[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 65 (Thursday, April 15, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1967-S1973]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Nomination of Vanita Gupta
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank Senator Durbin for his
leadership, and following my colleague and friend, Senator Lee, I
disagree with him vehemently about Vanita Gupta. She is someone I have
worked closely with for years on voting rights, on police reform, and
just last year I marched with her across the Edmund Pettus Bridge with
the late John Lewis to mark the 55th anniversary of Bloody Sunday in
Selma, AL.
After working alongside her to build a more just system, I have no
doubt that she will take this job on with two words, two words that I
think are so important right now to build trust with the people of this
country: honor and integrity. That is what has marked her career.
As a civil rights lawyer, public servant, and as President of the
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Nation's oldest,
largest, and most diverse civil and human rights coalition, she has a
record of fighting for all Americans, with dedication, consistency,
and--and--a willingness to work across ideological lines to achieve
results.
Why did she get those police endorsements and the kind of support
that she got, even though she was taking on reform? It is because she
earned people's respect. She is the right person for the right time in
the Justice Department, and I say this coming from Minnesota, where my
State is reeling after the killing of Duante Wright.
Our hearts break for Daunte's family and for our community, which is
still in the midst of the George Floyd murder trial of Derek Chauvin. I
was so proud and am so proud of the ordinary citizens that came forward
and testified from my State: a clerk in the store, a man walking by,
all of them having carried the burden--the burden--of this murder,
looking inside themselves thinking: What could I have done better?
And that case will soon conclude, but those citizens coming forward
and actually the law enforcement coming forward and testifying at all
levels of law enforcement for the prosecution of Derek Chauvin--that
meant something to the people of my State. I want to be able to go back
and tell those citizens who testified that you don't carry this burden
alone; that we have a Justice Department that is going to stand up for
you.
And, for me, one of those key people is Vanita Gupta. She is exactly
who we need right now to champion the cause of equal justice under the
law.
She has described the Department as an institution she loves dearly
because, as she said, it bears the name of a value--justice--one that
carries a unique charge and North Star. It is the sacred keeper of the
promise of equal justice under the law, and coming from the North Star
State, that means a lot.
Her commitment to defending the Constitution and upholding the
integrity of this important Agency is, for her, a professional calling.
It is also a personal calling. As she has described, she inherited from
her parents, who came to this country, a belief in the promise of
America, one that carries with it a personal responsibility to make
this country better for everyone.
We all know immigrants who think like that every day--people who have
just arrived and people who have raised their families here. They are
Vanita Gupta. There is no question that Ms. Gupta has the experience
for this job.
As an attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, she
worked on the frontlines, fighting in court to protect the civil rights
of some of the most vulnerable people. Later, at the American Civil
Liberties Union, she brought cases on behalf of immigrant children and
worked to end mass incarceration while keeping communities safe.
[[Page S1968]]
While serving as our country's chief civil rights prosecutor at the
Department of Justice, during the Obama administration, she led
critical work on criminal justice reform, prosecuting hate crimes and
human trafficking, defending the right to vote, and protecting the
rights of the LGBTQ community and those with disabilities.
Ms. Gupta's depth of experience at the Department of Justice and her
years as a civil rights attorney make her imminently qualified to serve
as Associate Attorney General. In that position, she will oversee the
work of the Department's Civil Rights Division and will help direct the
Department's work to reform our justice system. Having helped to lead
the Federal review of police practices, she understands the need for
systemic reform in our justice system, as well as ways to work with law
enforcement--with law enforcement--to make necessary changes.
That is why she has the support of police chiefs, sheriffs, and major
law enforcement groups across the country, including the National
Sheriffs' Association, including the International Association of
Chiefs of Police, and including the Major Cities Chiefs Association.
They know that Ms. Gupta is a trusted partner who, as the Fraternal
Order of Police wrote in a letter of support, has ``always worked with
us to find common ground even when that seemed impossible.''
Grover Norquist, a Republican and president of Americans for Tax
Reform, described Ms. Gupta as ``an honest broker; someone with an
ability not only to understand but also appreciate different
perspectives. She was someone who sought consensus,'' he said. That is
exactly the kind of person we need at the Department right now.
I look forward to working with her on the next steps in our efforts
to reform our criminal justice system, which we were able to discuss at
her hearing. We talked about her commitment to police reform and the
need to increase funding for alternatives to incarceration, such as
drug court, which is something I have worked on for years since my time
as county attorney, and her support for conviction integrity units to
help States to review legal cases for people believed to be innocent.
She gets that the work of a prosecutor is, yes, working for safety, but
it is also to be a minister of justice and to make sure that people are
treated equally under the law.
I also have talked to Ms. Gupta about the urgent need to finally
reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, which I hope my colleagues
and I will work to pass and get to President Biden's desk. In the Obama
administration, she coordinated the Department of Justice's efforts to
develop guidance supported by data on how law enforcement can prevent
gender bias when responding to sexual assault and domestic violence. At
our hearing, she affirmed the important role that the Department has in
protecting victims of domestic violence, and I look forward to working
with her on these issues.
As chair of the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and
Consumer Rights, I am also pleased that Ms. Gupta committed to make
vigorous antitrust enforcement a priority. I think there is agreement
from both sides of the aisle that robust competition is essential to
protect consumers, workers, and businesses, large and small.
