issues so long as they are 
consistent with the law and to engaging and continuing to 
engage with civil rights leaders, community leaders, law 
enforcement on these very difficult questions of 
accountability.
    Senator Cornyn. Senator Grassley asked you a little bit 
about the diversion of funds in a judgment to nonparties, and I 
think you alluded to a policy memorandum authored by Attorney 
General Sessions on November 7, 2018, where he raised three 
constitutional concerns with regard to diversion of those funds 
from someone other than the victim or the U.S. Treasury.
    He said that supervision of the Government entity subject 
to the decree can deprive the elected representatives of the 
people of the affected jurisdiction of the control of their 
government.
    Second, the governmental entity subject to the decree 
suffers significant ramifications with regard to local budget 
priorities, effectively taking these decisions and 
accountability for them away from the people's elected 
representative.
    And third, such decrees must be carefully crafted to avoid 
improperly depriving future officials of their designated 
legislative and executive powers.
    Do you agree with that statement?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, those sound like they are statements of 
the law, and I would agree.
    Senator Cornyn. So you agree with Attorney General 
Sessions, and that would be the policy that you would enforce, 
if confirmed?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, if I am confirmed, right now I am not 
privy to any kind of internal information about how this policy 
is working, and I have to follow Federal law. And that's my 
commitment--it would be to do just that.
    Senator Cornyn. Well, you know how it has worked in the 
past, where the money is diverted, and Senator Grassley 
mentioned some examples of lawsuits against banking, against 
banks. But it was fairly common during the Obama-Holder era to 
divert settlement proceeds to nonparties. You are familiar with 
that, aren't you?
    Ms. Gupta. I'm familiar about the policy that you are 
talking about, and I think that the settlements need to make 
victims whole in the first instance, and I also understand very 
much the importance of these guardrails. I understand that was 
the impetus for this regulation.
    And as I said, if I am confirmed and settlement agreements 
require my approval, I will comply with that regulation.
    Senator Cornyn. And just to clarify my initial question 
about drugs, did you say in response to a questionnaire from 
the Committee at page 1,037 that you believe that States should 
decriminalize simple possession of all drugs, particularly 
marijuana and for small amounts of other drugs?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, I have advocated, as I believe 
President Biden has, for decriminalization of marijuana 
possession. I believe that substance use disorder is both an 
enforcement problem and a public health problem, but I do not 
support decriminalization of all drugs.
    Senator Cornyn. Thank you.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Cornyn.
    We are going to try Senator Leahy.
    Senator Leahy. Okay.
    Chair Durbin. Senator Leahy? Senator Leahy, I am sorry. We 
have not solved the problem.
    Senator Leahy. That is okay. Thank you. I will submit my 
questions.
    Chair Durbin. I am sorry. If you can find a way to do this 
by phone, Senator, we would be happy to do that. We will work 
on that next, if you would like.
    Senator Leahy. Thank you.
    Chair Durbin. Senator Whitehouse.
    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you. We are now 0 for 2 on Zoom 
callers being audible. So, I suspect it may have something to 
do with us in this room having the volume or the gain turned up 
too hard so that it is blowing through the noise. So let us--if 
we could try to solve that on our end, too, that might be 
helpful rather than just leave it to former Chairman Leahy.
    Very nice to see you both. Ms. Monaco, we go way back to 
Reno DOJ and then in my time on the Intelligence Committee when 
you were involved in the national security world. So I am 
delighted to see you here in this new iteration of your career.
    I do want to flag one piece of unfinished business for you 
that came up in my conversation with Director Wray, which has 
to do with all of the information that the FBI refused to 
provide us over the last 3 to 4 years in response to both 
questions for the record and letters seeking information. As 
you can imagine, when years went by without getting answers, 
that became intensely frustrating. And when we saw the FBI 
freely providing information to one side of the aisle while 
blockading the highway for most of us to get information out of 
the FBI, the frustration grew quite considerably.
    So I am going to want your commitment that we are going to 
get these questions answered and that we are going to be able 
to do proper oversight of these long-overdue, stonewalled topic 
areas. I do not think you can expect me to trust the person who 
blocked the information all those years. So I need to hear that 
from you.
    I got a good answer from the nominee for Attorney General, 
Judge Garland, and I would like to get your commitment that 
this multiyear blockade of information for this Committee out 
of the FBI, and out of the Department to a degree, will stop.
    Ms. Monaco. Well, Senator, first, I very much respect and 
appreciate the role of oversight of this Committee, and I very 
much understand your frustration, and I appreciate you raising 
it with me on the call that we had. And I appreciate you taking 
the time to do that.
    I also know of you raising this with Director Wray last 
week when he was here. So you have my commitment that I will do 
my level best, if I am confirmed, to ensure that this Committee 
gets timely and responsive answers. I also understand that you 
want us to address the backlog----
    Senator Whitehouse. Including the----
    Ms. Monaco [continuing]. That you are talking about.
    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you. Thank you.
    Ms. Monaco. And I will do my best to discuss that with 
Director Wray and make sure you can get the answers that you 
need.
    Senator Whitehouse. Yes, I think we will probably want to 
set up an investigative plan of some kind so we know what we--
you know what we are asking for and you know what we can get.
    Ms. Monaco. Your prioritizing the requests I think would be 
helpful as well.
    Senator Whitehouse. We will do that. A couple of things 
that you are going to come across, if confirmed. One is the 
Office of Legal Counsel, I am concerned that that organization 
needs a pretty hard and close look. The torture memos and the 
warrantless wiretap memos were pretty extraordinary efforts and 
blew up within the very department in which they had been 
written under the administration that sought them. So that was 
a pretty good sign of OLC going off the rails.
    Then we had two OLC opinions that were reviewed by the D.C. 
District Court and the Southern District of New York District 
Court, and they got, I would say, caustic receptions, the kind 
of receptions that if I were supervising those lawyers, I would 
want to go and have a good look. It is not clear to me that OLC 
has actually modified those views to respond to those caustic 
judicial opinions, and I worry particularly about the box 
canyon that OLC has built for its determination that the 
President cannot be investigated.
    In our country, all the way back to Chief Justice Marshall, 
it is the courts say what the law is, but way that they have 
framed their doctrine, this question never gets to a court to 
be looked at because the self-fulfilling consequence of their 
opinion is that there is never a matter to go before the Court. 
So we have no Article III support for the OLC opinion that 
there can be no investigation of the President, and I think we 
need to resolve all of those things.
    There was a time when OLC was a truly vaunted place, and I 
am afraid that it has devolved into a place where political 
errands get run, and I would urge you to take a good, close 
look at OLC.
    I would also urge you to let us know what the role of the 
Department is going to be with respect to Executive privilege 
determinations. We have spent years getting completely fanciful 
Executive privilege assertions out of the Trump administration, 
sometimes not even using the word ``Executive privilege,'' just 
stamping blank pages with the phrase ``constitutional 
privilege,'' as if that is supposed to mean something. And I 
have understood it to be the Department's role to be the 
intermediary on Executive privilege assertions when other 
agencies of Government make that assertion and to be the 
policeman for the process to make sure that there actually is a 
proper assertion of Executive privilege.
    Are you prepared to undertake that role in a meaningful 
way?
    Ms. Monaco. Yes, Senator. As you rightly state, the 
Department's job is to ensure that the law is faithfully 
applied and is done in an even-handed and fairly and impartial 
way. I think OLC serves a very, very important function. As I 
think you will agree with me----
    Senator Whitehouse. Yes.
    Ms. Monaco [continuing]. We cannot have rule of law unless 
we have fair, unbiased, rigorous answers to questions that are 
posed by executive agencies to the Office of Legal Counsel.
    In my past experience, abiding by a set of transparent best 
practices I think can be very useful. And if I am confirmed, it 
would be something that I would make a priority to understand 
how they are operating and whether those best practices are 
being adhered to.
    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
    Ms. Gupta, as we look at--in this Committee, we have 
already had hearings, and we will continue to look at the 
question of qualified immunity. I would urge you to take a good 
look at the doctrine of respondeat superior, which is the 
general doctrine governing employee-employer relations, and it 
generally makes the employer responsible for all torts 
committed by the employee as long as it is within the course 
and scope of employment.
    It seems to me that that is a very logical fallback, and it 
seems to me that when departments and managers are responsible 
for misconduct, then the forces of discipline, of training, of 
procedure, and all the things that drive the conduct of 
command-based agencies start to work in the public's favor. And 
I am out of time, so if you could just make your comment very 
brief on that?
    Ms. Gupta. I appreciate you flagging that, Senator, and if 
I am confirmed, I would look forward to working with you and 
other Members who I know are going to be engaging these 
important questions in upcoming legislation. But your flagging 
of the respondeat superior doctrine is certainly something that 
I recall actually you raising when I appeared before this body 
this summer, and I would be very interested in thinking about 
that further on these tough issues.
    Thank you.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Whitehouse.
    Senator Lee.
    Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thanks to both of you for being here. Enjoyed my 
interactions with you in the past, and I look forward to our 
conversation today.
    Ms. Gupta, let us start with you. As you know, part of the 
Department of Justice's responsibility is to review the 
legality of agency rules before they are finalized and then to 
be prepared to defend those rules in court. As part of the 
process, you have to anticipate what might come about.
    Are there any circumstances in which you might refuse to 
defend a Federal regulation that has already been approved by 
the Department of Justice?
    Ms. Gupta. It is hard for me to opine on that 
hypothetically, but I believe that there would need to be some 
stringent circumstances that would need to present themselves 
and a clear rationale that would involve probably deliberation 
by the highest level of the Department to refuse to do 
something like that.
    Senator Lee. Would you describe it as an unusual event in 
which that might happen?
    Ms. Gupta. Yes, absolutely.
    Senator Lee. And so what sort of circumstance would that 
bring about?
    Ms. Gupta. It could be that it is a change in the law in 
courts around the country. It could be that changed factual 
circumstances. Obviously, hypothetically speaking, it is hard 
for me to know. But one would--the Justice Department would 
need to be able to clearly rationalize that or provide a 
rationale to any court were that to happen, and so I would 
think that is quite an unusual circumstance.
    Senator Lee. Okay. I want to pick up on something that was 
brought up by Senator Grassley and was also mentioned as a 
separate line of questioning by Senator Cornyn regarding sort 
of the manner in which settlement agreements are reached and 
how they are brought about.
    Senator Grassley asked you a question about the 
circumstances in which third parties--in which parties to a 
consent decree with the Department of Justice are sometimes 
directed or have in the past sometimes been directed to pay a 
monetary penalty to a third party. I believe your response was 
that you would follow regulations on that.
    Let me ask you this. When would it ever be appropriate to 
direct a litigant with the Department of Justice to pay sums to 
a third party?
    Ms. Gupta. So my understanding is that the regulation that 
is in place right now limits it to four circumstances. I don't 
have the details in front of me, but I think they're very 
restricted and in part because--animated, as I understand it, 
to ensure victims are made whole and to avoid any appearance of 
impropriety or favoritism toward an advocacy organization. And 
I understand why there are guardrails, but I do not have the 
regulation in front of me. But I think that they are quite 
restrictive.
    Senator Lee. Under the previous administration, this 
practice was brought to a halt. Under the previous 
administration, there was a decision made that we would not 
have litigants pay monetary penalties to a third party. Are you 
saying that you would undo that policy and return to the 
previous practice?
    Ms. Gupta. No. I would comply with the regulation that is 
in place right now. I may have misread because I have not read 
this regulation in great detail. I thought there were very 
restricted situations, but generally, the default is that it is 
not allowed.
    Senator Lee. Okay. The reason I raise it, and I suspect the 
reason my colleagues have raised it, is that it is of concern. 
It is difficult for me to understand why--it is hard for me to 
imagine any litigant--we are talking here generally about civil 
litigation, any litigant with as much bargaining power as the 
United States Government has in court.
    And when you bring that power to bear by directing someone 
to pay to a third party, you are almost inevitably going to run 
up against a risk of that being improper and in many more 
circumstances appearing, at least, to be improper. Very often, 
these end up going to groups that have certain sympathies that 
might align with the incumbent administration and their views, 
and this further perpetuates this sue-and-settle dynamic, the 
process by which lawsuits are brought, sometimes friendly 
lawsuits, friendly to the Attorney General and the President 
currently in power.
    They will then agree to a settlement agreement and then 
agree that the litigant has to pay a whole bunch of money to 
this third party. It is difficult for me to imagine why that 
would ever be appropriate, and I would encourage you not to 
allow that and to follow the previous administration's ban on 
it.
    Ms. Gupta, about 3 years ago, I think it was in February 
2018, you authored an 8-page letter that you submitted to this 
Committee in opposition to the nomination of Ryan Bounds to 
serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. You 
raised complaints against Mr. Bounds based on comments that he 
had made, things that he had written while he was in college. 
You have described those as offensive comments and made your 
case as to why they were.
    You went on in that same letter to write, ``While he has 
recently apologized for those comments, the timing of that 
apology suggests that it is one of convenience rather than 
remorse, offered in a last-ditch effort to salvage his 
nomination and win the support of his home State Senators.''
    Ms. Gupta, do you stand by the standard that you 
articulated to us when we were considering the nomination of 
Ryan Bounds?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, thank you for that question.
    For decades, the Leadership Conference has reviewed the 
judicial nominees in Republican and Democratic administrations, 
and when we have reviewed it and decided to oppose, we provided 
a letter to this body. And actually, in the Trump 
administration, I think we did that in about a quarter of the 
nominations, and we did it based on a complete review of a 
nominee's civil rights record. And I believe that letter that 
you are referring to was the review of his record as we were 
presenting information to this Committee.
    Senator Lee. Yes. No, I understand that. I am asking in 
part because I am curious about your reaction to his apology. 
So he wrote some things in college. He later apologized for 
them, realized that they were offensive and not things that he 
would say today. You told him that his apology was too late and 
too self-interested, too connected to our consideration of his 
nomination.
    So my question to you is would you stand by that? Is that 
something that we ought to apply to all nominees? Is it 
something we ought to apply to you, to Merrick Garland, to all 
Department of Justice nominees?
    Ms. Gupta. Well, Senator, I--I do regret the harsh tone. I 
think that this is what you are getting at, and forgive me if I 
am overstating, but I apologize for the kind of coarse language 
that I have used in the past. I would hope that you could look 
to my whole demonstrated record of working with Republicans and 
Democrats and conservatives and libertarians and progressives 
on any range of issues really from very early on in my career.
    And you have my word that I will look forward, if 
confirmed, to respectful, engaged dialogue and engagement with 
this Committee and with other Members of Congress, even if we 
have policy disagreements and the like. And so my hope is that, 
that you will take that as genuine and authentic.
    Senator Lee. I still do not understand. I would love to 
know how that is different from Ryan Bounds. Ryan Bounds gave 
us almost exactly the same answer, that his career, his 
comments should be viewed as a whole rather than on the basis 
of a few things that he wrote while in college. That is what I 
am asking. Does that standard also apply to you? The standard 
that you very harshly applied to him, should it also apply to 
you and to Merrick Garland?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, I believe that people should be able to 
have second chances. And so, to the extent that a comment in 
the past about this judicial nominee, I believe it was about 
substantive comments he had made in college writings. But as 
you know, maybe from my criminal justice work, I am a believer 
in second chances and redemption, and I would ask for that 
today.
    Senator Lee. Thank you.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Lee.
    Once again into the breach, Senator Leahy. We are hoping 
for the best.
    Senator Leahy. Okay. Let us see what happens. Is it 
actually working this time?
    Chair Durbin. Is it better?
    Senator Leahy. It sounds better at this end, but I just 
want to make sure it is at your end.
    Chair Durbin. I think we are okay.
    Senator Leahy. Okay. Well, then let us--Ms. Monaco and Ms. 
Gupta, it is good to see both of you. I know Ms. Monaco, I will 
be working with you, I hope, on something that Senator Lee and 
I have worked on, which is the USA FREEDOM Act. And we have to 
reauthorize the surveillance authority, but we have got to 
reform it. And the two of us have worked together on that, and 
I would hope I have your commitment that you would work with us 
if we are going reauthorize and reform this act.
    Ms. Monaco. Well, thank you, Senator Leahy.
    First of all, let me say I want to applaud you and Senator 
Lee for the work that you both and this body did on the USA 
FREEDOM Act. I was very honored to work with you on that when I 
was the Homeland Security Advisor to the President during the 
Obama administration. I think it made important reforms to a 
very important set of tools under the FISA process, a very 
powerful tool that has to be used very, very strictly within 
the bounds of the law, within the bounds of the Constitution, 
and within the policies and the processes laid out in the 
executive branch for it.
    So I would look forward to working with you and others on 
any proposal that you have. I would like to take a look at it 
and work with you on that set of issues. Again, I think the 
FISA process is an important process, an important tool to 
have. But it constantly needs to be evaluated and used 
consistent with the rule of law.
    Senator Leahy. Thank you. And I expect you are probably 
going to be hearing from Senator Lee and myself on that.
    Now, Ms. Gupta, again, I have known you for years. I spent 
many years in law enforcement, and I hear some people say you 
are anti-law enforcement. But then I look at the major law 
enforcement organizations that go across the political spectrum 
that are backing you. The National Fraternal Order of Police, 
for example.
    And you have worked hard to gain that kind of support. Do 
you expect to continue to work with these organizations across 
the spectrum of law enforcement if you are confirmed?
    Ms. Gupta. Thank you, Senator.
    I do very much so. I have maintained these relationships 
for years, and the relationship in particular with law 
enforcement agencies in times of crisis has been something that 
has been really important to me.
    I remember after Freddie Gray died in Baltimore, and there 
was a lot of tension in the Baltimore community, I went to 
Baltimore. I visited with Mr. Gray's family. I visited police 
officers that were in the hospital because of an arrest, and I 
asked the Baltimore Fraternal Order of Police to come in to the 
Justice Department to meet with me to talk about their 
experiences with law enforcement in Baltimore.
    And they actually brought this report that they had done 
documenting how quota-based arrests had really undermined their 
relationship with Baltimoreans. And that report became a major 
foundation for something that we worked on to address officer 
needs and experiences in the City of Baltimore when elected 
officials were making decisions that really hurt law 
enforcement and community relationships.
    And that is the type of work that I would want to do. 
Communication, transparency, even where we may be in crisis or 
we may be facing tough issues, is an ethos that, if I am 
honored to be confirmed, I would continue to do. I have a lot 
to learn always from frontline experiences, and I will continue 
to work with civil rights groups and law enforcement every day, 
if I am confirmed, on this job.
    Senator Leahy. I think you know, as all of us do, that in 
many communities, there has to be more work done between 
communities of color and the police. Is that correct? And are 
you willing to work with them in that regard?
