[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 10, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1452-S1453]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



              Nominations of Vanita Gupta and Lisa Monaco

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, yesterday, the Senate Judiciary 
Committee heard from the nominees for the No. 2 and No. 3 jobs at the 
Department of Justice.
  As you know, earlier today, we confirmed the next Attorney General of 
the United States, Judge Merrick Garland. I supported Judge Garland's 
nomination because I think he is a qualified, mainstream nominee with 
the right experience and the right temperament to lead the Department 
of Justice. I believe being Attorney General is probably the hardest 
job in the Cabinet because you have two masters. One is the rule of 
law, as the chief law enforcement officer for the country; the other 
is, you are a member of the President's Cabinet and serve at his or her 
pleasure, obviously, a political appointment.
  Judge Garland told me, and I take him at his word, that he would work 
hard to keep politics out of the work of the Justice Department--a goal 
that folks on both sides of the aisle should support, especially after 
the struggles of previous administrations.
  As I said, I was proud to support Judge Garland's nomination, and now 
we begin the process of considering other senior positions at the 
Department of Justice.
  One of the nominees who came before the Judiciary Committee yesterday 
was Lisa Monaco, who has been nominated to serve as the Deputy Attorney 
General.
  Ms. Monaco is a lifelong public servant who previously spent 15 years 
at the Department of Justice. She is a highly respected Federal 
prosecutor and national security expert. She advised President Obama 
and a number of other top government officials on matters like homeland 
security, cyber security, and counterterrorism, and her expertise 
extends beyond the ins and outs of matters of policy. Her knowledge of 
the Department of Justice as an organization will be invaluable to the 
Department, whose more than 100,000 employees are responsible for 
carrying out a diverse set of missions. It is a huge organization with 
a lot of moving parts.
  Like Judge Garland, Ms. Monaco affirmed to me that she does not 
intend to inject politics or to even give it a hearing within the 
Department of Justice and her duties as the Deputy Attorney General.
  I asked her, for example, if she would allow Mr. Durham, who has been 
appointed as special counsel, to investigate the Crossfire Hurricane 
issue from the last administration and the tail end of the Obama 
administration. She said she saw no reason not to give Mr. Durham a 
chance to complete his work. That is the same position we took on 
Robert Mueller, who was appointed as special counsel to investigate 
President Trump. Again, I take her at her word that she will not do 
anything to fire Mr. Durham or deprive him of the ability to complete 
his important work.
  Ms. Monaco discussed her experience at the Department over the course 
of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations. She really does have a 
lot of important, relevant experience. She talked about the unique role 
of the Justice Department, which, as I suggested a moment ago, 
functions both as an executive agency that is charged

[[Page S1453]]

with implementing the President's policies as well as being an 
independent investigator and, in some cases, a prosecutor. She 
described the importance of acting free from political or partisan 
influence as her ``North Star.''
  While Ms. Monaco and I will surely have policy disagreements at some 
point, I trust her ability to fairly and impartially administer justice 
while operating free of personal bias or political agenda. I believe 
she is well qualified to serve as the Deputy Attorney General, and I 
plan to support her nomination.
  Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for the second nominee who 
appeared before the Judiciary Committee yesterday. Vanita Gupta has 
been nominated to serve as the Associate Attorney General, which is 
sometimes considered to be the No. 3 position at the Department of 
Justice. Throughout her career, Ms. Gupta has been a clear and 
outspoken advocate for some pretty radical policies.
  In 2012, for example, she wrote that States should decriminalize the 
possession of all drugs--not just marijuana but all drugs--which, I 
presume, would include things like fentanyl, heroin, methamphetamine, 
and other highly addictive and destructive drugs. In yesterday's 
hearing, when I asked Ms. Gupta about this statement, she took the 
opposite position. She didn't tell me ``I used to advocate for that 
position and have now changed my position.'' She said, unequivocally, 
that she did not advocate for the decriminalization of all drugs. It 
became apparent she wanted Senators to forget what she previously 
wrote:

       States should decriminalize simple possession of all drugs, 
     particularly marijuana, and for small amounts of other drugs.