I am confident that Ms. Gupta will lead the Department's efforts to
confront monopoly power and restore competitive markets along with Lisa
Monaco and along with, of course, the Attorney General himself, Merrick
Garland.
Ms. Gupta's history as a champion of civil rights and record as a
consensus builder makes her, as I said, the right person at the right
time. She has the backing of more than 220 national civil and human
rights organizations, including the ACLU, the NAACP, and the Human
Rights Campaign.
She has, as I said, the support from law enforcement and from former
Department of Justice leaders from both parties. She is a person who
works to bring people together to get big things done. That is what we
need right now, someone who sees that vision but also understands that
the way we get to justice is by doing things step by step by step and
bringing people with you as you march along. We need to do more than
restore what has been undermined or lost. We need the courage of
leadership to preserve and strengthen our democracy by protecting the
rule of law.
I would like to finally acknowledge that her nomination is historic.
In addition to Ms. Gupta's years of experience, dedication to justice,
and support from across the ideological spectrum, she will be the first
civil rights lawyer and the first woman of color to serve as Associate
Attorney General. I look forward to confirming her to be Associate
Attorney General, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Vanita Gupta's
nomination to be the Associate Attorney General of the U.S. Department
of Justice. Those of us who have had the joy and the honor of getting
to know her and working with her know Ms. Gupta to be engaging and
smart, a skilled and balanced lawyer and practitioner, and someone who
will bring great values in leadership to the U.S. Department of
Justice.
Ms. Gupta has devoted her career to public service and to protecting
and advancing the civil and constitutional rights we all cherish as
Americans. President Biden, Attorney General Garland, and Lisa Monaco,
the President's nominee to be Deputy Attorney General, have all made
clear Ms. Gupta would serve as an integral part of the leadership team
at the Justice Department. She would bring to that critical role a long
record of working with folks across the ideological spectrum in our
country on some of our Nation's most difficult and most sensitive
issues, some that are urgent and pressing like criminal justice reform
and policing.
Unfortunately, a campaign launched against Ms. Gupta shortly after
her nomination has painted a misleading portrait of her as a partisan
and a radical. I won't repeat or rehash these unfounded critiques, but
the fact is this caricature could not be further from the truth.
As letter after letter has come in from her supporters to the
Judiciary Committee, in which I serve, we heard over and over that, at
her core, Ms. Gupta is a person who seeks to build bridges, to
understand others' points of view, and to build consensus and solve
problems.
One of the elements of this campaign to mischaracterize her suggests
that somehow she is anti-police or anti-law enforcement, and, in this
particular instance, the distinction between those who worked with her
and know her and what we have heard in this social media campaign and
in our committee and here on the floor of the Senate could not be
sharper.
We heard from multiple leading national law enforcement organizations
that have worked with her in specific and clear and concrete terms. The
National Sheriffs' Association, in their letter of support, said:
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.
They added:
[Ms. Gupta] possesses immense credibility among law
enforcement leaders.
And they said:
[She is] exactly the type of leader who is needed in the
Justice Department today.
From the Fraternal Order of Police:
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.
And the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association in their letter
said:
[Ms. Gupta has a] proven history of working with law
enforcement agencies . . . and elected officials across the
spectrum.
We even heard from a leading conservative advocate and activist,
Grover Norquist, the leader of Americans for Tax Reform. Mr. Norquist
wrote:
I have come to know and respect Ms. Gupta through our
common work on criminal justice reform issues. I found her
strongly qualified, effective, principled, driven by a desire
to seek common purpose and consensus. . . . At every step,
Ms. Gupta was an honest broker, someone with an ability to
understand, appreciate different perspectives, someone who
sought consensus.
Last but not least, we heard from Mark Holden, general counsel of
Koch
[[Page S1969]]
Industries, who worked with her on criminal justice reform and wrote
the committee saying:
I respected and admired how Ms. Gupta was not ideologically
driven, but principled and solutions-oriented. . . . Ms.
Gupta 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 just plead with my colleagues to reflect for a moment: Are these
the sorts of letters that we would have received in support of someone
who is genuinely intolerant and in support of someone who is the
radical activist this misleading campaign has attempted to portray her
as being?
Instead, Vanita Gupta has demonstrated in her work and in her career
that she is pragmatic, she is principled, and she is a relationship
builder in search of solutions. Given this broad and bipartisan support
in the letters that came to us on the committee and as Members of this
body, I was surprised and disappointed that some of my colleagues on
the other side have continued to levee this misleading barrage of
unsubstantiated attacks.
So, in conclusion, I would ask my colleagues to consider her fairly
and to listen to the range and the scores of groups that have described
her as a principled, honest broker. She cares deeply about protecting
the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans and about being
fairminded and taking into consideration all points of view. She will
bring that same approach to her service and leadership as Associate
Attorney General.
This should not be a party-line, partisan vote. Vanita Gupta is the
right leader at the right time to help our U.S. Department of Justice
tackle some very difficult issues, and I am pleased to stand in support
of her nomination and will vote for her confirmation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, later this afternoon, the Senate will vote
on whether to discharge the nomination of Vanita Gupta, the nominee for
Associate Attorney General, from the Judiciary Committee.