    Ms. Gupta. There is a lot of work still to do, and I am 
fully committed. One of the reasons I would be honored to 
return to the Justice Department is because the Associate's 
portfolio really touches the broad range of State and local law 
enforcement and the reach that the Justice Department can have 
in supporting constitutional policing and civil rights and 
supporting law enforcement needs to keep our communities safe.
    And it would be a tremendous honor to continue to work with 
these organizations, with police leaders, with civil rights 
leaders, and community leaders on these very difficult, but 
important questions facing our country today.
    Senator Leahy. Well, I was thinking this past week of the 
56th anniversary of Bloody Sunday. We saw a lot of news that 
was on that, but I think of my dear, dear friend John Lewis, 
and how hard we worked on that. And of course, we have the John 
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act that is now pending.
    The Shelby County Supreme Court decision stripped away the 
Supreme Court's preclearance tools. The bipartisan John Lewis 
Voting Rights Act would restore those.
    Now someone called the Lewis Act a kind of partisan power 
grab. If you restore everybody's voting right, is that not pro-
democracy, not pro-Democrat or pro-Republican?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, the fight for voting rights and to 
ensure that every eligible American can access their right to 
vote and exercise it is foundational to our democracy. I have 
had the honor in my career of working to support that. It is 
seminal to our democracy.
    And actually, a year ago last Sunday, I was walking across 
the Edmund Pettus Bridge when Congressman John Lewis appeared 
out of nowhere in the middle of his fight against pancreatic 
cancer to exhort us to do everything we can to protect the 
right to vote. And if I am honored to be confirmed as Associate 
Attorney General, I will bring that exhortation to my work 
every day.
    The Justice Department has a big role to play in protecting 
the right to vote, and I do believe that the John Lewis Voting 
Rights Advancement Act would restore the tools that the Justice 
Department has to help support that in communities around the 
country and to do it judiciously and thoughtfully, but with 
great vigor as well.
    Senator Leahy. I appreciate that, and I will submit a 
question for the record on the consent decrees we have talked 
about because nobody understands that better than you do. It is 
a difficult issue, but we have got to figure out a way to 
handle this issue, and I will work with you on that, just as I 
will on these other issues.
    So I will submit a couple questions for the record, but I 
wanted to tell both Ms. Monaco and Ms. Gupta, as somebody who 
has served here a long time and watched the Justice Department 
for a long time, I am delighted the two of you are here.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Leahy. I am glad we were 
able to connect.
    Senator Cruz.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Welcome. I think one of the worst legacies of the Obama 
Presidency was the politicization of the Department of Justice 
during the 8 years of the Obama-Biden Presidency. The 
Department of Justice has a long history of being apolitical, 
of exercising fidelity to law, of not being used as a partisan 
weapon to target the enemies of whichever administration is in 
power.
    The Obama-Biden administration corrupted that process, and 
we are still dealing with the consequences. I believe 
appointees to the Department of Justice should have a 
demonstrated record of fidelity to law and impartiality, an 
ability to defend the rule of law.
    Ms. Gupta, as I look at your record, your record is one of 
an extreme partisan advocate. Your record is an ideologue. Now 
there is a role in our democratic and political process for 
ideologues, for people that are extreme radical advocates. That 
role, I believe, is not being the No. 3 lawyer at the 
Department of Justice in charge of the impartial and fair 
administration of justice.
    As I look at your record on every single issue, the 
positions you have advocated for are on the extreme left, and 
you have demonstrated an intolerance for and hostility to 
anyone that disagrees with the extreme left political position.
    On the issue of abortion, is there any restriction 
whatsoever on an abortion that you believe is permissible?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, first, let me begin by saying I am 
sorry that you feel that way. As a lifelong civil rights 
advocate, my duty has been to enforce the Constitution, not 
enforce anyone's political agenda or partisan agenda. I have 
apologized today for some of the harsh rhetoric that I have 
used, and I mean that very genuinely.
    Senator Cruz. And I am not focusing on your college years. 
I am focusing on as an adult and practicing lawyer. But let us 
just start with a substantive question. Is it permissible for 
the Government to prohibit partial birth abortion? Yes or no?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, my duty, if confirmed, will be to 
Federal laws and the Constitution. Roe v. Wade is established 
precedent and has been reaffirmed numerous times by the Court. 
And my duty will be to enforce the Federal laws and the 
Constitution per the Supreme Court's decisions.
    Senator Cruz. Okay. So you are declining to answer that. 
How about the Heller decision, which upheld the individual 
right to keep and bear arms, a fundamental right in the Bill of 
Rights. Was Heller rightly decided?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, Heller is law of the land, and I will 
enforce Heller as precedent of the Supreme Court.
    Senator Cruz. Okay. So you are not answering that either. 
All right, let us shift to a different topic.
    Religious liberty. You have demonstrated significant 
hostility to religious liberty. You have defended the Obama 
administration's targeting and persecuting of the Little 
Sisters of the Poor. Not too long ago, religious liberty was a 
bipartisan commitment in Congress. The Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act was introduced by then-Representative Chuck 
Schumer. It passed the House unanimously. It passed the Senate 
97-3 and was signed into law by President Clinton.
    Now, today, today's Democratic Party has abandoned 
religious liberty. Indeed, the Equality Act, of which you are a 
vocal supporter, that has now come out of the House of 
Representatives is a radical piece of legislation that, among 
other things, explicitly repeals significant aspects of the 
Religious Freedom Restoration Act to take away our religious 
liberties.
    You have been a vocal defender of the Equality Act. Do you 
agree with the provision stripping RFRA's religious liberty 
protection from Americans?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, let me begin by saying that religious 
liberty is incredibly important to me. I am a person of faith. 
My family is one of deep and abiding faith. And this country's 
founding freedom was rooted in religious liberty.
    I have defended religious freedom throughout my career. 
When I was at the Justice Department, I launched an interagency 
effort to protect religious liberty.
    Senator Cruz. Ms. Gupta, I appreciate that, but our time is 
limited.
    Chair Durbin. Senator?
    Senator Cruz. So if you could answer the question I asked--
--
    Chair Durbin. Senator, it is only fair to allow her to 
complete her answer.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, I understand that she has 
things she wants to say, but I asked if she supports the repeal 
of RFRA. That is not the question she is answering.
    Chair Durbin. Senator, if you want to make a speech, you 
may make a speech. If you are asking a question----
    Senator Cruz. I am asking a question. I am asking a 
question, and she is giving a speech.
    Chair Durbin [continuing]. Then allow her to answer.
    Senator Cruz. And I understand that you support her 
nomination, so you are giving a speech, too. But I am asking a 
question.
    Chair Durbin. I am asking you to allow her to answer.
    Senator Cruz. She was not answering. She is welcome to 
answer the question. The question is, do you support the 
Equality Act's repealing RFRA's protection of religious liberty 
for Americans?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, I support RFRA. I have enforced 
provisions of RFRA, and the Justice Department must enforce the 
law. The Justice Department enforces religious liberty and 
protects it. It also enforces our Nation's anti-discrimination 
laws. It will be incumbent upon the Justice----
    Senator Cruz. Let me try a third time. Do you support the 
Equality Act's repeal of RFRA's religious liberty protections?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, if confirmed as Associate Attorney 
General, my duty will be to enforce laws to protect religious 
liberty and the anti-discrimination laws that the Justice 
Department must employ.
    Senator Cruz. Okay. So you are declining to answer that as 
well. Let us move to another topic, which is school choice.
    Your tenure at the Department of Justice demonstrated a 
radical hostility to school choice such that the Department of 
Justice intervened in a case trying to kill a Louisiana school 
choice program there, even though many African-American parents 
strongly supported the program. The Black Alliance for 
Educational Options was fighting on the other side.
    The Federal court at issue there specifically reprimanded 
the Department of Justice under your leadership for 
``ineffective lawyering''--that is a quote--and for attempting 
to ``circumvent the ordinary litigation process in order to 
regulate the school choice program without any legal judgment 
against the State.''
    Do you regret using the Department of Justice to fight 
against the school choice program that was providing hope and 
opportunity to low-income minority kids in Louisiana?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, I have dedicated my life to fighting 
for opportunity for low-income children of all communities in 
having educational opportunity. I--again, as I said, my duty, 
if I am confirmed as Associate Attorney General, will be to 
enforce the law and Constitution. And I have to look at the 
facts and laws of any particular situation.
    Senator Cruz. Okay, Ms. Gupta, you are still not answering 
the question. Let us move to another one.
    At the beginning of this hearing, Chairman Durbin asked you 
about abolishing the police, and you said, ``I do not support 
defunding the police,'' which is clearly the right political 
answer, seeking to get confirmed. I would note that just a few 
months ago, last year, in written correspondence with the 
Senate of the United States, you had encouraged Congress to 
``reexamine Federal spending priorities and shrink the 
footprint of the police and criminal legal system in this 
country.''
    And you also encouraged reallocating resources and stated, 
``Some people call it defunding the police. Other people call 
it divest/invest. But whatever you call it, if you care about 
mass incarceration, you have to care about skewed funding 
priorities.''
    These were not college writings. This was about 8 months 
ago that you wrote this to the Senate. By any measure, that is 
advocating defunding the police, and yet today you are telling 
this Committee you do not support that?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, respectfully, I disagree with how you 
are characterizing that. I do not support defunding the police. 
I have been very clear about that.
    I have enjoyed----
    Senator Cruz. Were the quotes I read inaccurate?
    Ms. Gupta. If I may? Sorry?
    Senator Cruz. Were the quotes I read inaccurate?
    Ms. Gupta. Well, let me, if I may, can I tell you what I--
those statements reflect conversations that I have had with 
sheriffs around the country, police officers, police chiefs, 
civil rights activists, who have been talking to me for years, 
long before, as I said, of the events of this summer, about the 
fact that we have placed so many of our Nation's social 
problems at the feet of police.
    And we have defunded mental health services. We have 
defunded substance use services. We have expected law 
enforcement to be the only go-to solution. We have given in 
many communities only one response available for when we have 
family members in crisis or with drug addiction.
    And this is an issue where it is one that I think really 
unifies law enforcement and civil rights advocates and 
community leaders who are seeking alternatives to incarceration 
for addressing some of these very challenging questions and 
sheriffs who are, frankly, fed up with the fact that their 
jails are 70 percent filled with people who are suffering from 
mental illness.
    Senator Cruz. With all due respect, I do not believe you 
have been speaking to sheriffs who have advocated for defunding 
the police. And I have spoken to far too many sheriffs to find 
that credible.
    Thank you.
    Chair Durbin. Senator Klobuchar.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And I just would like the record to reflect that after 
beginning his questions by saying that--or, accusing the 
nominee of being partisan, Senator Cruz then embarked on asking 
the most partisan series of questions that we have heard today 
in this room.
    And I am actually truly excited to see both of you here 
today. I think you are both extraordinarily qualified. And as 
Senator Feinstein noted, I take it as a point of personal pride 
that we have two extraordinarily qualified women for these jobs 
before us.
    And we know what a critical time this is for the Department 
of Justice. We know, Ms. Monaco, how critical your experience 
with years at the Department of Justice and the FBI will be, 
your national security background, the positions you have held 
will be to this job.
    And Ms. Gupta, I have had the pleasure of working with you. 
I have actually had conversations with you repeatedly about the 
police, and I know how much you value their work. I know how 
much you are opposed to defunding, and I know how much you are 
working to make this a better world. And I say this with the 
George Floyd case--the Chauvin case--pending right now in my 
State.
    I was there with you on the Edmund Pettus Bridge last year, 
and I have seen firsthand your commitment to civil rights and 
your commitment to law enforcement. And these two go hand in 
hand, if done right, which you have devoted your career to. So 
I guess I would just start with just asking a few things here.
    First of all, you basically have said that you would 
enforce the laws on the books. Is that correct?
    Ms. Gupta. That is right.
    Senator Klobuchar. And that you know you have the support 
of major police organizations. You also believe that Roe v. 
Wade is settled law. Is that right?
    Ms. Gupta. That is correct.
    Senator Klobuchar. And interestingly enough, would you be 
surprised that the vast majority of Americans agree with you 
that it should be settled law and it should not be changed?
    Ms. Gupta. I understand that from reading public opinion 
about it, yes.
    Senator Klobuchar. Okay. And do you want to talk about why 
you believe in religious liberty?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, my husband's family escaped Vietnam in 
part to ensure that they could practice their religion with 
full freedom here in the United States. They were fleeing a 
regime that was going to be suppressing that and had endured 
enormous violence in the war in their country.
    I am a person of faith. In fact, last night--my oldest son 
is not here right now, but in his nightly prayers was asking 
for kindness at today's hearing. Religious freedom and the 
ability, regardless of what background you have, whether--you 
know, whatever religion you believe is, to me, the kind of 
founding freedom of this country and is in the First Amendment 
of the United States.
    And the Justice Department plays a really important role in 
protecting and ensuring religious liberty and combating 
religious discrimination wherever it may find it.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
    Ms. Monaco, after the last 4 years where civil servants 
withstood improper political interference, what do you see your 
role is as restoring the trust in the Department of Justice?
    Ms. Monaco. Well, Senator, as I said in my opening remarks, 
I think that the career men and women of the Justice Department 
are its backbone. They are the people that enforce the law 
independently, faithfully, fairly, impartially without any 
consideration of improper motive. I think they simply want to 
do their job. They want to do their job with the resources and 
the tools to keep the American people safe, to prosecute 
violent crime, to administer justice with compassion and with 
humility, as Judge Garland talked about before this Committee.
    And they want to see equal justice under the law, and they 
want to do the work that this Committee has done on a 
bipartisan basis to administer criminal justice reform. And so 
I think my role is to ensure that they have got the tools and 
the resources to do their job and to protect them from improper 
influence, any partisan motive because I think they just want 
to do their job.
    Senator Klobuchar. After January 6th, the threat to State 
capitols across the country was clear. Not just this Capitol, 
but State capitols. How do you see the Department coordinating 
with State and local law enforcement to better address the 
threats?
    Ms. Monaco. Well, Senator, I think it is critical. I know 
from my time in the FBI that working hand in glove, shoulder to 
shoulder with State and local law enforcement is the only way 
to address any threat, whether it is foreign violent extremism 
and terrorism, whether it is domestic terrorism, whether it is 
violent criminal gangs. The force multiplier function that 
State and local law enforcement contribute working hand in 
glove with the FBI, with the members of the ATF, the DEA, you 
name it, they have to come together to address these threats.
    And then with the U.S. attorney's offices, that is the 
critical function that they can play, and I know they have done 
it time and again. I have seen it as an assistant U.S. attorney 
here in the District of Columbia how important it is to work 
with State and local law enforcement.
    So one of the things I look forward to doing is, if I am 
confirmed and working with Ms. Gupta's leadership overseeing 
the grant program function of the Justice Department, is making 
sure that we are able to provide those types of resources to 
State and local law enforcement.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
    As Chair of the Competition Policy and Antitrust 
Subcommittee, I know how important antitrust enforcement is 
going to be in not just protecting consumers, obviously, and 
promoting innovation, but actually protecting capitalism and 
making sure that we have vigorous entrepreneurship, something 
that I believe I share in belief with a number of my colleagues 
across the aisle.
    I would like to ask each of you, if you are confirmed, will 
you commit to making vigorous antitrust enforcement a priority?
    Ms. Monaco. Absolutely, Senator.
    Ms. Gupta. Absolutely, yes.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
    Two-thirds of the U.S. industries became more concentrated 
between 1997 and 2012, and COVID-19's devastating effects has 
actually resulted in the closing of many, many small businesses 
and, I believe, more concentrated markets. Would you agree that 
it is very important, especially now, for our economy, 
antitrust enforcement?
    Ms. Monaco. Absolutely, Senator. I think that the ravages 
of the pandemic on small businesses and the effect on 
competition and the ensuing effect on consumers is something 
that is a responsibility of the Justice Department and the 
antitrust enforcement to take on.
    Senator Klobuchar. And we have seen the competition 
problems across the board. It is everything from online 
travels, where two companies basically are responsible for over 
90 percent of the postings and the sites for online travel, 
which people do not know because they have so many different 
names. It is everything from cat food to caskets.
    The Justice Department has taken on the biggest 
monopolization case in decades against Google, a company worth 
more than $1 trillion. The FTC is taking on Facebook. I think 
this is good.
    I represented MCI when they were taking on monopoly 
providers, and I saw as a result of new companies coming in the 
market--we saw a whole new industry in cell phones being 
developed. We saw prices go down in the long distance market. 
But yet the Justice Department, DOJ Antitrust, and the FTC are 
a shadow of what they were during the Reagan administration and 
during the breakup of AT&T. So we cannot expect the agencies to 
take on companies that are the biggest companies the world has 
ever seen with duct tape and Band-Aids.
    Senator Grassley and I have a bill to increase funding to 
the agencies, especially the one you will oversee. Do you favor 
giving enforcers the resources to do their work?
    Ms. Monaco. Yes, Senator. I think that the focus you and 
other Members of the Committee are putting on this issue on a 
bipartisan basis is very important, and I look forward, if I am 
confirmed, to sitting down with the career experts in the 
Antitrust Division and working with Ms. Gupta and her 
leadership on those issues and understanding how they might be 
able to use more resources.
    I think you will never see somebody in the position I hope 
to hold turning down more resources.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
    Senator Grassley's staff advises me that Senator Cotton is 
next.
    Senator Cotton. Ms. Gupta, I want to return to a troubling 
exchange you had with Senator Cornyn. He asked you a simple 
question: Is it true that you advocate for the 
decriminalization of all drugs? You said simply, ``No, sir, I 
do not.''
    He asked you to clarify, and you said, ``Senator, I have 
advocated, as I believe President Biden has, for the 
decriminalization of marijuana possession.'' You went on and 
said, ``I do not support the decriminalization of all drugs.''
    Yet, Ms. Gupta, in an op-ed published in September 2012 in 
the Huffington Post, you wrote, ``States should decriminalize 
simple possession of all drugs, particularly marijuana and for 
small amounts of other drugs.''
    Ms. Gupta, why did you mislead Senator Cornyn and this 
Committee?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, I was not misleading. I am speaking for 
my position today, after having been at the Justice Department, 
after having family members and experiences inform my thinking 
on this. I do not support the decriminalization of all drugs.
    I have spoken about substance use issues and drug 
possession and substance use disorders as both a public health 
problem and an enforcement problem. And I believe, continue to 
believe that very much, as both a public health problem and 
substance use----
    Senator Cotton. Okay. So, thank you.