  That is a quote from an article she wrote in 2012. Unfortunately, the 
list of inconsistencies does not end there.
  In June of 2020, less than a year ago, Ms. Gupta argued that it ought 
to be easier to sue police officers in court for money damages. Now, 
this is sometimes called ``qualified immunity,'' which recognizes the 
fact that law enforcement officers have to make split-second 
decisions--life-or-death decisions, actually--and that it would be 
unfair to them to, in retrospect, go back and flyspeck all of their 
decisions. In other words, it gives them some room in which to operate, 
recognizing the unique nature of their job. It applies to other 
government employees, too. Yet, in June 2020, less than a year ago, she 
argued that it was time to revisit this doctrine of qualified 
immunity--in other words, to make it easier to sue police officers for 
money.
  This was one of the many steps that she outlined in an opinion piece 
in a national publication following the death of George Floyd. Nine 
months later, she says she does not support that position--one she 
supported 9 months ago. Now she says she does not support the position 
of making it easier to sue police officers.
  And there is more.
  Last summer, Ms. Gupta put her support behind the ``defund the 
police'' movement. As our country engaged in an important and long 
overdue debate about the police's use of force and responsible policing 
strategies, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on that very 
topic.
  Ms. Gupta testified before the committee and said:

       While front-end systems changes are important, it is also 
     critical for state and local leaders to heed calls from Black 
     Lives Matter and Movement for Black Lives activists to 
     decrease police budgets and the scope, role, and 
     responsibility of police in our lives.

  Yesterday, Ms. Gupta did not mince words. She said she does not 
support defunding the police, and she said decreasing police budgets 
was not defunding the police. Well, at the time we were discussing this 
movement for defunding police, she attempted to parse her words. It is 
tough to reconcile the stark difference between what Ms. Gupta has said 
in the past and what she now says as she attempts to win support in the 
Senate. I am wary and, frankly, skeptical of confirmation conversions 
wherein people take the opposite positions when they are nominated for 
important, Senate-confirmed positions from the positions they have 
taken in the past.
  I understand her interest in distancing herself from her previous 
positions. Decriminalizing drugs, eliminating qualified immunity--
making it easier to second-guess and sue police officers for money 
damages--and defunding the police are radical policy positions that 
should disqualify someone from becoming the third-highest ranking 
official at the Justice Department. In order to be confirmed, Ms. Gupta 
knows she needs to convince us that she actually holds mainstream views 
on law enforcement strategies and issues. I find it hard to believe 
that these views, which are not from decades-old law school writings 
but are recent public statements--indeed, sworn testimony before the 
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee--are views she no longer holds, which 
she said she held so recently.
  I want to be clear on one point.
  The opinions of Ms. Gupta's as a private citizen are not an issue. 
She has every right to hold opinions that differ from mine or anybody 
else's, but when you are the nominee for a high level--indeed, one of 
the highest levels--of critical law enforcement positions, these are 
highly problematic and, to my mind, disqualifying.
  Perhaps more so than any other Federal Department or Agency, the 
Department of Justice must operate free from bias and political 
agendas. The men and women leading the Department must be able to 
separate their personal beliefs from the jobs before them. No matter 
how they feel about the wisdom of the policies enacted by Congress, 
their jobs are to enforce the law not as they want it to be but as it 
is. People across the country should have confidence that the senior 
leaders at the Justice Department will follow the law as written--
without fail. We can't have leaders who turn a blind eye to whatever is 
politically convenient when it conflicts with their personally held 
positions.
  Based on Ms. Gupta's clear history of radical policy positions, which 
stands in stark contrast to the laws she would be charged with 
enforcing, I do not believe she can separate her convictions from the 
job at hand. Leaders within the Department must be able to view all 
matters as matters of fact and as matters of duty, not just as matters 
of opinion or as platforms to argue for changes in the law.
  As the Senate has considered the President's nominees over the past 
several weeks, I have been very clear that I will not oppose nominees 
based simply on the President's political party. I think the President 
is entitled to some deference as to the people he chooses. That was the 
strategy of our Democratic colleagues previously, and it is incredibly 
damaging to both our country and its institutions. Just because a 
President you don't like has nominated somebody does not justify 
opposing that President's nominee. I will continue to evaluate all 
nominees of this President based on their merits and their abilities to 
do the jobs for which they were nominated.
  I firmly believe that the American people deserve to have qualified, 
fairminded individuals leading these important Departments and 
Agencies. For the Department of Justice, which is responsible for 
enforcing the law of the land and imparting fair and equal justice, 
that is doubly true. There is simply no room for political or partisan 
or ideological agendas at the Department of Justice. I am concerned 
that Ms. Gupta will continue to pursue those objectives from within the 
Department and use all of the Department's tools and the authority 
given to her to achieve these ideological outcomes. Therefore, I cannot 
support her nomination
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Smith). The Senator from Iowa.