Ms. Gupta is a polarizing figure, as reflected by the vote in the
Judiciary Committee. It was a tie vote, 11 votes to 11. So she failed
to receive a majority support from the committee, and now the Senate
must vote on whether or not her nomination can come to the Senate floor
for consideration.
I want to be clear, though, the passionate opposition of this nominee
is not about politics. I voted to confirm the vast majority of
President Biden's nominees, my attitude being that he won the election
and he is entitled to populate a Cabinet and other important positions
with people he has confidence in. But there are limits.
The President's nominees for the top two positions for the Department
of Justice did not require this extraordinary step. I voted to support
Ms. Monaco's nomination, who has been nominated for Deputy Attorney
General, as well as the Attorney General himself, Judge Merrick
Garland. As I said, those were not controversial nominees. This nominee
is a polarizing, partisan activist and should not be confirmed to this
important position.
The lack of support for Ms. Gupta is not a reflection on her
political affiliation, nor of her gender, nor of her race, as the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee intimated. The opposition to Ms.
Gupta is a direct result of her history of inflammatory public
statements, radical policy positions, and a laundry list of misleading
statements and flat-out lies during her sworn testimony before the
Judiciary Committee.
The position of Associate Attorney General is not some bureaucratic
paper-pusher. This is the third ranking position at the Department of
Justice, the highest law enforcement Agency in America. The American
people deserve to know that the individuals leading the Department have
no agenda other than to fairly and impartially administer justice, but
based on everything we now know about Ms. Gupta, I do not have faith in
her ability to deliver on this most basic principle.
Ms. Gupta is not a career public servant. She is a partisan culture
warrior with a radical agenda. During her tenure in jobs outside of
government, during which she was a registered lobbyist, Ms. Gupta was
quite outspoken about her views on just about every topic you can
imagine. She slandered Supreme Court nominees. She vilified
organizations that she disagreed with. She even took a crack or two at
a number of our Senate colleagues.
But the words I find most troubling are those that relate directly to
the policies of the Department of Justice itself. As the Judiciary
Committee evaluated Ms. Gupta's qualifications, she was asked about her
previous writings and her public statements on a variety of topics.
There is a lot to sort through.
First, following the tragic killing of George Floyd last summer,
people across the country engaged in an important discussion and debate
about the use of force by police officers and responsible policing
strategies.
The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this very topic, and Ms.
Gupta was one of the star witnesses. At the time, she was the president
and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. She
testified before the committee there, under oath, that it is ``critical
for state and local leaders to heed calls . . . to decrease police
budgets and the scope, [and] role, and responsibility of police in our
lives.''
Well, for obvious reasons, the phrase ``decrease police budgets'' and
``defund the police'' lead to the same conclusion that she believes
police departments need less--not more--resources in order to maintain
public safety.
When Ms. Gupta was asked about this at her confirmation hearing, she
did not mince words. She said she does not support defunding the
police. So I followed up with a written question for the record. I
asked Ms. Gupta, following the hearing, to explain the distinction
between ``decrease police budgets'' and ``defund the police,'' so we
could understand her views. After all, the Associate Attorney General
will play an important role in making grants to fund States and local
police departments. But Ms. Gupta offered no explanation. She simply
said, once again, she does not support defunding the police.
Now, I can understand when people change their minds. I think
reasonably intelligent people, as they acquire new information, maybe
reflecting on their previous points of view, change their minds, but
Ms. Gupta did not offer a single bit of information for this shift
between her statement last summer saying that State and local leaders
must heed calls to ``decrease police budgets'' and her current
position, which is that she does not support defunding the police.
Then there were her statements on qualified immunity. This is an
important issue for Congress to discuss and debate because it is
qualified immunity that protects law enforcement officers, given the
nature of the discretionary decisions they need to make in emergency
circumstances. Again, there are people on both sides of that argument.
But in June 2020, less than a year ago, Ms. Gupta argued in a
Washington Post opinion piece that it is time to revisit qualified
immunity. Well, you can imagine I asked her about that at the hearing.
And, again, she said, unequivocally, she does not support eliminating
qualified immunity. But, once again, we received no explanation for her
changed position.
And while her statements are intentionally, I believe, unclear at
best, her words about previously held beliefs on drug policy represent
an irreconcilable conflict. Back in 2012, Ms. Gupta authored an opinion
piece on November 4, 2012, in the HuffPost. In that article, she argued
that the States should decriminalize possession of all drugs--all
drugs, not just marijuana, all drugs, presumably, to include
prescription opioids, heroin, methamphetamine, fentanyl, you name it--
all drugs.
Well, I don't have to remind Members of this Senate that more than
80,000 Americans have died from drug overdoses this last year alone,
and much of it would include the sorts of drugs that, back in 2012, Ms.
Gupta said should be legalized--or at least decriminalized, to be
fair--decriminalized, although the distinction between that may be lost
on some.
Well, I am sure that this will surprise no one that this is a
controversial view. Congress has spent billions upon billions of
dollars to fight the opioid epidemic in this country. We passed the
Cures Act, the CARES Act, to try
[[Page S1970]]
to get at this epidemic of opioid addiction and abuse. But Ms. Gupta,
circa 2012, said that these drugs--all drugs--should be decriminalized
for personal use.
Well, I followed up with a question because, during the hearing, Ms.