    He did not ask what the position of the Department of 
Justice is. He asked is it true that you advocate for the 
decriminalization of all drugs? And you said under oath, ``No, 
sir, I do not.'' You published an op-ed plainly advocating for 
``decriminalizing simple possession of all drugs.''
    Ms. Gupta. Senator----
    Senator Cotton. You did not say, ``I have changed my 
mind.'' You did not say, ``My thinking has matured.'' You said, 
``No, sir, I do not,'' under oath. If that is not a misleading 
answer, Ms. Gupta, what is?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, not to pick apart words, but as I 
understood the question, it was about my present advocacy 
position on these issues. I do not support the 
decriminalization of all drugs.
    Senator Cotton. So you have changed your position since 
that op-ed in 2012? You no longer support the decriminalization 
of all drugs?
    Ms. Gupta. I do not.
    Senator Cotton. Thank you.
    Let us move to another exchange you had with Senator 
Cornyn. Last summer, 9 months ago, you were in front of this 
Committee, and Senator Cornyn said, ``Do you believe that all 
Americans are racist?'' You replied, ``Yes, I think that we all 
have implicit biases and racial biases. Yes, I do.''
    So, Ms. Gupta, I ask you, against which races do you harbor 
racial bias?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator Cotton, I do not--the ``yes'' was to say 
that all of us have implicit bias. This was an exchange also 
that Judge Garland had with Senator Kennedy during his hearing.
    I believe that we all have implicit bias. It does not mean 
that we are harboring any racism at all. These are unconscious 
assumptions and stereotypes that can get made, and I remember 
that summer and the exchange with Senator Cornyn that we were 
discussing systemic racism and implicit bias, and my response 
was to say that all of us have implicit bias.
    Senator Cotton. Well, to be precise, you said, ``We all 
have implicit biases and racial biases.'' That is all. Every 
single American you accused of implicit bias and racial bias. 
So I am asking you again, against which races do you harbor 
racial bias?
    Ms. Gupta. I am quite aware that I know that I hold 
stereotypes that I have to manage. I am a product of my 
culture. I am a product as part of the human condition, and I 
believe that--you know, one of the reasons I believe that all 
of us are able to manage implicit bias, but only if we can 
acknowledge our own. And I am not above anyone else in that 
matter. I think implicit bias is something that is part of the 
shared human condition.
    Senator Cotton. So in the Trump administration, you 
strongly opposed the nominations to the Federal courts of the 
following persons--Patrick Bumatay, Michael Park, and Ada 
Brown. That is a Filipino American, a Korean American, and an 
African American. Should members of those communities be 
worried that you harbor racial bias against them since you 
opposed those judges' nominations?
    Ms. Gupta. I am not sure I see how that connection is being 
made, Senator. The Leadership Conference for decades has 
reviewed the civil rights records of individual judicial 
nominees in Democratic and Republican administrations, and 
there were judges that we opposed based on their civil rights 
record and a complete review. There were--there was one set of 
judges that the Leadership Conference opposed because they 
simply refused to say that Brown v. Board of Education was the 
law of the land, and that seemed untenable for a judicial 
nominee.
    But it was based on a review of the record, and that was 
the basis, that was the advice and letters that we would send 
to the Senate. There were about a quarter of the nominees that 
President Trump put forth that the Leadership Conference 
opposed, but it was always after a thorough review of their 
record.
    Senator Cotton. So it is your position then you can oppose 
someone's nomination on the merits without immediately and 
justly being accused of being racist or sexist because of their 
race or their sex?
    Ms. Gupta. Sorry, Senator. I am not sure I understand what 
you are getting at. I believe----
    Senator Cotton. I am getting at the point that our 
Democratic friends and many in the media often make whenever a 
Senator opposes a nominee. They immediately jump to charges of 
racism, such as, for instance, some people accuse Joe Manchin 
of being racist and sexist for opposing Neera Tanden's 
nomination.
    Can you oppose, can you oppose the nomination of a woman or 
a racial minority on the merits without being racist or sexist?
    Ms. Gupta. Yes.
    Senator Cotton. Thank you.
    Let us move on to another exchange you had with Senator 
Cornyn because you had a lot of great exchanges with Senator 
Cornyn. You also said in response to a question about 
institutional racism, ``There is not an institution in this 
country that is not suffering from institutional racism.'' 
There is not an institution in this country.
    Ms. Gupta, does the Biden White House suffer from 
institutional racism?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, given the history of this country of 
slavery and the long period of Jim Crow and the ongoing scourge 
of racial discrimination, I think that it remains very much a 
live problem in America today and that the effort to address 
racial discrimination in all of its forms, discrimination of 
any sort is something that all of us have to work at in the 
institutions we are a part of.
    And one of the reasons why I will be honored to return to 
the Justice Department, if confirmed, is that the Justice 
Department was actually founded on this objective of ensuring 
equal justice before the law. And the laws that Congress has 
enacted through the sacrifice and loss of life of Black 
Americans and Americans writ large--that is a kind of core 
function of the Justice Department--is to enforce our Federal 
civil rights laws and to fight discrimination where it happens 
for all Americans.
    Senator Cotton. So I will just have the record reflect, I 
asked you simply does the Biden White House suffer from 
institutional racism, and you did not want to respond.
    My time is up here. I will just say that I do not think you 
harbor racial bias toward any racial group or that you believe 
the Biden White House suffers from institutional racism. But 
when you throw around allegations that every single American 
suffers from racial bias and every single institution suffers 
from institutional racism, you open yourself up to these kinds 
of questions by condemning your fellow Americans without 
individualized evidence of their beliefs, their words, or their 
deeds.
    I think these statements were beyond the pale. I do not 
think really anybody truly believes them, nor should they be 
believed because they are so preposterous.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Cotton.
    Senator Coons.
    Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Durbin.
    To Ms. Monaco, Ms. Gupta, welcome. I am so pleased that 
President Biden has chosen the two of you for these very 
significant positions, that he has chosen two such immensely 
qualified and experienced and principled public servants to 
take on leadership positions at the Department of Justice. You 
bring skills and expertise, experience that complement each 
other.
    Ms. Monaco, you have dedicated decades of your career to 
fighting to keep us safe. Safe from terrorist attacks, cyber 
attacks, and other threats to our national security.
    Ms. Gupta, you have devoted your career to protecting the 
civil rights and the constitutional rights and the liberties 
that we all cherish as Americans.
    So let me start with my thanks to you and your families for 
your willingness to continue your decades of service. You are 
also both bridge builders. You have earned respect from across 
the legal profession and from a wide array of stakeholders, 
including law enforcement groups, civil rights advocates, and 
former Government officials from both parties.
    So I was somewhat surprised to hear you, Ms. Gupta, 
excoriated as, and I think I quote, ``an extreme and intolerant 
radical activist'' in a recent exchange in this Committee. So 
do not take my word for it. I appreciate my experience working 
with you and your strong advocacy on criminal justice reform 
and policing reform, but I thought I would take a moment and 
just read from the enormous range of letters sent in in support 
of your nomination.
    From Grover Norquist, leader of the Americans for Tax 
Reform, a lifelong Reagan Republican, no centrist here. He 
wrote, ``I have come to know and respect Ms. Gupta through our 
common work on criminal justice issues. I found her strongly 
qualified, effective, principled, driven by a desire to seek 
common purpose and consensus.''
    Later, ``At every step, Ms. Gupta was an honest broker, 
someone with an ability to understand, appreciate different 
perspectives, someone who sought consensus.'' He urges your 
quick confirmation.
    An organization, Koch Industries, known for its partisan 
engagement not in support of Democrats. Their general counsel, 
Mark Holden, very active in criminal justice reform, wrote in 
strong support of your nomination. He says, ``I respected and 
admired how Ms. Gupta was not ideologically driven, but 
principled and solutions-oriented.'' ``Ms. Gupta,'' he writes 
later, ``is a principled leader who seeks to find common ground 
and will work with anyone committed to making the system better 
and more effective. I urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to 
proceed promptly to confirm her.''
    Those do not strike me as the sort of letters that would be 
received by an intolerant radical activist. Instead, I have 
seen in your work--the profile of someone who is pragmatic, 
principled, a relationship builder in search of solutions. But 
again, do not take my word for it.
    In the very charged and difficult area of law enforcement 
and community relations of criminal justice reform, the 
leadership of the National Sheriffs' Association, which 
strongly supports your nomination, ``Ms. Gupta has an open mind 
and a strong desire to understand the viewpoint of each 
stakeholder. She is able to find common ground with law 
enforcement, specifically on our shared goal of supporting safe 
communities and halting criminal activities. We urge the Senate 
to swiftly confirm her.''
    The National Fraternal Order of Police wrote an encouraging 
and supportive letter. ``She always worked with us to find 
common ground, even when that seemed impossible. Her open and 
candid approach has created a working relationship grounded in 
mutual respect and understanding. If confirmed, she will 
continue her practice of working with us to find solutions.''
    And on the specific issues raised, the IACP wrote a letter 
saying you ``have clearly demonstrated a deep understanding of 
and continued support for the policing profession.''
    Fifty-three current and former police chiefs or sheriffs: 
You ``have demonstrated a seriousness and willingness to 
understand the challenges and even dangers facing police 
officers.''
    And to the specific question mischaracterized about whether 
you spoke in support of defunding the police, the Major City 
Chiefs Association and the Major County Sheriffs of America 
both wrote in--specifically saying you have made it clear you 
``neither support defunding the police nor believe doing so 
will bring about the change our communities are calling for,'' 
the Major City Chiefs.
    ``During our meetings,'' the Sheriffs wrote, ``Ms. Gupta 
emphasized she does not support efforts to defund the police, 
but rather a desire to provide resources to improve the 
criminal justice system.''
    A remarkable breadth of support and encouragement, 
reflecting a decades-long career of building bridges, of 
listening to people from other backgrounds and perspectives, 
and making real progress. So, frankly, the fact that there is a 
multimillion dollar campaign on social media and television to 
mischaracterize you as somehow anti-religion or somehow anti-
police or somehow committed to decriminalizing all drugs or 
somehow committed to defunding our law enforcement strikes me 
as clearly in conflict with the evidence presented by those who 
know you, who have worked with you, and who support you.
    So could you just describe for me briefly how you were able 
to work collaboratively with law enforcement, with 
conservatives, with Members of Congress from all backgrounds to 
achieve real progress in criminal justice reform, and what you 
think is the right path forward on realigning our law 
enforcement resources in a way that achieves better justice for 
all our communities?
    Ms. Gupta. Thank you, Senator Coons.
    I take great pride that from early on in my career, where I 
was representing men and women who had been charged and 
involved with the criminal justice system, learning firsthand 
about their stories and experiences, and learning also that in 
order to make change and to do something about some of our 
criminal justice policies that have harmed communities of color 
and cost taxpayers billions of dollars, that it was important 
to be pragmatic.
    I am an idealistic person. I am a civil rights lawyer. I am 
an optimist. But in the end of the day, I am a deeply pragmatic 
person. I see the humanity in everyone, and I was very eager 
when I started to meet with conservative leaders that may have 
been animated to come to the table for different reasons, but 
where we had strong alignment about the problems of Government 
overreach, of the problems in communities around misspent 
dollars, and the devastation that had been wrought in some 
communities by policies of mass incarceration, to work with 
these leaders and a diverse set of leaders.
    When I was at the Justice Department, I remember after the 
Justice Department had released the Ferguson report documenting 
how fines and fees were being used to target African Americans 
in Ferguson, Missouri, I had lunch with Grover Norquist. And we 
were talking about this and remarking about how in so many ways 
the kind of scourge of the criminalization of poverty right now 
feels like a taxation on the poor.
    And when I had the opportunity, when President Obama held a 
session at the White House on this problem of fines and fees 
and the criminalization of poverty, I thought, why not invite 
Mr. Norquist to come speak? He wouldn't be expected in this 
room, but he spoke very eloquently and powerfully about these 
issues.
    I have worked in the middle of difficult crises with police 
union leaders, with law enforcement chiefs, with mayors that 
are struggling with communities and communities of color that 
are hurt because of violence on these very tricky issues. And 
to me, honestly, Senator, one of the greatest honors that I 
would look forward to, if I was able to return to the Justice 
Department, would be to double and triple down on these 
relationships and on this work.
    I think our country continues to be embattled on these 
issues, and it would be that ethos that I would bring, and I 
would want to ensure that law enforcement has the resources it 
needs to do what it needs to do to have the trust of the 
communities they serve.
    Senator Coons. Thank you very much, Ms. Gupta.
    If I might, Mr. Chairman, just one last question?
    Ms. Monaco, we spoke earlier about China's aggressive and 
long-lasting campaign of theft of intellectual property from 
American companies and now its attempts to dominate the global 
stage in terms of IP to win the competition for emerging 
technologies like quantum computing, AI, and 5G, their attempts 
to take over the World Intellectual Property Organization or to 
dominate standard-setting bodies.
    What role do you see for the Department of Justice in 
taking on this challenge in advancing protections for American 
inventions and innovation and in pushing back on Chinese 
innovation mercantilism, and how will you work to address that?
    Ms. Monaco. Well, Senator, this is an area that I have long 
focused on when I was at the FBI, focusing--even as we were 
focusing on the terrorism threat, we were intently focused on 
the rise of nation-state cyber actors and their efforts to 
steal intellectual properties, to steal research and 
development, and yes, commit espionage.
    And so when I had the privilege of serving as the Assistant 
Attorney General for National Security, I made nation-state 
cyber attackers and going after them a top priority and, 
indeed, created the first nationwide network of national 
security cyber specialists in U.S. attorney's offices around 
the country. I would hope to continue that work and I should 
say and credit my successors in the Trump administration for 
continuing that focus on nation-state cyber actors and on China 
in particular.
    I would hope to continue that work, to double down on the 
focus on intellectual property theft, on enforcing strict 
sanctions against China's malicious and illegal and unfair 
practices. So this is an area I think we have a great deal more 
to do, and I look forward to working with you, knowing of your 
leadership on this area.
    Senator Coons. Well, thank you both. I look forward to 
working with you, supporting your confirmation, and seeing you 
move forward quickly through the Senate process.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Coons.
    I would like to apprise folks of our plan here, and that is 
to have Senator Hawley next and then Senator Blumenthal and 
then break. It would be around noon until 12:30 p.m. Then we 
will return. There are several Members who have asked for a 
second round, and I do not know if they will take the full 5 
minutes of that second round.
    But at this point, we will recognize Senator Hawley.
    Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Ms. Monaco, let me just start with you. And 
congratulations----
    Chair Durbin. Senator Hawley, could you just hold a second? 
We need more volume from your end. We are working on it right 
now, I am told.
    Now he thinks we are better. Please proceed.
    Senator Hawley. How about that?
    Chair Durbin. Yes, thank you.
    Senator Hawley. Okay, great. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I was just saying congratulations to both of the 
nominees on your nominations.
    Ms. Monaco, let me just start with you, if I could? I want 
to ask you a question that I asked Judge Garland when he was 
before our Committee a couple of weeks ago. Is it your view 
that unlawful entry should remain a crime in the United States? 
That is unlawful entry into the U.S., should that remain a 
crime?
    Ms. Monaco. Well, Senator, President Biden has been quite 
clear that he is not for decriminalizing the border, and 
neither am I. If I am confirmed as the Deputy Attorney General, 
the job of the Justice Department will be to enforce the law 
and to do so consistent with priorities focusing on national 
security and public safety.
    Senator Hawley. Good. Thank you. Thank you for that answer.
    Let me ask you this. Should ICE still be authorized to 
conduct detention and removal operations within the United 
States?
    Ms. Monaco. Well, I would not want to get ahead of and it 
would certainly not be in my purview to set the guidance for 
ICE, obviously coming under the Department of Homeland 
Security. But my view is we would be--they should be enforcing 
the law consistent with the laws on the books and consistent 
with their own resource constraints. But obviously, that would 
be outside my purview.
    Senator Hawley. Let me just ask you a broad question on 
that. If you are confirmed as the Deputy Attorney General, do 
you intend to faithfully enforce the immigration laws that are 
passed by Congress as currently exist in the statute?
    Ms. Monaco. Yes, Senator. The job of the Justice Department 
is to faithfully and fairly enforce the law and to do so 
independently and without any improper considerations.
    Senator Hawley. Great. Let me switch gears and ask you a 
different question. In 2011, you expressed your support for the 
PATRIOT Act and for a legal tool, legal provisions that allowed 
for, among other things, roving wiretaps. Can I just ask you, 
do you support Americans' right to use end-to-end encryption 
tools, or do you think that end-to-end encryption is something 
that poses a danger that needs to be addressed?
    Ms. Monaco. Well, Senator, I think end-to-end encryption 
provides invaluable benefits to personal privacy, to 
cybersecurity. I have seen the tremendous benefits that it 
provides. I also know from my prior work that the proliferation 
of the use of end-to-end encryption by criminal actors, 
including those who exploit children and, of course, terrorist 
actors, kidnappers, you name it, has posed a significant 
challenge for State and local law enforcement in particular.
    And I know this is an area that is the subject of a great 
deal of focus and a number of legislative proposals. So if I am 
confirmed, I look forward to working with you and other Members 
of the Committee who I know this is an important issue for.
    Senator Hawley. If you are confirmed, do you anticipate 
pursuing measures that would disincentivize or even outlaw use 
of these encryption technologies, end-to-end encryption?
    Ms. Monaco. I have no present intention to pursue any such 
proposals on one end of the spectrum or any other end of the 
spectrum. I think I look forward to seeing proposals that are 
put forward and evaluating each one individually.
    Senator Hawley. Very good. Thank you for that.
    Let me just ask you one other question about Guantanamo 
Bay. When you served as President Obama's Homeland Security 
Advisor, you were tasked with closing down the Gitmo facility. 
President Biden has expressed an interest now in resuming this 
effort. If you are confirmed, do you envision that you will 
oversee or be involved in any part of such an effort?
    Ms. Monaco. I do not know what role I will play, if I am 
confirmed, Senator. I suspect the Justice Department would 
participate in an interagency process, which I understand from 
public reporting is something the Biden administration is 
contemplating.
    I would just note in my past experience that the safe 
closure and the safe transfer of individuals consistent with an 
independent threat assessment and security measures is 
something that the past administrations, Republican and 
Democratic, have been able to accomplish. And given that my 
understanding is also that it is a very, very costly--continues 
to be a very, very costly endeavor to house individuals there, 
that the Justice Department will participate in that 
interagency effort.
    Senator Hawley. Just on that last point, where would you 
envision housing new detainees, assuming the Guantanamo Bay 
facility is closed?
    Ms. Monaco. I am sorry, Senator, new detainees?