Gupta talked about how her views had evolved since 2012. Again, as we
all have different experiences over time, we learn new information,
perhaps reflect on our previously held views, I understand how people's
views can change. But then she wasn't satisfied with that answer.
So I followed up with a written question. I asked Ms. Gupta if she
ever made this statement that is printed in black and white in the
HuffPost, dated circa 2012. She said: ``I have never''--never--
``advocated for the decriminalization of all drugs.'' She said:
``States should decriminalize simple possession of all drugs.'' Compare
that with ``I have never advocated for the decriminalization of all
drugs.'' Those are irreconcilable positions
And the fact is, if you believe Ms. Gupta circa 2012, it is simply a
lie. It is a lie under oath, potentially perjury. I mean, why do we
swear witnesses in if some of them will take the burden of their oath
so lightly and they would lie with impunity? I mean, what is the
purpose?
She didn't just lie to me. She lied to Chairman Durbin. She lied to
Senator Whitehouse. She lied to every member of the Judiciary
Committee. And, unfortunately, she is lying to the Senate. She has been
given many opportunities to reconcile these radically conflicting
statements. These are diametrically opposed positions. If she had a
good answer, if she cared enough, if she respected Members of the
Senate enough, she would have provided us an answer rather than just an
outright lie.
Here is a fact check from the Washington Post, that great ultra or
uber-conservative publication. As you can see, they gave her a unique
Pinocchio award. I have never seen a Pinocchio award like this.
Ordinarily, they would say, well, you get one, two, or three, or four
Pinocchios based on whether or not we find this to be a
misrepresentation of the facts or a lie.
But here, they said: ``For this tango of previously unacknowledged
flip-flops, Gupta [deserves] an Upside-Down Pinocchio''--``Upside-Down
Pinocchio.'' They went on to say Vanita Gupta's shifting views on
defunding the police, decriminalizing drugs deserve this Upside-Down
Pinocchio, March 10, 2021.
If you published an op-ed saying the sky is purple and now you say
the sky is blue, don't tell us you never thought the sky was purple.
Have a little more respect for your obligation for one of the highest
positions in the Department of Justice not to lie to the Judiciary
Committee or the Senate. Have the courage to tell us the truth and stop
trying to deceive the Senate in order to be confirmed.
As I said earlier, Ms. Gupta was a registered lobbyist and spent a
good part of her career pushing a very specific agenda and a range of
radical policies to go along with it. In the process, she disparaged
individuals, organizations, and political parties who dared to oppose
her beliefs.
She wrote about the growing number of conservatives on the Federal
bench and said: ``Republicans have planted the seeds of this takeover
for decades--and now, they are leaping into action.'' I wonder if she
realized she might one day be in a position of advocating on the
Department of Justice before the very same judges that she has
disparaged.
She tweeted that Justice Kavanaugh ``lied'' to the Judiciary
Committee and ``showed himself to be a partisan.'' And she is going to
represent the American people in the highest Court in the land,
populated by Justices she has called a liar? Well, she has called a
number of other Federal judges--she has described a number of them with
similar disdain.
Now, I find it hard to believe that these views, which are not from
decades-old law school writings or that you can write off to immaturity
or perhaps satire--like we heard yesterday from Ms. Clarke, who has
been nominated to the civil rights division--these are recent public
statements which this nominee no longer claims to hold.
Like I said, if confirmed, she will supervise litigation in front of
the many Federal judges she has disparaged, and she will be in an
extraordinarily powerful position to bend the Department of Justice to
her political whims.
Ms. Gupta is the daughter of a gentleman who heads up a chemical
company that produces all sorts of chemicals for a variety of
legitimate purposes. It looks like, from her financial disclosure
statement, he has been very successful and so has Ms. Gupta, in family
trusts worth tens of millions of dollars, much of it including the
stock of Avantor, the company that her father heads.
I realize Ms. Gupta is not personally responsible, as a shareholder
in this company, but it is clear, I believe, from an investigative
journalism story by Bloomberg dated September 2020 that Avantor was
selling acetic anhydride, an essential ingredient in converting poppies
to heroin, for at least the last decade.
She owns tens of millions of dollars' worth of that stock.
I have asked the Attorney General and the Securities and Exchange
Commission to look into Avantor's conduct because, if, in fact, an
American chemical manufacturer has been selling acetic anhydride in the
country where they know that it will be available to the criminal
cartels and drug runners--and they should know that 92 percent of the
heroin made in Mexico, using acetic anhydride, manufactured by Avantor
and its subsidiary in Mexico--that is a serious, serious problem. So I
have asked the Attorney General and the Department of Justice to look
into it.
Asked about this, asked about Avantor's activities, Ms. Gupta said:
``I'm aware of the allegations.''
I do not have faith, nor should the Senate have faith, nor should the
American people have faith that Ms. Gupta will act fairly and
impartially if confirmed to this position. If she was willing to lie to
the American people during her confirmation hearings before the
Judiciary Committee, imagine how she might treat others with disdain,
people who hold opposing views in our society, using the great weight
and power of the Department of Justice perhaps to further some of her
partisan, political, ideological agenda.
Can we really expect someone with this track record, this history, to
live up to the highest ideals of the Justice Department? And, for
example, we all know lawyers are taught that, if you have exculpatory
information about a criminal defendant, you have a duty to disclose
that to the other side. If you are the prosecutor, you have a duty to
disclose it to the defendant so it can be cross-examined and used in
the course of a jury trial.
Do we really expect someone who appears willing to lie with such
disregard for the truth to disclose exculpatory material that a person
sued by the Department of Justice would have a right to, or would she
just try to sit on it?
Can we really expect her to hire people around her based on merit as
opposed to some political litmus test? Can we really expect her to
disclose material information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court or encourage folks under her supervision to be meticulous and
forthright with the court when seeking warrants? I don't think so.
Given the incredible power of the Department of Justice and all the
tools available to it, Ms. Gupta's radical beliefs and agenda--that she
believes in sincerely, apparently--these would be more than words on a
screen. Her views would be terribly dangerous to the American people.
Based on her track record, I have no confidence in her ability to act
with fairness, candor, or integrity.
As a member of the bar, as a lawyer, you have a higher duty, than
even a regular citizen, of candor. The model disciplinary rules that
apply to lawyers, members of the bar, like Ms. Gupta, who is a member
of the New York bar as well as the Supreme Court bar--they are subject
to discipline from grievance committees in those jurisdictions.
We know that they have real teeth because former President Clinton,
as you may recall, lied under oath as a lawyer and was disbarred by the
Arkansas Bar Association and also had to give up his membership in the
bar of the Supreme Court of the United States.
If the Senate is going to make a habit of allowing witnesses to come
in
[[Page S1971]]
and lie under oath in such a brazen way, why do we even go through this
Kabuki theater? Why do we require them to take an oath in the first
place if you can lie with impunity? What is the point of going to these
hearings if the witnesses are not going to be truthful and answer our
questions honestly?
As I say, I have grave concerns about this nominee's ability to
separate her well-documented personal beliefs from her role as a high-
ranking official at the Department of Justice.
So it will come as no surprise that I will oppose discharging Ms.
Gupta's nomination from the committee. I think she should have to come
back to the committee, as we have requested of Chairman Durbin, to
explain these inconsistencies, if she has a good answer. So far,
Chairman Durbin has declined to provide her and us that opportunity.
But if we want to maintain any sense of legitimacy and respect for
the confirmation process, we need to hold people accountable who come
here and lie under oath. And for that and many other reasons, I will
oppose the motion to discharge this nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, before yielding to my colleague from Rhode
Island, I would like to respond very briefly.
My, have we come a long way since we had a President who, for 4
years, refused to disclose his tax returns--first time ever. Oh, they
are under audit. I will get back to you at some other time later.
Now we have witnesses and nominees coming before the committee,
suggested by President Biden, who are producing the documentation and
the things that are being requested by this committee so that everyone
knows the answers.
So did Ms. Vanita Gupta produce 100 pages of documents? No. Did she
produce 1,000? No, she produced 11,000 pages of documents, answering
every question that was to be asked. And the suggestion the senior
Senator from Texas raises--he raised it before in committee--that
somehow, because her family made a business decision about selling a
chemical, legally, into the nation of Mexico, she should be held
responsible as a shareholder or as a member of the family?
You will notice, if you listen very carefully to what the Senator
said, he is not saying there was any wrongdoing. He is saying there was
an article once which made that allegation, and he has referred the
question to others to decide. That is a long way from saying Vanita
Gupta is responsible for whatever the company did, if it did anything,
wrong. She has made that full disclosure, and I think raising this is
unfair, just fundamentally unfair.
Secondly, on the question of decriminalizing drugs, narcotics, she
says her position on it has evolved. Well, I think the Senator from
Texas would be the first to acknowledge that the position of America
has evolved on the question of drugs; has it not? Hasn't the position
of Texas recently evolved on the decriminalization of some drugs and
the possession thereof?
We are thinking differently about it. We are trying to find the most
effective way to end addiction and save lives. We no longer want to
lock everybody up, nor should we. We are deciding that there are some
drug violations that shouldn't merit any time in jail, that some people
just need help to break their addiction.
If Vanita Gupta has been part of that conversation in America over 9
or 10 years, she is in good company. We have all been part of it.
Virtually all of us have been part of it.
And this notion of defunding the police--do you honestly believe the
Fraternal Order of Police would be endorsing her if she wanted to
defund the police?
She made it clear, as others have too, that reallocation of funds for
law enforcement is just common sense. Putting a social worker in a
delicate situation, putting a psychologist in a delicate situation, may
spare a policeman a terrible choice that he has to make, and I think
most of us agree that it is common sense.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here to express my support for
the nomination of Vanita Gupta to serve as Associate Attorney General.
It is a little strange here on the floor today because under normal
circumstances I would talk about Ms. Gupta's exemplary record of
service and how she will excel as the third in command of the
Department of Justice and that she would be a consensus nominee. But
the extraordinary effort to scuttle her nomination on a partisan basis
in spite of her exemplary record asks some questions about what is
going on here.
Vanita Gupta is an accomplished lawyer with a record of working well
with just about everyone. When she was last at the Department, working
on really difficult issues like use-of-force guidelines for police, she
built solid relationships with law enforcement. So they have thrown
their full-throated support behind her nomination.