    Senator Hawley. Where would you envision housing them if 
Gitmo is closed?
    Ms. Monaco. Well, I do not believe that there has been a 
single additional person or a new person added to the 
Guantanamo facility in going on 8, 10 years now, and I think I 
know there have been a number of exceptionally successful 
terrorism and other prosecutions in that time. So I think we 
would use the Federal criminal justice system.
    Senator Hawley. Ms. Gupta, let me shift to you. You wrote 
in a 2005 article in the Fordham Law Review that, ``Critical 
race lawyering is about transforming business as usual in the 
criminal justice system, a business that is usually masked as 
being racially neutral, bias free, and just the crime facts, 
ma'am, industry. We have to transform that business as usual 
into a counternarrative about police practices, racial bias, 
and the irrationality of many of our criminal justice 
policies.'' That is a quote.
    Let me just ask you, should criminal justice policy be race 
neutral or no?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, thank you for raising that.
    The enforcement of our criminal laws needs to be neutrally 
done. What I was discussing, as I recall--though it has been a 
while--in that article was the importance of recognizing and 
naming racial bias in our criminal justice system and being 
able to advance policies that could understand and recognize 
that, and that trying to just do this work around criminal 
justice reform without recognizing the particular racial 
disparities of some of these policies does not serve anyone 
well.
    Senator Hawley. Do you think the criminal justice system--
is there ever a circumstance in which you think it is 
appropriate to treat people differently on the basis of race?
    Ms. Gupta. Absolutely not.
    Senator Hawley. Let me just--thank you for that. My time is 
almost expired. So me just ask you one other thing, Ms. Gupta, 
and then I will have some additional questions for you and for 
Ms. Monaco in writing for the record.
    You have stated I believe in the past, Ms. Gupta, that 
States should decriminalize the simple possession of all drugs, 
particularly marijuana and for small amounts of other drugs. 
Now are you advocating, is that including--is that reach as 
broad as your statement says? I mean, are you talking about the 
decriminalization across the board? Is that still a policy you 
advocate?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, I do not support decriminalization of 
all drugs. I have supported decriminalization of marijuana 
possession. I had--that was a prior position. I have--I am very 
clear that I do not support decriminalization of all drugs. 
There are many drugs that are having a devastating impact on 
and ravaging communities.
    And I believe, however, that substance use disorder is both 
a public health problem and an enforcement problem and that it 
is important to treat those things as such. But I do not 
support decriminalization of drugs.
    Senator Hawley. Well, thank you.
    And I will just end with this, Mr. Chairman. I just want to 
say on that point that as you have raised, Ms. Gupta, that my 
State, Missouri, in particular, we have been devastated by 
heroin abuse, fentanyl, abuse of opioids outside of 
prescription. And so I would be very concerned about any 
decriminalization policy.
    I will have some additional questions for you for the 
record.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Hawley.
    Senator Blumenthal.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you both for your public service. Whatever else may 
be said about you this morning, you are both extraordinarily 
talented and dedicated public servants, and you have worked 
with this Committee, Members of the Committee, including 
myself, and I think we have come to admire your very insightful 
and incisive approach to problem-solving, reaching across 
partisan divides, building bridges, focus on solutions--which 
is what law enforcement should do and what professionals should 
do.
    And you both bring to these jobs not only the expertise and 
experience of the past, but also your life perspectives based 
on your family, what you have done, and where you come from. 
And so I just want to thank you for your willingness to 
continue to serve at a time when it has never been more 
challenging.
    I want to begin with an area where I think we can all agree 
there needs to be more done, which is hate crimes. The rise of 
domestic terrorism and violent extremism has given rise to 
increasing hate crimes based on race and ethnicity. I have a 
bill that would help correct some of the underreporting, which 
is such a problem in this area. I believe my colleague Senator 
Feinstein has highlighted it in her remarks.
    Hate crimes are notoriously and repeatedly underreported. 
The NO HATE Act, which I sponsored, would lead to greater 
reporting and also more innovative and effective types of 
penalties.
    Ms. Monaco, if I can ask you first, would you agree that 
hate crimes need to be better reported and we need something 
like the NO HATE Act to lead to it?
    Ms. Monaco. Well, Senator, first let me thank you for your 
focus on this issue and thank you for raising it in our call, 
and I appreciate you taking the time to spend some time with me 
in advance of the hearing. I absolutely think we need to 
understand better the scope and severity of the challenge posed 
by hate crimes.
    Just the sliver that we are seeing from the reporting that 
we are seeing is exceptionally concerning. So I agree. We need 
to have more and better data. And I look forward, if I am 
confirmed, to working with you to see that happen.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Ms. Gupta?
    Ms. Gupta. I very much agree, Senator. I have been deeply 
distressed by seeing the data that the FBI has been putting out 
about the surge in hate crimes in America. Hate crimes 
devastate communities, are not just about something that 
happened to one or two people. They really tear at the fabric 
of our country.
    And I think the Justice Department has a lot of tools, 
including, of course, the important one of law enforcement, in 
investigating and prosecuting hate crimes where they happen. 
But also doing what it can to use its bully pulpit and to 
prevent the kind of hate and hate festering in our communities 
around the country.
    Senator Blumenthal. Ms. Gupta, you have been a victim of a 
smear campaign, a despicable and rancid campaign to discredit 
you, which I think is really regrettable, unfair, inaccurate. 
Unfortunately, some of those themes have been repeated by a 
number of my colleagues this morning. In fact, they have 
regrettably refused to let you complete answers to questions.
    I would like to give you an opportunity to complete your 
answers. For example, on the question of police funding. I 
happen to believe that police need and deserve more support, 
more resources, more of the kinds of services they can bring to 
bear when they face difficult and complicated circumstances, as 
I have seen them do over the years that I have been involved in 
law enforcement.
    Let me ask you how you see funding of the police increased, 
not diminished, in order to increase their effectiveness?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, I have spent almost my full adult 
career working on issues of policing, police-community trust, 
public safety, racial justice issues. And at every point in my 
career, I have advocated, where it has been important to do so, 
for greater resources for law enforcement, for accountability 
measures like body-worn cameras, for modernization of equipment 
and data systems so they can track better arrests and stops and 
searches and be able to understand the trends in their own 
communities.
    In a lot of places, police officers are working under 
enormous strain, and the importance of officer wellness and 
safety programs, these are--I have also been talking recently 
to many sheriffs about the pilot programs that they are running 
in their jails to better address and have community-based 
interventions around people with mental illness and substance 
use disorders that are filling our Nation's jails at this 
moment.
    And so these are some of the issues that I believe there is 
actually a lot of common ground on to begin to really think 
about how can there be investment in some of these community-
based interventions to take the burden off of police and to 
give communities other responses. And I have been eager to 
learn about these innovative programs that many sheriffs and 
chiefs are running around the country. I believe there is 
enormous community support for it as well.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
    Ms. Monaco, as you may know--I am sure you do--that there 
are about 1.3 million cases in a severely backlogged system of 
immigration review, specifically, the Executive Office for 
Immigration Review of the Nation's immigration court system. 
And the reason for this backlog relates to, first, the lack of 
power of those immigration judges over their own dockets and, 
second, the sheer number that there are.
    As I understand it, the immigration backlog could be 
resolved in a number of ways. First, giving them back the power 
over their dockets, and second, DOJ can get rid of about 
700,000 of those nonpriority cases by simply dismissing them.
    If confirmed, will you consider giving immigration judges 
back their power to manage their own dockets and dismissing the 
nonpriority cases in order to clear the immigration court 
backlog?
    Ms. Monaco. Well, Senator, this is an area that a number of 
Members have raised with me, including yourself. And the issue 
of this backlog I think presents a real challenge to what we 
need to do, which is have a fair and effective system for 
having fair hearings.
    And these are career professionals who need to be 
administering these cases and reviewing these cases in a fair 
and effective way. And so what I pledge to do, Senator, if I am 
confirmed, is to meet with the professionals there, understand 
what it is that could be done to streamline, and have a more 
effective and fair system for reviewing these cases.
    We may end up needing more resources, and that may be 
something that I come back to you on. But I look forward to 
working with you and others who I know have raised this same 
issue because that type of backlog is a direct impediment to a 
fair and effective system.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Thank you both for your 
service, and I look forward to working with you.
    Thank you.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Blumenthal.
    We will return at 12:35. Senator Tillis of North Carolina 
will be up. And take a break.
    [Whereupon the hearing was recessed and reconvened.]
    Chair Durbin. 12:35 p.m. having arrived, we are now making 
technical connections.
    [Pause.]
    Chair Durbin. Senator Blackburn, welcome. If it is not 
inconvenient, we would like to call on you next. Is that all 
right?
    Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, yes. That is 
perfectly fine.
    And thank you all for being here today.
    Ms. Gupta, I want to come to you first. Should a future 
Senate-confirmed nominee tweet critical comments about a 
sitting U.S. Senator?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, I have apologized and will apologize 
again for the harsh tone and coarse language that I have used, 
and if I am confirmed as Associate Attorney General, you will 
not hear that kind of coarse language from me, and I will look 
forward----
    Senator Blackburn. But it is a part of your past. And on 
October 5, 2018, you tweeted, ``Senator Collins,'' and I have 
got it right here. ``Senator Collins is failing her 
constituents and sending a dangerous message to survivors. This 
is excruciating.'' Do you regret that?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, I recall that----
    Senator Blackburn. ``Yes'' or ``no'' is fine.
    Ms. Gupta. I do regret it, yes.
    Senator Blackburn. Okay. All right. And you were 
criticizing her because of her vote on Justice Kavanaugh. Is 
that right?
    Ms. Gupta. That is--for her vote, yes.
    Senator Blackburn. Okay. Then June 15, 2020, 2 years later, 
you tweeted, and I got that one right here. ``There was a 
reason, many reasons, so many of us fought tooth and nail to 
keep Kavanaugh off of the Court. Et tu, Susan Collins?''
    So I see that you also have tweeted that we should believe 
survivors. On September 27, 2019, you tweeted, ``One year 
later, I still support Dr. Blasey Ford. I thank her again for 
her bravery. And yes, I still believe her powerful testimony. 
The truth is she was not alone last year. Millions of women, 
survivors, and allies had her back. We still do. Believe 
survivors.''
    So now, five women, brave women have come forward with 
allegations of inappropriate conduct about New York Governor 
Andrew Cuomo. Lindsey Boylan said Cuomo forced her to kiss him 
in his office against her wishes. Do you believe Lindsey 
Boylan?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, I think it is important that the 
Attorney General of New York has opened an investigation to 
investigate those claims, and I believe that survivors too 
often in this country and victims of sexual assault do not have 
their ability to be heard. And I think that it is appropriate 
for the Attorney General of New York to have this 
investigation.
    Senator Blackburn. So let me ask you a broader question, 
since you don't want to say whether you believe a survivor of 
sexual harassment: Should these five brave women be believed?
    Ms. Gupta. Sorry, Senator. I am not sure I understood the 
question.
    Senator Blackburn. It is a simple ``yes'' or ``no.'' Should 
these women that have stepped forward, all five of them, be 
believed?
    Ms. Gupta. I believe they should----
    Senator Blackburn. Do we believe these survivors?
    Ms. Gupta. I believe survivors should be heard, and I 
believe that it is appropriate for the Attorney General of New 
York to be conducting an investigation.
    Senator Blackburn. Okay. So these survivors of sexual 
harassment should not all be believed?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, as I have said, I believe very much and 
have spent a lot of my career ensuring that victims and victims 
of sexual abuse and sexual violence are able to have their 
voices heard. Obviously, in our criminal justice system, 
everyone is afforded the presumption of innocence, and there is 
a process for that.
    But on this, where--I think on Governor Cuomo's 
allegations, the investigation by the Attorney General is 
ongoing, and I believe that is appropriate.
    Senator Blackburn. Okay. If these stories are true, should 
Governor Cuomo resign?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, as a nominee for the Justice 
Department, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to decide 
what the remedy should be. I believe there should be a full and 
thorough fact-finding, yes, I do.
    Senator Blackburn. Okay. So you do not have an opinion, 
like you had an opinion back in 2018. And I thought that you 
backed MeToo and believed all survivors. So you have been 
posting about believing women over and over since the MeToo 
movement started, and I thought that you supported women in the 
MeToo movement.
    So, to me, it seems a little hypocritical, to say the 
least, that you seem to not have an opinion based on the 
allegations of multiple women that have come forward.
    Let me move on since we do not have an opinion on MeToo. 
You are an outspoken advocate for soft-on-crime approaches, and 
I am not sure if your lenient approach to punishment is what we 
want to see for the No. 3 official at the Justice Department.
    On December 10, 2020, you tweeted, ``Abolish the death 
penalty.'' Is that correct?
    Ms. Gupta. That is correct.
    Senator Blackburn. Okay. July 4, 2020, you tweeted, ``The 
death penalty is always wrong, but right now, a priority 
apparently for U.S. DOJ.'' Is that correct?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, I have been a proponent against the 
death penalty, but I also know how to enforce the law, and I 
did so when I was in the Justice Department before when Dylann 
Roof committed the heinous acts against nine parishioners at 
the Charleston AME church----
    Senator Blackburn. Okay. So let me ask you this.
    Ms. Gupta [continuing]. And that prosecution and conviction 
happened under my watch.
    Senator Blackburn. Is the death penalty wrong for the 
Boston bomber or the Charlottesville shooter?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, if I am confirmed as Associate Attorney 
General, I will be following the law. And at the Justice 
Department, there are actually quite strict procedures for 
certification in a death penalty case that resides--that 
decision to pursue a death sentence resides with the Attorney 
General of the United States, who considers the aggravators and 
mitigators pursuant to the law. That will be the decision and 
determination of the next Attorney General of the United 
States.
    Senator Blackburn. Ms. Gupta, is it fair to say that you 
have double standards then, based on your personal opinion or 
what you see as a professional responsibility?
    Ms. Gupta. I do not believe I do. I believe that if I am 
confirmed, my personal opinions on things take second place to 
the Constitution and Federal law.
    Senator Blackburn. Yield back.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Blackburn.
    I would like to submit for the record letters of 
endorsement of Vanita Gupta from the Fraternal Order of Police; 
National Sheriffs' Association; the president of the National 
Sheriffs' Association, David Mahoney, the Sheriff of Dane 
County, Wisconsin; the Major County Sheriffs of America; the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police; Major Cities 
Chiefs Association; 53 current or former police chiefs or 
sheriffs; the Police Executive Research Forum; the Federal Law 
Enforcement Officers Association; the Hispanic American Police 
Commanders Association; the National Organization of Black Law 
Enforcement Executives; the National Association of Women Law 
Enforcement Executives; the president of the Iowa State 
Sheriffs and Deputies Association, Tony Thompson, who is the 
sheriff of Black Hawk County, Iowa.
    Without objection, I will add those to the record.
    [The information appears as submissions for the record.]
    Chair Durbin. I understand Senator Hirono is prepared.
    Senator Hirono. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Can you hear us? Good. Take it away, Senator.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you.
    Ms. Monaco and Ms. Gupta, welcome. As part of my 
responsibilities, I ask the following two initial questions of 
every nominee who comes before any of the Committees on which I 
sit. So I will ask you the questions.
    Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted 
requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical 
harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
    Ms. Monaco. No.
    Ms. Gupta. No, Senator.
    Senator Hirono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered 
into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
    Ms. Monaco. No.
    Ms. Gupta. No.
    Senator Hirono. As I listened to some of the questions from 
my colleagues, I want to note that we have been subjected to 
quite a lot of mansplaining with regard to Ms. Gupta's position 
on race, religion, policing. And Ms. Gupta, I commend you for 
your calm responses.
    The Judicial Crisis Network, a right-wing dark money group, 
has been running ads against your nomination, Ms. Gupta, and 
one of the claims that the ad makes is that you want to defund 
the police, and you have said several times today that that is 
not your position. Jim Pasco, the executive director of the 
Fraternal Order of Police, a group that has endorsed your 
nomination, called out the Judicial Crisis Network for what it 
is, and I quote him, ``partisan''--he calls the Judicial Crisis 
Network ``partisan demagoguery and the politics of personal 
destruction.'' I certainly could not agree more.
    I have seen you, Ms. Gupta, advocate for shifting some 
responsibilities away from police officers to professionals 
with expertise in mental health, developmental disability, and 
substance use disorders. Can you talk briefly about what this 
means and why it is so important?
    Ms. Gupta. Yes, Senator. Thank you.
    I have experienced and heard from any number of people in 
law enforcement, as well as from community leaders and mental 
health professionals, about the importance of ensuring that 
there is community-based mental health services and substance 
use treatment so that communities are not fully and only 
reliant on the criminal justice system when family members are 
in need and suffering from these issues.
    Law enforcement, sheriffs--I just recently was in a series 
of meetings with sheriffs where they are talking about this 
issue about what they are dealing with in their jails, and I 
think there is an enormous opportunity right now to work 
together to figure out how we can better support law 
enforcement and not have this be solely their burden and ensure 
that there are community-based services where that is possible, 
where those co-responders and mental health professionals can 
arrive at the scene with law enforcement.
    This is something that we have seen in action in places 
like Denver and Seattle and Cleveland and other places. I think 
this is really important.
    I also know, Senator, that President Biden has pledged $300 
million to the COPS office, which I believe would be able to 
help support some of these efforts based on engagement that I 
have had and the needs of law enforcement and communities that 
I have been hearing for the last many years.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you for your understanding of how 
some of these situations can be better handled not just by the 
police.
    So since January 1st, Republicans in 39 States have 
introduced over 250 voter suppression bills, and this is the 
legacy of the Supreme Court's 2013 Shelby County decision, 
which gutted, basically, the Voting Rights Act and left Section 
2 in place.
    Now there are two cases, Arizona cases, before the Supreme 
Court, and there is a concern that the Court's conservative 
majority will significantly narrow the effectiveness of Section 
2 of the Voting Rights Act in challenging voter suppression 
laws that disproportionately impact racial minorities.
    Why? Well, in response to a question from Justice Amy Coney 
Barrett, a lawyer for the Arizona Republican Party said that 
allowing more people to vote puts Republicans, and I quote, 
``at a competitive disadvantage.'' So that is really revealing 
their true motives, which is voter suppression, by the way.
    So I know you have advocated for Congress to restore and 
update the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act. 
Why is it so important to have robust voting rights laws at the 
Federal level?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, a core function of the Justice 
Department through its Civil Rights Division is the enforcement 
of the Federal voting rights laws that this body has passed. It 
is the Help America Vote Act, the National Voter Registration 
Act, the UOCAVA that protects the voting rights of 
servicemembers that are serving our country, and the Voting 
Rights Act.