Here are the law enforcement agencies and leaders that are supporting
her: the Fraternal Order of Police; the Major County Sheriffs of
America; the International Association of Chiefs of Police; the Major
Cities Chiefs Association; the Police Executive Research Forum; the
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; the Hispanic American
Police Command Officers Association; NOBLE, the National Organization
of Black Law Enforcement Executives; and a whole array of distinguished
law enforcement leaders.
These are influential groups and respected individuals, and, for some
of my Republican colleagues, this kind of support from law enforcement
is literally unbelievable.
So here is what my colleague, the junior Senator from Arkansas, asked
Ms. Gupta about all these law enforcement endorsements during her
confirmation hearing: ``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?''
``No, Senator,'' she answered.
And she wasn't kidding. Law enforcement doesn't brook threats from
criminals, let alone Presidential candidates and executive nominees
seeking their endorsement.
And, indeed, they stood up to dispute that insinuation. Here is what
Jim Pasco, the executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police,
said in response:
I was kind of shocked by it. If [the Senator] really
suspects that, then he doesn't really know the law
enforcement organizations as well as he thinks he does, and
he certainly doesn't know Vanita Gupta as well as I know her.
Chuck Wexler is the head of the Police Executive Research Forum, and
here is how he responded:
Do you really think you can stand up to law enforcement and
threaten them? Do you really think that's going to work? We
never forgot that she stood with us when it mattered.
That is the reason for her support from law enforcement: She stood
with them when it mattered. And to say that she is such a radical and
so against law enforcement and disdains those who disagree with her--
which would presumably be law enforcement, if she is such an anti-law-
enforcement radical, as my colleagues suggest--is completely blown to
smithereens by their continued support for her--not disdain: ``She
stood with us when it mattered.''
So when that effort to blow her up exploded in their face, colleagues
went after an op-ed that she authored 9 years ago in which she
supported decriminalization and defelonization of simple possession of
small amounts of drugs. It could be read to say decriminalization of
marijuana--other drugs, small amounts.
Well, we know a lot today about substance abuse that we didn't know
then that people who have addictions require treatment and care, not
punishment and incarceration. That is no radical position. The idea
that you should not prosecute people for possession of small amounts is
the basis of drug courts.
I started the drug court in Rhode Island. It has been a roaring
success. It is the basis for diversion programs. As attorney general of
my State with full criminal jurisdiction in my State of Rhode Island,
we constantly did diversion of cases of possession of small amounts of
drugs--all kinds of drugs--
[[Page S1972]]
because they don't belong in the criminal justice system. They get
swept up, and you divert them out before prosecution.
This is nothing peculiar or unusual. This is the position of the
World Health Organization. This is the position of the Organization of
American States. This is the position of the International Red Cross.
Heck, even former Speaker Boehner supported decriminalization of simple
possession of some or all drugs.
So they had to get into rhetorical tricks to try to make the point
look different than it actually is. And Republicans repeatedly asked
her questions about that statement regarding small amounts with respect
to what they call here ``the legalization of `all drugs.''' In response
to that, she said:
I have never advocated for the legalization or
decriminalization of all drugs, and I do not support the
legalization or decriminalization of all drugs.
If I were to come up to you, Mr. President, and say ``Do you support
the legalization or decriminalization of all drugs?'' what will you
take that question to mean? It would seem to mean blanket
decriminalization or legalization of all drugs, not small amounts--all.
Well, they went on in this same vein. Here is a question for the
record from Senator Hawley describing Senator Cornyn's question
``whether you advocate decriminalization of all drugs.''
That is not what she advocated. What she advocated was
decriminalization of small amounts--consistent with diversion,
consistent with drug court activity, consistent with the way the
substance abuse and recovery community treats this issue, and
consistent with the position of all those organizations and many, many
more. This is the way we operate in law enforcement these days.
So then they try to focus in on the word ``never.'' Senator Cornyn,
who was speaking on the floor a moment ago, ominously said to me, the
most important word in that quote is ``never.'' As you can see, it is
simply a misrepresentation of what she said in 2012.
Well, you could also argue--``I have never advocated for the
decriminalization of all drugs.'' You could also argue that the key
word in that sentence isn't ``never''; it is ``all.'' That is the
subject of the sentence: ``all drugs.'' Kilos of cocaine, pounds of
methamphetamine--no. Small, simple possession amounts--that is the way
everybody treats drugs in law enforcement these days.
As lawyers, we know that it is important to get the question right,
and it is not unusual for lawyers to flub the question. When you are
asking a question in court and you flub the question, you often get an
answer you don't like, and the remedy for that is not to call the
witness who answered your question a liar. The remedy for that is to
get the question right in the first place. And if the question is
whether Vanita Gupta advocated decriminalization of all drugs, the
answer is, in fact, no because small amounts of simple possession is a
very different thing than ``all drugs.''
And now they are hanging this extraordinary rampart of invective--
liar, deliberate liar--all over getting an honest answer to a question
that they asked badly or, perhaps, worse yet, a trick question intended
to trip her up that she answered honestly.
So what is going on? Why are they going through this exercise? Well,
step back a little bit and look what is going on in our country. The
first thing that is going on is that there is a massive dark money
campaign for voter suppression. There is a guy named Leonard Leo who
ran the dark money campaign that pushed three Supreme Court Justices
onto the Court. The Washington Post reported that as a $250 million
effort--$250 million.