    The Shelby County decision in 2013 took away and devastated 
kind of a major core part of the Voting Rights Act that gave 
the Justice Department the ability to ensure that hyperlocal 
changes were not racially discriminatory. And I hope that to 
honor Congressman Lewis and his whole legacy that that 
provision will be restored. But certainly, regardless, it will 
be incumbent on the Justice Department to ensure that all 
eligible Americans are able to exercise their right to vote. It 
is foundational to our democracy.
    Senator Hirono. I could not agree with you more. In fact, 
right after the Shelby County decision, some 13 States very 
quickly enacted voter suppression laws, and now all these 
States are quickly trying to pass over 250 laws to voter 
suppress. And I think that they think that they have a very 
sympathetic Supreme Court that will uphold what they are trying 
to do.
    I know, Ms. Gupta, you are well aware of the increasing 
number of hate crimes against the Asian American and Pacific 
Islander community, and many ideas have been put forward on 
what we can do to stem this violence and to prosecute the 
people who are responsible. And one of the ideas is a position 
dedicated at the Department of Justice to expedite review and 
prosecution of these incidents and grants for States and local 
governments to address this violence and improve data 
reporting.
    Can you tell us about what you believe should be done to 
address the continuing incidence of hate crimes against the 
AAPI community?
    Ms. Gupta. Thank you, Senator.
    The recent data on the surge in hate crimes against the 
AAPI community has been incredibly distressing, and I know we 
are learning more every day from our local law enforcement 
partners about the Justice Department's enforcement of the 
Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. 
It needs to be rigorous, and we need to continue to ensure 
appropriate data collection so we can actually understand the 
scope of the problem.
    And I believe that there is important community 
organizations that are often the first go-to for victims of 
hate crimes because they are trusted in their community, and it 
is important for the Justice Department to have relationships 
there. The Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division 
prosecutes hate crimes. They do it with great honor and 
dedication. And if I am confirmed, I would want to be able to 
assess their resource needs.
    And I guess, as Ms. Monaco said, it would be--it will be 
hard to turn down additional resources in this area, but 
obviously, we want to be able to ensure that the Justice 
Department can do everything it needs to do to prevent the 
scourge of hate crimes.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Hirono.
    Senator Hirono. Ms. Gupta, I just have a little bit of time 
remaining, or maybe my time is up. I just wanted to ask you, 
you have been a champion of equal rights against all kinds of 
discrimination. Can you briefly talk about your work on 
supporting military people in terms of your work?
    Ms. Gupta. Yes, Senator. When I was at the Justice 
Department before, heading up the Civil Rights Division, the 
Civil Rights Division enforces statutes to protect the voting 
rights of servicemembers particularly that are deployed 
overseas, where there has been a lot of problems in ensuring 
their ability to vote and have their vote counted. But also to 
ensure that predatory lending practices that have taken away 
property improperly of servicemembers when they were deployed, 
that is a statute, as well as employment when members of the 
military are deployed, when they face unlawful employment 
discrimination or termination.
    So these are some of the statutes that we enforce. I was 
honored to work with the then-Associate Attorney General to 
launch a servicemembers initiative to protect and kind of give 
a more holistic, all-Department approach to protecting the 
rights of servicemembers and ensuring that they are never 
penalized for the service that they give to our country.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Hirono.
    Now we are going to call on Senator Tillis, followed by 
Senator Booker. Senator Tillis.
    Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And Ms. Monaco and Ms. Gupta, congratulations on your 
nominations. I know that you and your family and friends should 
be proud.
    Ms. Gupta, also I know that some of my colleagues on my 
side of the aisle have asked you a number of different 
questions about positions you have taken on Twitter and public 
statements. I am only going to refer to one of those and then 
move on to a few more questions.
    I hope that you understand that the Department that you are 
being considered for is one of the few Departments in the 
administration that we are striving our best to have people go 
forward who do not necessarily have a partisan background, and 
I think we can infer from some of your statements that you may. 
And not necessarily take offense to it, just to understand I 
think the motivation is to create leadership in the DOJ that 
are as unbiased as possible in matters of policy.
    But I do have to ask you a question about a tweet that you 
posted February of last year. I believe it was February 20th. 
It read, ``Please understand what Senate Majority Leader--at 
the time, Mitch McConnell--is prioritizing this week. He is 
moving forward on two partisan anti-abortion bills and more 
lifetime Federal judges instead of holding votes on all of the 
important civil and human rights legislation already passed by 
the House.'' And you ended it by saying, ``We will not 
forget.''
    Ms. Gupta, do you recall what the two anti-abortion bills 
were that we were pursuing that week?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, I do not. Sorry.
    Senator Tillis. Well, we were voting on Senator Graham's 
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and Senator Sasse's 
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. One required 
doctors to provide medical care to any child that was born 
alive after an attempted abortion, and the other one makes it a 
criminal offense for a doctor to perform an abortion 20 weeks 
after fertilization.
    And in fact, these bills were bipartisan. We got a couple 
of Democrat votes on them. So I am just curious before I move 
on to DOJ policies why, in your mind, you do not think a doctor 
should provide medical care to a child who has been born alive?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, the issue here, I think--and I seem to 
recall that we were gravely concerned that there were hundreds 
of bills that were held up in the Senate that had been passed 
by the House and that were not receiving even a hearing. And 
the concern was that there was swift movement on confirmation 
of judges, but the holdup of these bills was of great concern 
to many of us, and I was giving voice to that.
    It does not mean to diminish the bills that you were 
considering, but we were expressing a lot of concern about the 
hundreds of bills that were being held up or not receiving a 
hearing in the Senate.
    Senator Tillis. I would like to move on to some things that 
will be closer, should you be confirmed. On qualified immunity, 
you have advocated for the elimination of what I believe you 
have referred to as ``judge-made doctrine of qualified 
immunity.'' Do you believe Congress should replace it with 
protections for law enforcement officers who have to make very 
difficult, oftentimes split-second decisions in dangerous 
circumstances? Is that something that Congress should act on?
    Ms. Gupta. I believe that it is really important that law 
enforcement is able to do their important jobs of maintaining 
public safety. I think the issue around how to hold individual 
officers accountable for misconduct is one that is really 
important, and those were a set of questions asked after George 
Floyd was killed in Minneapolis. These were questions that I 
believe Members of this Committee were asking and have been, I 
know, and will be considering again in the George Floyd Justice 
in Policing Act.
    But I also think they are very challenging. There is not an 
easy answer for this. We have to be able to ensure that law 
enforcement can do their jobs and also be able to ensure 
individual accountability when misconduct occurs. And I----
    Senator Tillis. I agree with accountability, but I also 
have a concern that if we make this job more difficult, we have 
already made it unattractive by the way that many in law 
enforcement have been demonized or accused of being 
systemically racist. We need to deal with situations, 
legitimate situations. But I think that we could be going down 
a dangerous path if we make this job even more dangerous and 
make it more likely fewer people will enter the law enforcement 
profession.
    You mentioned George Floyd. I am sure you are well aware of 
the case that is proceeding there. I was this morning seeing a 
news report around the perimeter of the courthouse, and if I am 
not mistaken, it was two Jersey turnpike barriers with fences 
erected and razor wire in between. It would suggest to me that 
depending upon the outcome of that case, that they are 
anticipating civil unrest.
    So do you believe that the First Amendment right protects 
people who could potentially breach that building--regardless 
of what the outcome is, a protest on either side. Do you 
believe that First Amendment protections ever extend to people 
who destroy buildings, who assault people, and do you believe 
the Department of Justice should pursue them without any whiff 
whatsoever of what side of the argument they may be on?
    Ms. Gupta. The answer to your last question is, yes, 
absolutely. Violence is never appropriate. The First Amendment 
only protects peaceful protests, and I do think that the 
Justice Department will have to--in that type of situation, 
were that to occur, the Justice Department has to enforce the 
law and protect communities from violence whether it is in the 
course of a protest or not, regardless of who is engaged in it.
    Senator Tillis. So we got a report from the FBI Director 
last week that some 300 arrests have been made. I, for one, 
hope that there are thousands more coming. But I also ask the 
question about continuing to focus on those who perpetrated 
crimes, damaged buildings, harmed people, hundreds of law 
enforcement officers.
    Do you feel like there should be equal weight on 
investigating, arresting, and convicting anyone over the past 
year of violence that we have seen, almost unprecedented 
violence in this country? Do you intend to emphasize that 
anyone who harms someone, who damages a building, who harms a 
law enforcement officer should be pursued, regardless of what 
their underlying protest was based on?
    Ms. Gupta. Yes.
    Senator Tillis. I have got a couple of other questions. I 
guess I have got 12 seconds. I just want to try and understand 
something that you said about reducing the footprint of police 
and law enforcement. A cynic would say that is a more eloquent 
way of saying defunding the police.
    What is different between reducing the footprint of the 
police and the criminal legal system and defunding the police? 
What is the distinction there I need to understand?
    Ms. Gupta. Thank you for raising that.
    So, as I have said before and I will say it again, I do not 
support defunding the police. The difference is, is that I have 
worked throughout my career with conservative leaders and with 
progressives and libertarians to ensure that there is not 
government overreach through our criminal justice system, which 
has caused enormous harm on communities of color through low-
level enforcement measures that have been very disparate in 
communities.
    And that, where we can refocus on violent crime and ensure 
that there is availability of things like community-based 
treatment and mental health treatment, that we should be 
supporting that as a set of societal priorities. I have also 
been very clear that I have advocated for greater police 
resources, and as I said, I know President Biden has committed 
$300 million more to the COPS office.
    I will look forward to implementing those funds if the COPS 
office receives them. I believe that constitutional community-
oriented policing is crucial to supporting both law enforcement 
and the communities that they serve. And if confirmed as 
Associate Attorney General, I would be very committed to doing 
so.
    Senator Tillis. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Gupta and Ms. 
Monaco.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Booker.
    Senator Booker. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I just want to 
correct for the record, they are not Jersey turnpike barriers. 
They are Jersey barriers. That is very important that we get 
that right.
    Chair Durbin. The correction will be noted.
    Senator Tillis. I stand corrected.
    Senator Booker. I appreciate that, very much so.
    Can we kick off, Ms. Gupta, from where my friend Senator 
Tillis left off? So if you polled Black and brown communities 
that have high levels of crime, you can imagine the polls would 
say they want more police protection often. Correct?
    Ms. Gupta. Yes. They want--they want more police. They want 
fair policing.
    Senator Booker. Right. I ran a police department. I was the 
mayor of a city where the police department was under my 
command. And that was the case. People were--their biggest 
concern was their safety and their security.
    But you talk to the police in my department and the 
community itself, and they know that a lot of people get swept 
up into the criminal justice system that need help, not 
incarceration. Would you agree with that?
    Ms. Gupta. Yes.
    Senator Booker. And would you also note for the record, am 
I correct in saying the majority of the people that go to our 
jails and prisons, the overwhelming majority of people who are 
in prisons and jails today are people who are suffering from 
addiction, serious mental health challenges and--well, 
addiction and serious mental health challenges. So that 
accounts for the majority. Correct?
    Ms. Gupta. That is correct.
    Senator Booker. As well as--and if you include survivors of 
sexual trauma, that is the majority of the female prison 
population as well. Correct?
    Ms. Gupta. That is right.
    Senator Booker. And so when you were talking about the 
footprint--as a person who ran a cash-strapped city, when I was 
mayor of my city, I had to reduce my workforce 25 percent, 
including, unfortunately, having to lay off police officers. 
The reality is that most of us who are involved in the day-to-
day driving down of crime--we had a lot of success in Newark--
we know that our dollar-for-dollar would be better spent in 
lowering the demand--and my police officers would say this--if 
we had like President Trump did in his Executive order by 
having co-responders, people who are specialized in mental 
health, specializes in addiction, specializes in homelessness, 
and specializes in sexual violence. Is that correct?
    Ms. Gupta. That is right. And in fact, I think that law 
enforcement are some of the biggest champions of that and want 
to see that. It supports them. It helps them focus on violent 
crime and do their jobs in communities to keep us safe.
    Senator Booker. And actually, there has been data that 
shows dollars invested in that will lower crime more 
dramatically necessarily than maintaining the very expensive 
dollars we often spend. It is a lower-cost option than the 
dollars we are spending in terms of reducing crime than we are 
necessarily spending on police.
    Ms. Gupta. I think that is right. The data shows that. I 
also think that is why you see such strong bipartisan 
coalitions. That is why I have been honored to work with 
Members of this Committee on these issues as well. I think it 
brings people together on that.
    Senator Booker. Well, forget partisanship. That is one of 
the reasons why you have such strong support, which I do not 
need to go through, from police organizations who understand 
that you are not trying to defund them. You are trying to 
actually make their jobs better.
    One of the reasons I could not run community policing 
efforts were the same police officers--you call it sector 
integrity--stay in the community to know that neighborhood. So 
one of the reasons I could not do that is because my police 
officers were too busy chasing the radio, often for calls that, 
if we had the funding for it, other services could have 
provided. Correct?
    Ms. Gupta. That is right. And you will hear law enforcement 
talk all the time about how their community policing budgets 
have been slashed, in part because they are having to do all of 
this other kinds of enforcement that they wished there were 
other interventions for. Absolutely.
    Senator Booker. One of my colleagues said you are soft on 
crime. Now I do not care what your political perspectives are. 
I have not met somebody in my years in the Senate who has come 
before this hearing, both sides, none of us want more crime. We 
are all trying to find intelligent ways to drive crime down. Is 
that correct?
    Ms. Gupta. Yes. I will just say, Senator, my own 
grandmother was murdered, and my family experienced homicide 
personally. I have listened and heard and talked to crime 
victims every week that I was on the job at the Justice 
Department. To me, this is all about being able to deliver 
better public safety and to better keep our communities safe.
    Senator Booker. And so I would like to shift to the 
personal, if I can? You and I are friends. Correct?
    Ms. Gupta. Yes.
    Senator Booker. I am surprised you admit that publicly, but 
I appreciate that.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Booker. And I have been in a lot of personal 
conversations with you, as you and I are struggling to advance 
bipartisan criminal justice reform. Correct?
    Ms. Gupta. That is right.
    Senator Booker. Never in my time have I heard you in any 
way disparage Members on the other side of the aisle in private 
conversations. In fact, I have heard you often talk about the 
importance of building bridges and coalitions in order to get 
things done.
    In context from me, because I know you as a person of great 
kindness who I have been very moved by how even in the heat of 
some very difficult moments where you and I have had 
conversations, when we were really worried about people getting 
a lifetime appointment sometimes on judges you and I have 
talked about, where we believe that that lifetime appointment 
might work against some of the basic fundamental rights and 
liberties, I still am remarked that you do not diminish the 
humanity of folks, that you still seem to find a way to view 
them with equal dignity.
    And in light of my private conversations, I do wonder about 
what Twitter has done to our culture, and the snarkiness it 
seems to breed. And you apologized here to the Committee, 
saying that you were contributing to an environment that, 
frankly, no side has a monopoly on.
    You come from a faith tradition that I also know, and I 
just wanted to, and maybe in the remaining minute I have left, 
can you talk to that just from your own work across the aisle 
to get real things done that have protected Americans, from 
your work across the aisle to help legislation pass through 
this Committee from your--my private conversations with you 
where you seem to fiercely adhere to the ideals of dignity?
    Could you help me maybe just understand from your heart, 
put in context now again the tweets that have been brought up 
by a number of my colleagues?
    Ms. Gupta. Thank you, Senator Booker.
    You know, the original impetus for me to engage in racial 
justice work and civil rights work was my own deep, abiding 
faith, and I believe it brings a lot of us to the table on 
these issues. And I have always prided myself as somebody who 
sees the humanity in everyone and can bring people together who 
may not agree on a hundred things, but agree very strongly on 
these three or four and to be able to recognize the importance 
of doing that bridge building.
    I think, to be honest with you, I do think that Twitter has 
been incredibly polarizing. I have played a role in it. I do 
not think it speaks well to my own desire to heal and build 
bridges and build consensus. I think it does reward snark and 
polarization, and I have, as I said, fallen prey to that.
    But my demonstrated record long--I have been criticized by 
the organizations I worked in, by folks that I thought were 
allies for doing this bridge building work, for working across 
the political spectrum and for engaging with people 
understanding that all of us have a right to dignity, that 
there is a lot of work that we need to do to address some of 
the great problems facing all Americans and that I do not have 
a monopoly on the truth or on the answer. But being able to 
roll up my sleeves, working with law enforcement, working 
across the political spectrum has been a defining feature of my 
career.
    And if I am confirmed as Associate Attorney General, you 
will probably be happy to know I will not be tweeting in that 
way. And, but I look forward to--to not using that harsh 
rhetoric and to working constructively and productively, as I 
have done throughout my career, with Members of this Committee 
and with anyone who has business before the Justice Department. 
That will be--that will be my pledge.
    Senator Booker. Well, I will affirm that you have 
definitely been criticized by people on the left for your 
pushing and working to try to build the kind of coalitions 
necessary to pass legislation to get things done and to protect 
the American people.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Booker.
    We have two Democrats, Senators Padilla and Ossoff, who 
have 7-minute rounds left, and a number of Republicans who have 
asked for 5-minute rounds. So we are going to kind of blend 
these together, and the first 5-minute round will go to the 
Ranking Member, Senator Grassley.
    Senator Grassley. Thank you very much.
    Before I ask questions of both of you, I would like to 
emphasize for a third time kind of my personal philosophy on 
some of the things that are very close to the work you will be 
doing.
    I like to emphasize our common humanity. I do not like to 
lump people into simplistic racial groupings. So let me go to 
my questions.
    I was concerned at Judge Garland's hearing to learn from 
Ms. Gupta's replacement at the Leadership Conference that a 
vast array of organizations will have ``access'' to Attorney 
General Garland and that he would ``carry out'' their requests. 
Along those lines, according to the Intercept, a powerful 
Washington lawyer, Jamie Gorelick, who has previously described 
Judge Garland as her ``wingman,'' has been advertising her 
connections to the future Attorney General.
    Her law firm even put up a page about her long ties to 
Merrick Garland, only to take it down when people noticed it. 
This is especially concerning because Gorelick is rumored to 
have been the lawyer Google used during the Obama years to fend 
off antitrust investigations. So to both of you, what 
commitments can you give me that influence peddlers, whether 
hired guns like Gorelick or activists like the Leadership 
Conference, will not get special access to the Justice 
Department?
    And I hope we can have a short answer.
    Ms. Monaco. Senator, every case that comes before me as 
Deputy Attorney General, if I am confirmed, every matter will 
be judged and assessed based on the facts in the law. Nothing 
more. Nothing less. No commitments to any individuals or 
organizations. Facts in law. That will be my focus and my 
approach.
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, I agree with Ms. Monaco. Okay. That 
is----
    Senator Grassley. For you, Ms. Gupta, as supervisor of the 
Antitrust Division, what commitments can you give in particular 
that an army of Democrat lobbyists or nonprofit activists in 
Big Tech's pockets will not influence your enforcement 
decisions?
    Ms. Gupta. There will be--if I am confirmed, I will lead 
and oversee the Antitrust Division completely free from any 
improper influence, partisan, corporate, or otherwise. I 
believe the robust enforcement of our antitrust laws is crucial 
and that no company will be given special treatment. All that 
will guide decisions in that area and in every area at the 
Justice Department will be the facts in the law.
    Senator Grassley. And to Ms. Monaco, Judge Garland, when 
asked about domestic terror attacks against Hatfield 
Courthouse, attempted to distinguish between criminal attacks 
on Government property at night and attacks on democracy--those 
are his words--on democracy during the days.
    Do you agree with what I consider a rather bizarre 
distinction between violation of laws?
    Ms. Monaco. Well, Senator, respectfully--and I watched 
Judge Garland's hearing--I did not understand him to be making 
a time-of-day distinction at all. Let me just tell you, my 
approach, which I know is consistent with Judge Garland's, 
which is that domestic terrorism has a very clear definition in 
our law, and it turns on the intent of the violence 
perpetrator.
    And regardless of which direction the violence comes from, 
to quote Judge Garland, left, right, or from any direction, it 
needs to be prosecuted. It needs to be investigated and 
prosecuted, and it is unacceptable.
    Senator Grassley. Yes. I think you just answered my last, 
my next question, but I would like to have you say, you said to 
prosecute all this. Would you say all of this falls, whether it 
is left or right, whether it is Portland or whether it is 
Washington, DC, all constitutes domestic terrorism?
    Ms. Monaco. Well, Senator, I think that is a complicated 
question. It really does turn on the intent. As you well know, 
Senator, domestic terrorism is violence against the civilian 
population done to coerce or to intimidate and done for a 
political end.
    If any facts that are presented to me meet that definition, 
that would seem to me to be domestic terrorism. But regardless, 
you have my commitment that violence is unacceptable from 
whatever direction it comes from.
    Senator Grassley. This will have to be my last question. As 
President Obama's Assistant for Homeland Security and 
Counterterrorism and Deputy National Security Advisor, did you 
have any involvement or role related to Crossfire Hurricane 
investigation, and if so, what was it?
    Ms. Monaco. No, Senator.
    Senator Grassley. Okay. Thank you very much.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator----
    Senator Grassley. I will submit some questions for answer 
in writing, please.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Grassley.
    Senator Padilla.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Good afternoon to the both of you, and I, too, thank you 
for your willingness to continue to serve.
    Some of my colleagues have already touched on the general 
issue of voting rights, whether it is H.R. 1, the need to 
restore the teeth to the Federal Voting Rights Act. But I want 
to revisit that for a minute.
    This past Sunday was the anniversary of Bloody Sunday, as 
you two are aware. A day that 56 years ago when State and local 
police attacked peaceful demonstrators in Selma, Alabama, as 
they were seeking to march to Montgomery in protest of Jim Crow 
laws that denied Black women and men the right to vote.
    We have come a long way in many ways since Bloody Sunday, 
but as we know all too well, we still have a long way to go to 
ensure complete access to the ballot for all eligible 
Americans. Indeed, in just the first 2 months of this calendar 
year, legislators in 43 States have already proposed more than 
250 bills that, if enacted, would have the net effect of making 
it harder for eligible citizens to register or stay registered 
or to cast their ballots.
    The Justice Department clearly has a critical role to play 
in ensuring that our elections continue to be fair and free, 
but its ability to do so has been hampered by the Shelby County 
v. Holder decision by the Supreme Court in 2013. So my first 
question is both for Ms. Monaco and Ms. Gupta. How do you 
envision reinvigorating the Civil Rights Division generally and 
specifically its Voting Rights Section to defend all Americans' 
right to vote?
    Ms. Monaco. Well, Senator, the Justice Department's 
founding creation was really about this--Ms. Gupta has talked 
about it, and Judge Garland has described--was about enforcing 
the civil rights of individuals and Black Americans in the 
early part of the 19th century and--sorry, the 20th century. 
And it is a priority of the Department that Judge Garland has 
already talked about and President Biden has talked about to 
reinvigorate the Civil Rights Division, to do everything we can 
to enforce and make clear that all individuals who are eligible 
to vote need to be able to do so, free from harassment, free 
from impediment, and that will be a priority of the Department.
    If I am confirmed as Deputy Attorney General, I would look 
to the leadership of Ms. Gupta in the first instance as 
Associate Attorney General with direct oversight of the Civil 
Rights Division and the other portions of the Department under 
her portfolio. And I have no doubt, having seen already her 
leadership in that regard, that she is more than up to the task 
to do that reinvigoration.
    Ms. Gupta. Thank you, Senator.
    As you know, I have spent my career working on these issues 
of voting rights access, and it is something that, if 
confirmed, I believe the Civil Rights Division is to use every 
tool at its disposal to ensure that every eligible American is 
able to exercise their right to vote, and it is something that 
I know, if confirmed, I would make a top priority. But I also--
I know that Judge Garland, if he is confirmed as Attorney 
General, knows that that is a top priority as well, as we just 
heard from Ms. Monaco.
    And so I have no doubt that this will be an important 
priority.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you.
    Before I ask my next question, I will raise a topic for the 
record and submit questions for the record post this hearing. 
But I just want to echo a topic that some of my colleagues, 
including Senator Booker, have raised in terms of policing and 
police reforms.
    And specifically, catching on this trend of local 
jurisdictions increasingly not sending peace officers, but 
sending mental health professionals to any and every incident 
where that is a more appropriate response and hoping that data 
and experience can feed an informed evidence-based best 
practices and utilizing the Department of Justice tools and 
relationships with law enforcement across the country to 
advance those across the country.
    So my last question is this, and it is in the environment 
and the environmental justice space. As I believe both of you 
are familiar, California has long been a leader in combating 
climate change, including through our Cap-and-Trade Program. 
California's landmark program was the first of its kind in the 
Nation and is the fourth-largest carbon market in the world.
    A key component of that is California's linkage with the 
Canadian province of Quebec. In October 2019, 6 years after the 
program was first established, the Justice Department under the 
prior administration sued the State of California because of 
its agreement with Quebec. The lawsuit was widely viewed as 
simply another effort by the then-administration to attack 
California and undermine climate change efforts.
    California has also led the Nation when it comes to 
reducing vehicle emissions, again as part of a climate change 
strategy, something I am particularly proud of. I know Senator 
Feinstein, our colleague from this Committee, has played a 
leadership role here in the Senate.
    And the prior administration similarly attempted to 
undermine California's independent authority to regulate 
tailpipe emissions from vehicles. This included the Justice 
Department at the time launching a politically motivated 
antitrust investigation against the automakers that agreed 
voluntarily to work with the State of California to reduce 
emissions.
    Every automaker has now walked away from supporting the 
prior administration's efforts, and the Department of Justice 
was forced to drop its lawsuit. Ms. Gupta, how would you 
reexamine the litigation positions taken by the prior 
administration, particularly when it comes to climate policies 
and environmental justice?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, combating environmental degradation and 
promoting environmental justice is both a top priority of 
President Biden's and would be of the Justice Department. I 
believe we have to use all the tools and the laws that are in 
place to be able to do this critical, almost existential work.
    I do not prejudge any of the litigation. I am not in the 
building, obviously. I am a nominee. But if I am confirmed, as 
part of my job looking at reviewing all of the litigation, I 
would look at whether the facts in the law support the current 
stance of the Justice Department vis-a-vis the State and the 
auto industry of which you are referring to. And that would be 
my duty, and I would fulfill it.
    Senator Padilla. Look forward to working with you on that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you. Senator Cornyn, 5 minutes.
    Senator Cornyn. Thank you.
    Ms. Gupta, earlier, when I asked you whether you advocate 
for the decriminalization of all drugs, you said, ``No, sir, I 
do not.'' But you are aware--do you recall a piece you wrote 
when you were with the ACLU where you did advocate that 
position. Correct?
    Ms. Gupta. Yes, Senator. My position on this has evolved 
for a number of reasons. I would be happy to explain----
    Senator Cornyn. Well, that is what I wanted to ask you 
about. Earlier, you said, ``No, sir, I do not,'' you did not 
tell me that your opinion had changed or evolved. Can you tell 
me when you changed your opinion on decriminalization of all 
drugs?
    Ms. Gupta. So, first, I believe in that article--although I 
would have to review it--that I was talking about 
decriminalization of possession of drugs. But I----
    Senator Cornyn. You are right. Simple possession of all 
drugs.
    Ms. Gupta. Okay. But you know, through the course of both 
working at the Justice Department, as well as experiences that 
my family has had related to these issues--my family, like 
probably every family or too many families in America, has 
experienced the ravages of opioid addiction and the impact of 
that, and--and so that evolution has happened.
    I am not too proud to admit that evolution, but I--but that 
is the explanation behind the statement. When I heard you ask 
me that question, I believed it was in reference to my 
current--my current position.
    Senator Cornyn. And your position on the use of these 
settlement slush funds has evolved, too, has it not? Because 
you recall in previous--in your previous capacity at the 
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, you vigorously 
opposed the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act. Correct?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, if I am confirmed as Associate Attorney 
General, I am bound by the law and by the Constitution. And 
there is a regulation in place at the Justice Department----
    Senator Cornyn. Right.
    Ms. Gupta [continuing]. Which I believe imposes the 
important guardrails and ensures that money goes to victims, 
and I would comply with that.
    Senator Cornyn. That is what you told us earlier. I 
appreciate that. I just--there is obviously some discretion 
associated with any job like Associate Attorney General, and I 
just want to know what we can expect. So I appreciate--I 
appreciate that.
    So, regardless of your previous advocacy in favor of 
allowing third-party payments in settlements, you will comply, 
as I hear you say, with the current regulation?
    Ms. Gupta. Yes.
    Senator Cornyn. Let me ask, I note in your financial 
disclosure forms that you own a number of securities and other 
assets, including trusts, real estate, and other financial 
holdings. This indicates your net worth is upwards of $50 
million, obviously a substantial amount of money.
    Can you commit to me that you will recuse yourself from any 
action in which you have a stock interest or a business 
interest in?
    Ms. Gupta. Yes, Senator. And I also plan, if confirmed, to 
divest from individual stocks that I control.
    Senator Cornyn. Well, I know tens of millions of dollars 
are in some trusts under your control, and based on your 
financial disclosures it is unclear what companies, holdings, 
and securities that you have an ownership interest in. Will you 
commit to providing the Committee a full inventory of all the 
companies and securities, including in your trust, to the 
Judiciary Committee in the spirit of transparency?
    Ms. Gupta. Yes.
    Senator Cornyn. Thank you for that.
    I know a number of--it has come up a couple of times that 
the Associate Attorney General is in charge of the grants 
programs at the Department of Justice. Is that correct?
    Ms. Gupta. Yes, the Office of Justice Programs, the COPS 
office, and the Office of Violence Against Women is in the 
Associate's portfolio.
    Senator Cornyn. And it has come up today that a number of 
law enforcement organizations have endorsed you. Are those, 
each of those organizations eligible for grants from the 
Department of Justice?
    Ms. Gupta. They may be. I am not sure. I think that those 
grant programs do tend to support law enforcement jurisdictions 
at the local level. I think there are some collaborations with 
the associations that we are talking about, but most of it goes 
directly to State and local law enforcement agencies.
    Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Ossoff.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and greetings to 
our panel. Congratulations on your nominations. Thank you for 
being with us today.
    Ms. Gupta, Black Americans continue to experience 
persistent targeting, harassment, profiling, discrimination, 
brutality throughout the criminal justice system. You will have 
in your portfolio as Associate Attorney General many components 
of DOJ with civil rights and law enforcement related 
jurisdiction. How will you use your authorities, if you are 
confirmed, to make equal justice for all a reality in this 
country, and can you please be as specific as possible?
    Ms. Gupta. Sure. Thank you, Senator.
    As you may know, my whole career has been spent on civil 
rights and civil rights enforcement and on the very values that 
you are talking about. And at the Justice Department, from its 
founding through my experience of heading up the Civil Rights 
Division, I was tasked with overseeing the very vigorous 
enforcement of all of the Nation's Federal civil rights 
statutes in the areas of lending, voting, educational equity. 
As soon as I start to do this, I start to forget the many, many 
Federal laws.
    But the Civil Rights Division enforces dozens and dozens of 
Federal laws, and it is--communities around the country bank on 
rigorous enforcement to ensure in combating an end to 
discrimination, and it is something that I am very personally 
committed to.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Ms. Gupta.
    And Ms. Monaco, in the same vein, in the position you may 
hold of Deputy Attorney General, can you be specific about how 
you will prioritize investigations of cases involving color of 
law violations under 18 U.S.C. 242, as well as working 
potentially with Ms. Gupta, pattern-or-practice investigations 
pursued by the Civil Rights Division? We just marked the first 
anniversary of the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery in Glynn 
County, Georgia, a case where local authorities declined to 
pursue an investigation until they were under immense pressure 
from civil rights groups.
    This week will mark the first anniversary of the shooting 
death of Breonna Taylor, a woman in Louisville, Kentucky, who 
was killed during execution of a no-knock warrant of which she 
was not a subject. I am not asking you to comment on those 
specific cases but asking you to weigh in on color of law as 
well as pattern-or-practice investigations.
    Ms. Monaco. Certainly, Senator. Well, in the first 
instance, I think the goal ought to be to do everything we can 
to ensure that those tragedies do not happen to begin with, and 
that starts with doing everything the Justice Department can to 
assist State and local police departments to get the training 
they need, to get the technical assistance they need, to do 
constitutional policing and address the challenges in their 
communities in a way that builds trust.
    And so I would look to the work of the Justice Department's 
grant-making programs, the COPS office again, which would come 
in the first instance under the purview of Ms. Gupta, if she is 
confirmed. And similarly, the appropriate use of pattern-and-
practice investigations, which after all, of course, are a tool 
that Congress has provided to the Justice Department to address 
and investigate unconstitutional conduct.
    That is a profound responsibility that the Justice 
Department has to undertake. It is an important tool. It needs 
to be used judiciously and appropriately and subject to 
measurements and outcomes, but it is one that is provided by 
the Congress to address unconstitutional conduct, and it is one 
that we can and should use. And it is something that I know Ms. 
Gupta has done in her prior experience and would be perfectly 
suited to lead that work in the first instance.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you.
    Ms. Monaco, in Georgia and nationwide, we have seen a 
significant increase in violent crime over the last year. We 
had for the second weekend in a row in Atlanta, Georgia, more 
than a dozen shootings last weekend. Thirteen wounded, one 
killed.
    In Columbus, Georgia, in Georgia's Chattahoochee River 
Valley, recently had a period of 12 days with 6 shooting 
deaths. Forty-six homicides in Columbus, Georgia, last year, by 
far the highest total in at least half a decade.
    Will you work with my office and this Committee to 
determine the causes of this violent crime wave, which has many 
Georgians and many Americans deeply concerned about community 
violence, community safety, and work with this Committee to 
address it?
    Ms. Monaco. Yes, Senator. The issue of the spiking violent 
crime is something you and I think virtually every other Member 
of this Committee who I have talked to in advance of this 
hearing have raised with me and what you are seeing it do to 
the communities you represent.
    The first priority of the Justice Department is public 
safety, and so addressing violent crime, the causes of it, the 
enterprises that fuel it is absolutely a top priority of the 
Justice Department, and it is something that, if I am 
confirmed, I very much would look forward to working with you 
on.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Ms. Monaco.
    Ms. Gupta, if confirmed, you will oversee the Antitrust 
Division as well and at a moment when many markets are already 
intensely concentrated and when we may see, due to increased 
economic growth and all of the liquidity that has been added to 
financial markets in the last few years, an increase in merger 
activity in certain industries.
    What are some of the mechanisms by which corporate actors 
seek to influence the Department of Justice when it is making 
determinations about antitrust matters, and how can we insulate 
and how can you insulate the Department from those influences 
so that public interest is put above all?
    Ms. Gupta. Well, I know that the career men and women that 
are at the Justice Department take very seriously the need to 
be absolutely independent from any lobbying advocacy in that 
way. Yes, the Justice Department officials meet with 
stakeholders, but they take a degree of pride that is, frankly, 
quite incredible around the enforcement free from partisan, 
corporate, political, improper motivation in the robust 
enforcement of Federal laws.
    And I know the Antitrust Division career lawyers very much 
adhere to the same beliefs and value set, and if I am 
confirmed, I, along with Ms. Monaco and Judge Garland, 
hopefully, as Attorney General, would do everything we can in 
our power every day to ensure that the Justice Department is 
beholden to no one but the Constitution and Federal laws.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Ms. Gupta. Thank you, Ms. 
Monaco.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Ossoff.
    Senator Lee for 5 minutes.
    Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Gupta, can federally funded hospitals force nurses to 
assist in abortions when it would violate their stated 
religious or moral convictions?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, the Supreme Court spoke--I believe this 
is the issue you are referring to in the Little Sisters case, 
and if I am confirmed as Associate Attorney General, I will be 
enforcing that case as well.
    Senator Lee. And so I assume then you would also continue 
to make sure that the Department of Justice pushes this where 
people deviate from that standard, including in an existing 
case that the Department of Justice has against the University 
of Vermont Medical Center, which has been accused of forcing a 
nurse to participate in abortion procedures in violation of 
current law?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, obviously, I am not in the building. I 
would want to understand the nature of that case. But it is 
incumbent on me and anyone else at the Justice Department to 
enforce Supreme Court precedent, and the Supreme Court spoke on 
this issue.
    Senator Lee. Okay. I will take that to mean that you will 
keep moving forward with that one.
    I want to get back to some of the consent decree slush fund 
issues we were discussing earlier today. Now when you were the 
head of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, 
you signed off on multiple statements where defendants were 
required to pay into a fund run by independent or unrelated 
third parties. Is that right?
    Ms. Gupta. Yes, I must have. I think--I did not write the 
regulations that were in place at that time.
    Senator Lee. But you signed off on them?
    Ms. Gupta. Yes. Yes, as head of the division, I would have 
signed off on those settlements.