After the Washington Post article came out and Leonard Leo was blown
like a covert agent who suddenly is identified with all of this, he has
to get out. Where does he go? He goes to something called the Honest
Elections Project, which is the sister organization of a group called
the Judicial Crisis Network, which--guess what--is running ads against
Vanita Gupta.
They used to run ads for the Supreme Court nominees. They spent tens
of millions of dollars running ads against Garland, for Gorsuch, for
Kavanaugh, for Barrett--tens of millions of dollars. But with Biden in
the White House, nobody is listening to them any longer. They are not
getting their appointees through, so they moved to voter suppression.
And all that money and that same guy, Leonard Leo, are now lined up
behind voter suppression.
So you get dark money ads paid for by Judicial Crisis Network against
the third-ranking person in the Department of Justice? They are used to
going for the Supreme Court. They are going after the third-ranking
person at the Department of Justice. Why? Because it is voter
suppression--because she has been the head of the Civil Rights
Division, which prosecuted voter suppression. She knows that stuff. She
will supervise Kristen Clarke, whom you will hear a lot more nonsense
about from the other side, who will run the Civil Rights Division and
sue for voter suppression.
So what this is really about is the voter suppression project that
you see alive and well in the country from the Republican Party. There
are reports that say that every single legislative body in the country
controlled by Republicans is pushing voter suppression measures. I
don't know that it is true, but it sure looks like it is true. And if
not, it is darn close. It is a pattern. Wherever you go in the country,
Republicans in charge--boom--restrict the ballot.
They know people don't like what they stand for. They know people
can't stand the dark money forces behind ads like this. So the secret,
as my distinguished colleague Senator Warnock said: Some people don't
want some people to vote.
So the two women who will be overseeing the Department of Justice
voter suppression resistance, the legal fight against voter
suppression, the enforcement of the Civil Rights Act, are being
subjected to this treatment.
On this, I will stand with Ms. Gupta
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Daily Beast, Mar. 22, 2021]
How Right-Wing Dark Money Is Trying to Kneecap the Biden DOJ
(By Sheldon Whitehouse)
Someone is targeting Biden Justice Department nominees
Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke with attacks. Why? Both
nominees hold exceptional records as litigators and civils
rights activists. The respect they've earned extends beyond
the civil rights movement and progressives to law enforcement
and leading conservatives. They ought to be consensus picks.
But pull back the curtain, and strategy and motive take
shape. Gupta and Clarke are poised to use their skills to
defend Americans' right to vote, just as the Republican Party
is going all in on voter suppression as its path to political
victory in 2022.
Unraveling the strategy starts with the dark-money group
running the ads: the so-called Judicial Crisis Network (JCN).
This group's ordinary work has been to translate big donors'
money into political attack ads in the ``Court capture''
mission that set out to remake the Supreme Court to the
donors' advantage. JCN has placed more than 10,000 ads since
2012 in pursuit of that mission, and they've kept secret the
identity of those big donors.
In Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell's courtpacking machine,
this Judicial Crisis Network spent $7 million to oppose
President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, and
then spent another $10 million to boost Trump's nominee Neil
Gorsuch. JCN pledged $10 million or more for Brett
Kavanaugh's nomination. It spent $10 million in under two
months to support Amy Coney Barrett's bid. These campaigns
were funded with tens of millions of anonymous dollars,
primarily through four separate donations of at least $15
million. Those donations may well have been the same donor.
Eye-popping as that is, those millions are a tiny slice of
the funding behind the overall dark-money operation. A 2019
Washington Post investigation revealed JCN is one of a web of
front groups coordinated by Leonard Leo, the long-time
executive vice president of the Federalist Society.
The Post tracked more than $250 million in dark money
flowing through Leo's groups.
The groups see to the grooming and selection of reliable
nominees, the lobbyists needed to shepherd nominees through
confirmation, and the attack ads to motivate the confirmation
votes. Then, more groups lobby the selected judges through
amicus curiae briefs, signaling how their donors want the
judges to rule.
The dark-money network has won an avalanche of victories
for its donors. There are 80 partisan, 5-4 Supreme Court
decisions that limit workers' rights and access to
reproductive health care, erode environmental protections,
block commonsense gun safety laws, undermine civil rights,
and protect corporations from courtrooms. It is an astounding
80-0 rout for big right-wing donors.
[[Page S1973]]
After The Washington Post exposed the $250 million
operation, Leo stepped back from his Federalist Society role
and turned up at a new organization improbably named the
Honest Elections Project. This project began voter
suppression work in political swing states like Florida,
Nevada, Wisconsin, and Michigan that included: negative
ads against Democrats; threatening letters to election
officials challenging voter rolls; and a barrage of
lawsuits seeking voting restrictions for November's
election.
``Trump's cronies at the Justice Department showed dark-
money donors the value of a captive Department that would
look away from voter suppression schemes.''
The media soon uncovered that the Honest Elections Project
was a rebrand of the Judicial Education Project--which shared
connections, donors, and aims with its sister group--yes, the
Judicial Crisis Network. As a reporter for The Guardian
observed, the Honest Elections Project melds two goals of the
right-wing dark-money operation: first, pack the federal
judiciary; and second, bring voting rights cases before the
packed courts. Rigging elections through the courts is now a
Republican judicial priority.