    Senator Lee. Now earlier today, you testified that you 
would abide by a regulation promulgated by the Department of 
Justice last year banning these slush funds. As I presume you 
know, on January 20th of this year, the same day President 
Biden was sworn in, the White House issued a list of over 100 
agency actions for review for potential repeal and listed just 
one with respect to the Department of Justice, which happens to 
be the very regulation that we are talking about here, the 
regulation banning slush funds run by third parties.
    I am worried that this regulation is going to be repealed, 
and then you may go back to your prior practice that you had 
adopted of approving these, this time in your new capacity, of 
approving these slush funds. So will you commit to abiding 
fully by the content of the regulation, regardless of whether 
it is repealed?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, I do not know what the status of that 
review is. I, to be honest with you, was not aware that it was 
listed among those 100 things. If I am confirmed, I would want 
to understand what the cause for concern is in the review, what 
the equities are, and would welcome the opportunity to speak 
with your office about it, were there to be any move away from 
the existing regulation.
    Senator Lee. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    South Dakota, in the not too distant past, considered a 
bill to limit gender reassignment surgeries for children, for 
children under the age of 16. My understanding is that the bill 
failed, and when it failed inside the South Dakota legislature, 
you made some statements to the effect that you were ``so 
happy'' and ``so thankful'' that these surgeries would be 
universally available to children under the age of 16.
    At what age then, if it is not appropriate to limit these 
surgeries to children under the age of 16, at what age would it 
be inappropriate to grant a gender reassignment surgery 
decision to a child, other than surgeries on infants or someone 
who has been born in intersex category?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, I believe that everyone must be treated 
with dignity and respect. These are, I am assuming, very 
personal decisions that get made in families. My job, if I am 
confirmed as Associate Attorney General, will be to enforce 
existing laws, obviously protecting the dignity of all people, 
as is in our Federal civil rights laws, but--and that will be 
my mandate at the Justice Department.
    Senator Lee. And where this sort of thing is appropriate, 
do you believe that parents should give their consent before 
such a surgery is performed?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, honestly, the facts here matter. There 
are so many facts in any particular individual's circumstances, 
and I do not believe it is for the Justice Department, if I am 
confirmed, to be opining on that kind of very personal decision 
that gets made in families or by individuals. In fact, I 
believe it would be highly improper.
    And so, again, my allegiance will be to enforcing existing 
Federal laws and ensuring that the dignity of all Americans is 
protected.
    Senator Lee. Thank you.
    Chair Durbin. Are there any Senators on the Democratic side 
seeking 5 minutes? Senator Booker.
    Senator Booker. Just moving really quickly, just two things 
I wanted to cover finally. I quoted in my book testimony by a 
Republican--I think a Republican-appointed FBI Director who 
just told a story about him walking down a street with a group 
of Black boys, young men hanging out on one side and a group of 
white boys on the other side. This guy is not a racist, but he 
admitted about the challenges we all have about implicit racial 
bias that you might be suspicious of, just because of the 
engrained messages of a lifetime, of the African-American boys 
and see them as more of a threat.
    That is not him being a racist, right? That is what we mean 
by implicit racial bias.
    Ms. Gupta. That is right.
    Senator Booker. And what is interesting is in the data, and 
there are so many studies on this ad nauseam, where they 
control for other elements, they find that Black officers 
actually have implicit racial bias against African Americans as 
well, tending to have absorbed so much of the sort the 
messaging of the culture often and create that suspicion. Is 
that correct?
    Ms. Gupta. Yes.
    Senator Booker. And so this is--and I do not think I hear 
disagreement on both sides of the aisle when we discuss this. I 
just think there are terms, we are not saying the same thing. 
You do not believe that our society, individuals are racist in 
our society, but you do believe when it comes to the law we 
have a problem in a nation where there is no difference between 
Blacks and whites of any economic gap in using marijuana. But 
African Americans, because of the implicit biases within the 
justice system, will get arrested at four times the rate. Is 
that correct?
    Ms. Gupta. That is right.
    Senator Booker. And so that is something that from--and I 
know this from my mother working for IBM--the corporations even 
know, and they do things like you mentioned before, trying to 
just have training where people are more aware of what these 
biases may be. They may be gender biases, race biases, 
religious biases, or what have you. And that is a productive 
pursuit. Correct?
    Ms. Gupta. Yes. In fact, I think that implicit bias 
training is something increasingly judges are engaging in, 
Federal prosecutors. And not just, honestly, Senator, in the 
justice system, but obviously the consequences of implicit 
bias, if unchecked in the justice system, can truly mean loss 
of life and liberty. But frankly, because it is a common human 
condition that you and I and everyone else share, the ability 
to manage these implicit biases and recognize them consciously 
is really key to being able to have productive and healthy 
interactions with--in a diverse society.
    Senator Booker. Right. And we--it is frustrating to me 
because it results often in, as we see again studies done that 
have controlled for income and a lot of other things, that 
Blacks for the same crime will often get about 20 percent 
longer sentences, not because judges are racists, but because 
of that problem of bias.
    Ms. Gupta. Yes, implicit bias has shown to have to kind of 
exacerbate racial disparities the deeper into the criminal 
justice system you go. Arrests, pretrial detention decisions, 
sentencing decisions, and the like, there is a lot of data on 
that.
    Senator Booker. And one of my--and I have learned so much 
from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--one of my 
favorite moments as a Senator was going in to study the Bible 
in one of my colleague's offices, and I saw a picture of a 
Black girl on his shelf.
    And I remember sort of being surprised at that, and then I 
examined why am I surprised? Oh, because I have probably 
implicit biases about a conservative person and that. That does 
not make me somehow racially biased against my colleagues, does 
it?
    Ms. Gupta. No.
    Senator Booker. But it----
    Ms. Gupta. It makes you a human being.
    Senator Booker. A human being who has biases that sometimes 
are not constructive, and my biases--because I went on to 
working on issues with this person, and sometimes those biases 
undermine our ability to work together constructively to deal 
with the core values we all share. Would you agree with that?
    Ms. Gupta. Yes.
    Senator Booker. Okay. Real quick, the last thing I want to 
talk about is, my mom has a saying. She says, ``Behind every 
successful child is an astonished parent.'' And I know you as a 
friend, but recently, I got to know your dad. I actually have 
his book. And I found his life truly stunning and a great 
Horatio Alger story of someone who is--just speaks, screams to 
the American dream. He was very successful in the private 
sector.
    But he is not astonished with his daughters, his kids. He 
is not astonished with you that you have spent your entire life 
not in the most lucrative careers. You have spent your entire 
life in public service.
    And I am just wondering what is it from your family that 
has made you dedicate yourself to the cause of this country and 
making it better? What did your parents teach you or you 
learned from those experiences that makes you want to do what 
you are doing?
    Ms. Gupta. I am--you make every witness cry, apparently.
    I am deeply grateful and proud of my father and my mother. 
My father is the most humble person I know in the world, and 
the ethical character of my parents and their love of this 
country because it showed them enormous opportunities that they 
sought but never expected to have.
    And they raised two daughters who made choices to go into 
public service. My sister is an HIV/AIDS infectious disease 
physician in Baltimore--and me. And I do not think they would 
have imagined that either of us would have chosen these paths 
when they first immigrated into this country, but they have 
been enormously supportive of the choices that we have made.
    And I believe that it is quite astonishing that I would be 
sitting here before all of you in the U.S. Senate seeking 
confirmation to be Associate Attorney General, given that they 
came literally, as my father's book is called, with $8 in his 
pocket and a scholarship to Cornell. And I hope every day that 
I can live a life to give them honor.
    I realize some of my tweets do not necessarily do that. I 
will seek to do that moving forward. But I have been blessed to 
have the kind of parental embrace, the sacrifices that they 
have made, the successes that they have had, and if I can in 
any way pay it forward to the most vulnerable people in this 
country and to live up to the ideals of our Constitution, I am 
honored and will continue to be honored to do so every day.
    Senator Booker. Well, I will be very honored to vote for 
your confirmation.
    And I just want to say for the record I apologize to Ms. 
Monaco for completely ignoring you during my questioning, but I 
am grateful for you, and I look forward to supporting your 
nomination as well.
    Ms. Monaco. Thank you, Senator.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Booker.
    And Ms. Gupta, you have given me an idea that we need to 
give all witnesses fair warning of Senator Booker's last 
question. Be prepared.
    Ms. Gupta. Yes. That would be fair. I would appreciate 
that.
    Chair Durbin. Senator Cruz, 5 minutes.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I will say the exchange between my friend Senator 
Booker and Ms. Gupta made me sad about what is being told to 
young people because we heard an extended conversation about 
what is called implicit racial bias and how apparently everyone 
is guilty of this. We heard a discussion about how African-
American police officers are apparently afflicted with implicit 
racial bias.
    Ms. Gupta at one point said to Senator Booker, and it was 
such an astonishing statement, I wrote it down word for word. 
She said to Senator Booker, ``You and I and everyone else share 
implicit racial bias.'' And I think this is a falsehood that is 
being sold to young people that diminishes the evil that is 
racism. It diminishes the bigotry that we find in Nazis and the 
Klan.
    Ms. Gupta talked about her father coming as an immigrant. 
My dad came as an immigrant from Cuba as well with $100 in his 
underwear. Bigotry and racism are real, and when the left tells 
America everyone in America is racist, that does real damage to 
the important fight to combat bigotry that we have seen from 
the dawn of this country and, indeed, from the dawn of time.
    When you see every American as harboring implicit racial 
bias, one can advocate for that as an academic. One can 
advocate for that as a partisan advocate. But you are nominated 
to be the No. 3 official at the U.S. Department of Justice. And 
one area that gives me real concern, Ms. Gupta, is in the area 
of free speech and the censorship we see from Big Tech.
    You were one of a handful of individuals invited to have 
dinner with Mark Zuckerberg to discuss the growing problem we 
have seen of Big Tech censorship silencing voices that Silicon 
Valley billionaires disagree with, and the dismaying thing is 
what has been publicly reported about that meeting is not that 
you urged Mr. Zuckerberg and others in tech to protect free 
speech, to have a free and fair marketplace of ideas, but 
precisely the opposite.
    From what has been publicly reported, the quote that has 
been reported from this--in fact, you tweeted this--was, ``Mark 
Zuckerberg does not know what the First Amendment is for. He 
thinks it is a floating right that carries no 
responsibilities.''
    That seems to suggest that you want Big Tech to censor more 
speech rather than less speech. Would that be a good direction 
in this country?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, I have fiercely defended freedom of 
speech. I have worked for an organization that has often been 
criticized for being so fierce in its defense of all free 
speech. I also believe that any type of viewpoint 
discrimination is an anathema to this country. It is 
unconstitutional, plainly.
    My engagement with Facebook was one----
    Senator Cruz. Ms. Gupta, if I could ask you, have you 
defended the speech of someone you disagreed with? Have you 
ever defended the speech of pro-life advocates? Have you ever 
defended the speech of pro-Second Amendment advocates, or is it 
just the people that politically agree with you whose free 
speech rights should be protected?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, as you know, the American Civil 
Liberties Union----
    Senator Cruz. I am asking about you personally, not more 
broadly others.
    Ms. Gupta. I have not been a free speech lawyer myself. I 
have advocated alongside----
    Senator Cruz. You headed the Civil Rights Division.
    Ms. Gupta [continuing]. Free speech at the ACLU and at the 
Civil Rights Division, yes.
    Senator Cruz. So can you point to any instance of your 
defending the free speech rights of someone you disagreed with?
    Ms. Gupta. I am sure that I did. The Civil Rights Division 
does not enforce--does not have a Federal statute on this. Let 
me--I would welcome, actually, Senator, so that I do not 
misspeak, an opportunity to respond in writing.
    Senator Cruz. I would welcome a response in writing. Let me 
just ask a simple question. Should Big Tech be censoring more 
or censoring less?
    Ms. Gupta. I think we want to ensure that we have free 
speech and a free internet while understanding the 
responsibility that social media has in propagating and 
radicalizing terrorists online, in----
    Senator Cruz. Okay. Let me try again. Is Big Tech engaged 
in too much censorship or too little censorship?
    Ms. Gupta. I am not sure I know which side of the ledger 
you are talking about. They have community standards that they 
are not enforcing at many of these companies that are creating 
a lot of problems around issues in our democracy. For a long 
time, they were allowing--Facebook was allowing unlawful ad 
targeting in housing ads and using Section 230 as a shield----
    Senator Cruz. Okay. I guess I am concerned if you are 
saying that you want them enforcing community standards when 
you began this exchange with Senator Booker by saying everyone 
in America has implicit racial bias, and you now want Big Tech, 
Silicon Valley billionaires with monopolies to enforce 
standards that just happen to coincide with the political views 
you have.
    Here is another area. You have called the Keystone pipeline 
``dirty and dangerous.''
    Chair Durbin. Senator----
    Senator Cruz. Do you agree that pipelines continue to be 
the safest mode of transport--to transport our oil and gas 
natural resources?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, I do not recall that specific language. 
But obviously, if I am confirmed, I will oversee the 
Environmental and Natural Resources Division----
    Senator Cruz. Right.
    Ms. Gupta [continuing]. And do not want to make 
prejudgments about factual issues related to that. Again, I 
will be enforcing Federal law, per the facts in the law of any 
particular pipeline or anything else.
    Chair Durbin. Senator Klobuchar.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I think we are coming to a close of this hearing. I saw 
your kids were doing pretty well there. They are taking a 
break, Ms. Gupta, but they have been great and quite well 
behaved, I report.
    First, something that I do not think we have talked about 
much, the Violence Against Women Act. And I am very much 
looking forward to working with the Chairman on this bill and, 
of course, a major, major priority for the President because of 
his work on this when he was in the U.S. Senate. Can you commit 
to working with us to make sure we reauthorize the Violence 
Against Women Act in Congress?
    Ms. Gupta. Yes, Senator. I believe that VAWA needs to be 
reauthorized. The Justice Department, as you know, plays a 
really important role in fighting violence against women and 
supporting crime victims, and I believe it is incredibly 
important legislation that needs to be reauthorized.
    Senator Klobuchar. And this has in the past tended to be a 
very bipartisan bill, and just as a note for the record here, 
just Senator Murkowski and I, with Senator Casey, led a letter 
just recently with 38 Senators calling for additional funding 
because of the pandemic. As you know, there has been an uptick 
in violence-related calls and rape crisis center calls during 
the pandemic, and I hope that will go into our thinking as well 
as we work on the Violence Against Women Act. And I know you 
have a strong record of standing with us on that.
    Ms. Gupta. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Very good. I guess we talked 
about--well, maybe I will do a few more things in the criminal 
area and then end with antitrust. Conviction Integrity Units, 
something I worked way back when I was a prosecutor with the 
Innocence Project, and you know some of this, on videotape 
interrogations and the like. And I have long supported Federal 
funding for Conviction Integrity Units to help States review 
legal cases.
    Judge Garland expressed support for these programs, and 
last October, actually, our State received a grant from the 
Trump Justice Department to form a new Conviction Integrity 
Unit in partnership with the Great Northern Innocence Project. 
Could you just quickly give me your views on Federal grants on 
Conviction Integrity Units?
    Ms. Gupta. Well, as somebody who has worked on cases where 
people have had their convictions overturned, these kinds of 
units I believe are incredibly important. It has been 
heartening to see prosecutors' offices around the country adopt 
this. I am glad to hear that the Office of Justice Programs has 
already had support for these types of offices, and I think 
they will help build trust in our legal system and something 
that I would hope to support.
    Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Also on the--related to that, 
but a little different in terms of justice is treatment 
programs. You have heard my story of my dad. It was treatment 
that gave him a new life and our family a new life after he 
struggled with alcoholism most of my time growing up. And we 
have now gotten to have Federal drug courts. I was really proud 
of the work we did in our county on one of the most successful 
major county drug courts.
    But could you talk about your views on diverting nonviolent 
drug offenders to treatment rather than incarceration?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, President Biden has also spoken about 
the importance of alternatives to incarceration for people with 
substance use disorders. It is something that I have spent my 
life working on to ensure that there is available community-
based drug courts, drug treatment facilities, and I think that 
would be a shared priority for the Justice Department.
    And we certainly also want to ensure the Office of Justice 
Program does a lot of data and research and evaluation that 
we--that the Justice Department, if I am confirmed, is using 
evidence-based practices in this regard to help support 
communities as best as possible.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
    My promise on antitrust--Ms. Monaco, newsrooms, as you 
know, are shrinking across the country, and part of this is the 
issue that content providers--people who write for a living, 
reporters--are not adequately compensated, and Big Tech has so 
much control over online. We saw this erupt in Australia 
recently, where two tech companies literally were threatening 
to leave the marketplace because they had the power to do it, 
instead of negotiate on the price of content.
    So Senator Kennedy and I are reintroducing legislation this 
week that actually David Cicilline is also leading in the 
House, and we have had support for the bill by the Chairman, by 
Chairman Durbin, as well as Mitch McConnell was on the bill 
last time. And I am just asking you to look at this because 
part of doing something on antitrust is to even the playing 
field, and this is a glaring area where we are having issues in 
our country with--this is not the only reason, but it is one of 
the major reasons because of loss of advertising revenue and 
the like.
    And I wondered if you would commit to look at that bill?
    Ms. Monaco. I would be happy to, Senator. I mean, the 
issues around consolidation that you have led on a bipartisan 
basis is very important, and I would be happy to take a look at 
that bill and work with you on it, if I am confirmed.
    Senator Klobuchar. Okay. And then I have a series of 
questions on antitrust--I can see the Chairman raising his 
eyebrows--that I will ask on the record, including looking back 
at some of the acquisitions like Instagram and WhatsApp and 
some other things. But I want to thank both of you for doing a 
very good job today responding to Senators' questions.
    Thank you.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
    Senator Cotton.
    Senator Cotton. Ms. Gupta, during your time as the Deputy 
Legal Director at the ACLU, some of your State ACLU chapters 
took the position that possession of child pornography should 
not be a crime. Do you believe that possession of child 
pornography should be a crime?
    Ms. Gupta. Yes.
    Senator Cotton. Did you express that view at the time to 
those State chapters?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, the structure of the ACLU is a rather 
byzantine one where boards of affiliates and the like control 
the policy decisions of State affiliates. I worked at the 
national office and did my job in the limited kind of criminal 
justice area that I--that I oversaw as Deputy Legal Director. 
The national office does not have supervisory authority over 
the affiliates.
    Senator Cotton. Thank you. I understand.
    Several people here today have talked about the letters of 
support you have received from law enforcement organizations. I 
want to discuss the circumstances of that support. Did you or 
anyone on your behalf or anyone in or affiliated with the Biden 
campaign, transition, or administration pressure those 
organizations with threats of retaliation if they did not 
support your nomination?