This brings us back to Gupta and Clarke. Gupta once ran the
Civil Rights Division. She prosecuted hate crimes and human
trafficking, promoted disability and LGBTQ rights, and fought
discrimination in education, housing, employment, lending,
and religious exercise. But most important, she challenged
voter suppression. Gupta, if confirmed as assistant attorney
general, will supervise the Civil Rights Division she once
ran.
Accomplished civil rights attorney Clarke will fill Gupta's
former role running the Division and enforcing voting rights.
The Honest Elections Project, kin to the Judicial Crisis
Network, wants no part of these two women, because they will
be strong, motivated leaders against unlawful voter
suppression. They preferred Trump's Civil Rights Division,
which didn't bring one single Voting Rights Act case until
late May of 2020.
That's the motive. The donor-approved Republican appointees
to the Supreme Court may handcuff the Civil Rights Division
with further judicial assaults on voting rights. But Trump's
cronies at the Justice Department showed dark-money donors
the value of a captive Department that would look away from
voter suppression schemes. As Republicans hinge their
election strategy on keeping Americans from voting, an active
Civil Rights Division is a deadly threat.
I get it. If I were a right-wing special interest group,
the last thing I would want is these two experienced lawyers
wielding the power of the Justice Department to defend voting
rights. But for everybody else, these women are two
appointments to applaud.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The Senator from Tennessee
is recognized.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I find it so interesting that my
friend and colleague across the aisle is trying to deflect questions
and concerns that we have by insinuations and some pretty disgusting
slander, and I am sorry that we have listened to that here on the floor
of this Chamber.
Yes, indeed, I am coming to the floor today to oppose discharging
Vanita Gupta from this floor to be confirmed as the Associate Attorney
General. And, yes, I have concerns. I have had questions in committee.
I will tell you I didn't expect to find a lot in common with her
because I have had a difficult time finding a lot in common with some
of the nominees that President Biden has sent over to us at Judiciary
Committee. But as a member of that committee, it is my responsibility
to approach each nomination with an open mind. Some I have decided were
worthy of an ``aye'' vote. There are others, like Ms. Gupta, that I
feel are not worthy of a confirmation vote.
Over the course of the review of information--and to my friend, the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 11,000 pages of documents--you can
send in a million pages of documents, but if you are not answering the
question, if you are trying to circumvent the question or nuance it or
dance around it, it still doesn't answer the question. So the volume
doesn't really matter.
What matters is someone who steps up and says: Here is my answer--
clear, concise. That is what you want, and that is what the American
people expect.
I arrived at the opinion that, no, I didn't think she was fit to take
that No. 3 position, not because I disagreed politically but because
the answers that she gave on some specific issues--police funding, drug
legalization, qualified immunity--were so inconsistent with what she
had previously said or what she had previously written that no one can
say with any degree of certainty what she will do with the newfound
power if we decided to give that to her. No one knows what she would
do.
Due to the time constraints we have on the floor today, I want to go
back to the 2012 article and use that as one example. There has been
quite a bit said about that. Now, she was in the position of the ACLU's
deputy legal director. She wrote an op-ed arguing--and I quote, and we
have just heard a good bit about this--``States should decriminalize
simple possession of all drugs, particularly marijuana, and for small
amounts of other drugs.'' That is a quote.
Speaking as a Senator representing the interests of a State
struggling to emerge from the opioid epidemic, this statement to me is
a disqualifier. It is as simple as that.
Senator Cornyn added to that conversation with other specific items
that have transpired in her past. In her hearing, which took place in
March, Ms. Gupta almost got away with disavowing that op-ed. But when
we pressed her on it, what did she have to say? That her position had
evolved.
It seems there is an issue with some of these nominees that are
coming before us. They are going through these just in time, road to
Damascus, evolution processes. All of a sudden, they are evolving to a
position of something that they think the committee wants to hear, that
they think will help them skirt through, that they think will help them
get confirmed so that they can hold the power.
Ms. Gupta has also evolved on criminal justice reform, on the
fundamentals for that. And as we have discussed on this floor today,
the fact checkers have had a pretty good time with that. Back in March,
the Washington Post took her to task--Senator Cornyn talked about
this--her evolving position, her shifting views on defunding the
police, decriminalization of drugs. This is the Washington Post. This
is the Washington Post that gave her the unusual upside-down Pinocchio
because she was flip-flopping and evolving at such a rapid rate, they
couldn't keep up with it.
Madam President, everyone has the right and the opportunity to change
their mind. Absolutely, people have the right to change their mind, but
trying to follow the many changes of her mind on the issue of drug
crimes, on decriminalization, on defunding police--these are important
issues to our communities. These are not a game. These are very
important issues to the safety and security of our communities.
The number of inconsistencies in her testimony more than test the
boundaries of understanding. Is she still evolving? Is she going to
flip-flop, as the Washington Post says, back to her previous opinions
of 2012? Is she going to flip-flop again? Would we see that in the next
11,000 pages of documents that were submitted that she has decided to
change her mind one more time? From what standard is she going to work
at the Department of Justice?
Each of these are concerns. Each of these are reasons that my hope is
that this Chamber will refuse to discharge Vanita Gupta for a
confirmation vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, before my distinguished friend's
speech, I ask unanimous consent to have an article appended as an
exhibit to the remarks I gave earlier.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.