    Ms. Gupta. No, Senator.
    Senator Cotton. There were no threats to cutoff access or 
influence to the Department of Justice if those law enforcement 
organizations did not support your nomination?
    Ms. Gupta. I do not believe a single law enforcement 
organization would allow itself to be subject to threats and 
certainly would not support my nomination. It goes against the 
grain, to be honest, to support a civil rights lawyer for the 
No. 3 position of the Associate Attorney General of the Justice 
Department, to support my nomination.
    These are longstanding relationships that I have had with 
the Fraternal Order of Police, with every other law enforcement 
association. These are not people who would take lightly to 
being pressured in any improper way.
    Senator Cotton. Were you aware of the phrase ``not enough'' 
being used in these conversations? Law enforcement 
organizations being told it is not enough to support Judge 
Garland and Ms. Monaco, they have to support you as well if 
they want access to the Department of Justice?
    Ms. Gupta. I have not heard of any such thing.
    Senator Cotton. Thank you.
    I want to turn to a couple of questions about gender. In 
May 2018, the Department of Justice issued a policy saying that 
an inmate's biological sex would be the determinant to the 
prison facility to which they were assigned, not their gender 
identity. They said that was only appropriate ``only in rare 
cases'' and ``on a case-by-case basis.''
    You criticized that decision at the time. So let me ask 
you, do you believe that it should not be limited to rare cases 
and a case-by-case basis to assign a biological male inmate to 
a women's prison facility?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, I believe that, if I am confirmed, I am 
going to be enforcing Federal laws on this, and the decisions 
that I made at the Civil Rights Division on these issues were 
very considered at the highest levels of the Justice Department 
in enforcing our Federal laws and Constitution and in 
protecting the public safety of people in prison regardless of 
their background.
    Senator Cotton. If infamous Democratic megadonor and sexual 
predator Harvey Weinstein transitioned to a female gender 
identity, do you believe that he should be placed in a women's 
prison?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, I believe that the issue of how one 
defines sex and sex discrimination in our laws has been decided 
in the Bostock decision by the United States Supreme Court, and 
I will, if confirmed, be enforcing all Federal law and Supreme 
Court precedent.
    Senator Cotton. Well, it is an open question whether that 
case will be extended beyond the employment context. Let us 
turn to another context, sports. In 2016, at the Civil Rights 
Division, you issued guidance that Title IX requires that a 
school must not treat a transgendered student differently from 
the way it treats other students of the same gender identity.
    So that means, for instance, if a biological male student 
informs a school that he now identifies as a female, the school 
would be required to allow him to participate on girls' 
athletic teams. Is that correct?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, President Biden has been very clear and 
forthright about his support to protect all LGBTQ people in an 
Executive order I think also supported by Bostock, which 
applies in Title VII, as you know. And he has asked Federal 
agencies to look at and consider application of the Bostock 
decision in other Federal statutes as long as it is consistent 
with the law.
    And if I am confirmed, I believe in supporting the dignity 
and well-being of all people in accordance with our Federal 
laws and the Constitution.
    Senator Cotton. Ms. Gupta, do you know who holds the world 
record for women in the 100-meter and 200-meter dash?
    Ms. Gupta. No, I do not.
    Senator Cotton. The late, great Florence Griffith-Joyner, 
Flo-Jo to millions of her fans. No woman has ever run faster in 
those two races than she has. But you know who has? Seventy-six 
high school boys in America in 2019.
    Do you really think it is fair to high school girls, given 
the innate physical differences, to have boys who can beat the 
fastest woman in the history of the world transition to female 
identity and then compete against them in their sports?
    Ms. Gupta. Senator, I believe that LGBTQ people have the 
right and dignity to be identified as they see fit, as do all 
Americans, and if I am confirmed, I will be enforcing Federal 
civil rights laws and the Constitution in upholding that value.
    Senator Cotton. My time has expired.
    Chair Durbin. Senator Coons.
    Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Gupta, if I might, I was struck at some of the ways in 
which you have been characterized as somehow anti-religion or 
anti-religious when you have self-described as a person of 
faith. You have talked about the role that faith has played in 
the pursuit of opportunities here in this country by your 
family, by your husband's family, and I would just be 
interested in hearing your input on the time you spent while 
you led the Civil Rights Division working to protect religious 
freedom and to combat religiously based hate crimes.
    If you would tell me a little bit more about that, I think 
that might be constructive in balancing some of the 
characterizations made of you today.
    Ms. Gupta. Thank you, Senator Coons.
    When I was at the Civil Rights Division, the Civil Rights 
Division actually enforces several statutes that protect people 
on the basis of their--that combat religious discrimination. It 
is in the area of educational equity, in the area of land use, 
so that churches and temples and mosques and any other place of 
religious worship can be sited. And if there are local efforts 
to improperly fight that, the Civil Rights Division and the 
Justice Department can ensure that the laws are followed there.
    And hate crimes is another one. We prosecuted, when I was 
at the Civil Rights Division, any number of hate crimes against 
people because of their religious background.
    As I began to do this work, I felt like it was important 
not just to engage the prosecutional law enforcement strategies 
that are available to the Justice Department, but I launched an 
interagency initiative to protect religious freedom and combat 
religious discrimination. I traveled to about nine cities. I 
did it with an all effort, involving the FBI and U.S. 
attorney's offices around the country where we met. We met with 
faith leaders of all stripes, of all political persuasions.
    We actually were very concerted in the outreach that we did 
and engaging stakeholders about what they were experiencing, 
what discrimination they were experiencing, what obstacles to 
religious practice they were experiencing. And then we issued a 
report and got some resources to bolster enforcement on these 
areas.
    These are issues that are incredibly important, and as I 
said, religious liberty is a founding freedom of this country 
and one that, if I am confirmed as Associate Attorney General, 
I would be honored to support.
    Senator Coons. One of the other areas I am excited to have 
your skill and your convening and your attention to is the 
Violence Against Women Act, something my predecessor in this 
seat and a friend and now our President played no small role in 
not just helping get passed in the first place, but helping get 
reauthorized. Senator Klobuchar just asked you a few minutes 
ago about working with us in Congress to reauthorize it and to 
implement it.
    I understand while leading the Civil Rights Division, you 
were involved in a number of initiatives to combat sexual 
violence and gender-based violence. And frankly, those are the 
sorts of real-life issues that have dramatic and consequential 
and painful impact on families all over our country, on women 
facing violence because of their gender.
    Can you just describe that work and how you would continue 
to do that work and to support survivors of domestic and sexual 
violence, if you are confirmed?
    Ms. Gupta. I think that the scourge of domestic violence 
and sexual violence is an ongoing travesty in this country, and 
we do not always put enough resources behind it. I think that 
the Justice Department through its Office of Violence Against 
Women can do as much as it can through funding and support 
services for victims, as well as to engage in pilot programs, 
research and data collection, technical assistance to 
organizations and groups that are providing services and 
communities to victims, and obviously, also the prosecution 
jurisdiction that the Justice Department has.
    So my hope is that the Violence Against Women Act will get 
reauthorized. I know that Senator Graham and Senator Grassley 
and Senator Durbin and others have recently sponsored 
legislation for crime victims. And I hope that that kind of 
funding will be--will really, I think, benefit the Justice 
Department and Crime Victims Fund to do more to support crime 
victims around the country.
    Senator Coons. Well, thank you. Thank you, Ms. Gupta, for 
your leadership and for your testimony.
    And if I might, Mr. Chairman, I just want to read into the 
record one more letter that I did not get to before. There are 
some who have been suggesting that law enforcement may have 
been cautious or hesitant in their support of you.
    I have known Chuck Wexler, the executive director of the 
Police Executive Research Forum, for decades. He played a 
central role in helping me as a county elected official improve 
the ethics and transparency of our police department, and he 
wrote, ``In my 25 years at PERF, I have worked with numerous 
professionals at all levels of government. Vanita Gupta is 
undoubtedly one of the most sincere, knowledgeable, hard-
working people I have known. She has earned the respect and 
confidence of PERF members and others across the policing 
profession.''
    I will skip forward. ``She walks the talk. She seems 
ideally suited for the position of Associate Attorney General. 
She is a consensus builder and collaborator, known and 
respected by both management and labor. She appreciates the 
current needs of law enforcement while anticipating future 
possibilities. I join the members of our board in urging the 
Committee to quickly advance her nomination and the Senate to 
confirm her.''
    As someone who worked in and around law enforcement for 
some time in my local role, I am just clear how unusual it is 
to get the kind and breadth of support you have gotten from the 
civil rights community, the law enforcement community, from 
conservatives, from progressives, from folks who have known 
you. I very much look forward to voting for your confirmation.
    And Ms. Monaco, I also appreciate the chance to question 
you today and look forward to the confirmation of both of these 
very talented public servants.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Senator Ossoff.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
    And might I just take a moment, Ms. Gupta, to commend you 
for weathering the attacks and absorbing the slings and arrows 
that come with this nominating process, and given your track 
record and the conversations that we have shared, I know that 
is because you view this opportunity to do good and to secure 
equal justice for all as a historic one.
    And I want to thank you, and thank you both, for your 
willingness to serve, for the equanimity with which you have 
approached this process. And I know your families are very 
proud as well.
    And I would like to ask you a question about voting rights. 
As a colleague of mine observed, we just honored the 56th 
anniversary of Bloody Sunday when, in Selma, Alabama, John 
Lewis and Hosea Williams and hundreds of others marched into a 
storm of billy clubs and police dogs and brutality for daring 
to demand the right to vote for Black Americans in the American 
South 56 years ago. Congressman Lewis had his skull fractured 
that day, as you know, for daring to demand the right to vote.
    And yet it was just yesterday that Georgia's State Senate 
approved legislation so brazen and flagrant and obvious in its 
partisan and racial targeting, voter suppression legislation so 
outrageous that even Georgia's own Republican Lieutenant 
Governor refused to oversee the debate of this bill because he 
recognized that there is no legitimate basis for these 
restrictions on voting and that it is merely an exercise in the 
abuse of power using force of law to disenfranchise the people 
to pursue partisan ends.
    So, Ms. Gupta, should you be confirmed, and you will 
assuredly have my support in your nomination for this position, 
will you commit to using the full power of your office to 
protect the sacred right to vote, which remains under attack in 
this country, to make democracy real for every American 
citizen?
    Ms. Gupta. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Ms. Gupta.
    And Ms. Monaco, with my remaining time, a question for you, 
please, about cybersecurity and foreign intelligence threats to 
the United States. The Office of the Director of National 
Intelligence states that, ``The cyber threat is simultaneously 
a national and homeland security threat and a 
counterintelligence problem.''
    You have extensive experience in national security policy, 
homeland security policy. I asked FBI Director Wray last week 
in this Committee whether the recent SolarWinds breach, whereby 
malware was embedded extensively on sensitive U.S. Government 
networks, was a counterintelligence failure. And Director Wray 
was somewhat noncommittal on that point, and I believe that it 
reflects some ambiguity across the Federal bureaucracy about 
who is responsible for cybersecurity, whether it is chiefly a 
mission of the intelligence community, the Department of 
Justice, the Office of Management and Budget, or otherwise.
    Do you have any comment on how we can improve cybersecurity 
as a national security and counterintelligence mission, and 
will you work with my office and this Committee to try to 
resolve any of that ambiguity so there are clear lines of 
responsibility and accountability, and we can improve our 
Nation's national security by strengthening our networks, 
whether it be non-state actors or foreign intelligence services 
who seek to penetrate them?
    Ms. Monaco. Well, Senator, this is an area, as you note, 
that I have worked on for some time, both in and out of 
Government. And I think it is really important to acknowledge 
that, as of 2013, our intelligence community said that cyber 
threats were actually the top threat facing this country, which 
was a surprise then and took a lot of people by surprise that 
it eclipsed the terrorism threat at the time.
    And my understanding is that it has remained at the top of 
the worldwide threats assessment. So this is something that the 
entire Government has to focus on. We have to make this an all-
of-Government effort.
    The SolarWinds issue, I will look forward to getting a full 
briefing on this, if I am confirmed, and understanding the full 
state of the Government's knowledge about--about that attack. 
What is clear to me is that nation-states are engaged in an 
effort of--to use cyber tools in a game of political one-
upmanship and geopolitical one-upmanship in the use of these 
tools, and it is incumbent upon the entire Government for us to 
focus on this issue.
    And I think the Justice Department, through the work of the 
FBI, which has prioritized cybersecurity issues and working as 
part of the intelligence community, to call out and identify 
malicious nation-state actors, through the very good work I 
think of the Department of Homeland Security in this effort, 
and I was very, very proud to work as the leader of the 
National Security Division to prioritize and emphasize the work 
on nation-state actors, identify them, call them out, and hold 
them to account.
    We have to continue all of those efforts, and I was 
encouraged when President Biden named a Deputy National 
Security Advisor specifically for cybersecurity and emerging 
technologies. So we have to work across the Government, and if 
I am confirmed as the Deputy Attorney General, addressing cyber 
issues from nation-states as a foreign intelligence threat, as 
a threat to our economic security with the theft of 
intellectual property, as well as a criminal matter, will be a 
top priority.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Ms. Monaco.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks a lot.
    I have got a few comments, and then we will wrap this up. 
Thank you both for being here today and for subjecting 
yourselves to the questions, some of them repeatedly. But that 
is the function of this Committee to give you your day in the 
sun under oath to answer the questions of the Members.
    Several things struck me. The whole question of defunding 
the police. I never bought into that idea from the start. It 
just did not sound right. When I hear explanations, I 
understand what those who wrote that phrase might have been 
thinking, and I think of the case of Daniel Prude in Rochester, 
New York. A man in obvious mental distress at 3 in the morning 
takes all of his clothes off and sits in the middle of the 
street in a snowstorm, and two policemen show up, and they 
clearly did not know what to do with him.
    Eventually, they handcuffed him. And then, when they 
thought perhaps he was spitting on him, they put a hood over 
his head. Before it was all over, they had begun a process of 
asphyxiation, which took his life several days later.
    That was clearly a case where some other expertise was 
needed. It was not law enforcement expertise. It was someone 
who had a background in dealing with mental illness and 
psychology, and these officers might have been excellent 
policemen, but they were not psychologists and psychiatrists.
    That man lost his life. And if the message of police 
funding is to bring to police work professionals who can avoid 
that tragic ending with their own expertise and supplement it, 
the police work, in domestic violence and so many areas which 
are highly emotionally charged, I think that is what many of us 
are driving for. I do not think that disparages the police in 
any way, but it defines their role and the reality of their 
training and their preparedness to deal with many of these 
situations.
    The reason we know the Daniel Prude story is because of two 
or three things which have become I think game changers when it 
comes to law enforcement. DNA is a game changer. We know that 
from Innocence Projects all across the United States, and thank 
goodness for what they do.
    We also know videotape is a game changer. It is no longer 
just someone's word. It is a videotape that tells a story, and 
many times tells a different story than the written or oral 
accounting that you might have had to rely on before.
    And it is social media. Those random thoughts of all of us 
do not disappear. They tend to be around for a long time, and 
we are held accountable for them, all of us, including 
yourselves.
    In terms of changing your position on an issue, I am lucky 
to be from the Land of Lincoln, and he was so smart to make a 
lot of comments that I rely on throughout my public life. And 
they once accused Abraham Lincoln of changing his position on 
an issue, and he said, ``I did. But I would rather be right 
some of the time than wrong all the time.''
    I think that reminds me that if you have an open mind and a 
learning person, you are bound to learn some things which 
change your mind. Life experiences change your mind. If you are 
honest about it, I do not see anything at all wrong with it.
    I would like to just spend 30 seconds and speak for 150,000 
human beings who are going to depend on you, and we have not 
mentioned them once during the course of this hearing. And I am 
talking about the occupants of the Federal prison system. We 
are bringing that number down of the total number of occupants, 
but we still have a lot of hard questions to answer.
    We have had hearings in this full Committee. I was honored 
to chair one of them about solitary confinement, isolation. I 
believe that is as cruel as anything you can do to a person, 
and we do it to too many. Amazingly, many of the States have 
gone ahead of us.
    Senator Booker has a real interest in this area, and when 
we discussed the First Step Act, he was one of the people who 
brought some changes into our penal system and to be part of 
that effort. That, I might say, relates to this. That was a bad 
vote by me and a lot of others many years ago in response to 
crack cocaine, and I have been trying to straighten it out ever 
since with the Fair Sentencing Act and the First Step Act, and 
there is still more to do.
    And we need your helping us to do it. I want to make sure 
that every dangerous person is taken out of circulation and 
never threatens another person as long as they are dangerous. 
But there are many, many, many people in our Federal prison 
system who do not fit that definition. They are there because 
of flawed laws which are written by us, and they are living 
them out.
    I have noticed, Ms. Gupta, that 1 of the 10 cases which you 
identified was a man who had been sentenced to 44 years in 
prison, and through your good work, he was finally released.
    And let me just close by saying that a lot of things were 
said here, but I want to make a note on one. Ms. Gupta, when 
you were questioned about your financial situation, you gave 
such a refreshing, open, and honest answer. ``I will disclose. 
I will divest.'' We have not heard that for a long time from 
the top in Washington, and it is something that I think is part 
of our responsibility as public servants. Thank you for 
reminding us.
    Let me get down to the formality of what is to occur here. 
I want to enter a number of letters officially into the record 
and make a few logistical notes.
    Both nominees enjoy broad bipartisan support. I and other 
Democratic Members have noted that support today, which is a 
testament to their qualifications. I have firm belief that they 
will lead the Justice Department with integrity, independence, 
and dedication.
    It is too long a list to read of all the letters that have 
been sent in support of both of your nominations, but we will 
certainly enter this into the record.
    [The information appears as submissions for the record.]
    Questions for the record will be due to the nominees by 5 
p.m., Friday, March 12th. The record remains open for 
submission of letters and similar materials until 5 p.m. on 
Tuesday, March 16th.
    And with that, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 2:28 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
    [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

                            A P P E N D I X

              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

DOCUMENTS FOR THE RECORD WITH REGARD TO THE NOMINATION OF HON. LISA O. 
       MONACO TO BE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    Questions Submitted to Hon. Lisa O. Monaco by Senator Klobuchar

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

DOCUMENTS FOR THE RECORD WITH REGARD TO THE NOMINATION OF VANITA GUPTA 
         TO BE ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

   Response of Vanita Gupta to Question Submitted by Senator Cornyn: 
                              Attachment I

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

   Response of Vanita Gupta to Question Submitted by Senator Cornyn: 
                             Attachment II

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]