asian americans and pacific islanders. and the nomination vote of anita gupta after it was stalled in committee. a simple majority by the full senate would allow the nomination to move forward. we take you live now to the senate floor. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, you are wisdom without end,

mercy without limit, and strength beyond resistance. lord, we glorify your name today, lead our lawmakers around the obstacles that hinder them from accomplishing your purposes. lord, guide them around the stumbling blocks of resentment, pessimism, and unbelief that impede legislative effectiveness help our senators to live to honor you. fill their hours with your redeeming radiance and their hearts with your peace.

may they work to advance the influence of your kingdom. we pray in your loving name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c, april 15, 2021. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jacky rosen, a senator from the state of nevada, to perform the duties of the chair.

signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore.

mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: yesterday, an overwhelming bipartisan majority of senators voted to move forward on senator hirono and senator duckworth's anti-asian hate crimes bill. i was pleased the vote was so substantial, 92-6. rarely do you see 92 senators agree to move forward with any piece of legislation, but if there was ever a topic that deserves a strong showing of bipartisan support, it's standing up to bigotry and racism against a particular group of americans. today, we will continue to work on a bipartisan agreement regarding amendments. i have committed to start the

process with the bipartisan moran-blumenthal amendment. i understand my republican colleague from maine has some modifications to the bill, which we welcome, and those negotiations are proceeding afoot. i expect the republican leader and i, in consultation with the relevant committees, will be able to figure out an appropriate number of reasonable, germane, non-gotcha amendments for the senate to consider. we are working with senators moran and grassley and collins in a very bipartisan way, and we should be able to wrap up this bill next week. by doing so, the senate will deliver a powerful message to asian americans that their voices are heard, their concerns are felt, and that their government will take swift, decisive action to protect them. they are not alone. before i move on, i just want to say to my republican colleagues, this is how the senate can work, even though it's closely

divided. when there is a pressing issue like the rising tide of anti-asian violence, the senate cannot quickly and in a -- came out quickly in a bipartisan way to address it. we don't need to always distrust the other party. this bill was never intended to be a messaging bill or gotcha legislation. this bill is like a drive straight down the middle of the fairway, well-timed, modest, unobjectionable. at the end of the day, we can achieve a result that has both substantive and symbolic importance, substantive because we're going to adjust the focus of the justice department to better respond to anti-asian hate crimes, and symbolic because both parties are standing up to deliver a message that racism and bigotry have no place, no place in america. that's an undeniably good result. on another, less happy, matter, this afternoon, the senate will

need to go through a rare procedure to discharge a nomination from the judiciary committee. miss venita gupta to serve as associate attorney general. the daughter of immigrants from india, miss gupta is the first woman of color to ever be nominated for associate attorney general, the third-ranking official at the department of justice. her public track record is nothing short of exemplary. in her very first case after law school, miss gupta won the release of several african americans who had been wrongly convicted by all-white jurors in texas. clients who eventually won a pardon from texas governor rick perry. she continued her work at the aclu where she launched a bipartisan criminal justice reform effort before going on to lead the civil rights division of the justice department under president obama. despite her sterling credentials, some of my republican colleagues on the judiciary committee would have you believe that miss gupta is

some hair-raising left-wing radical. in her hearing, miss gupta was unfortunately subjected to a mind-numbing repetitious line of questioning about whether or not she supports the police or wants to decriminalize all drugs. a conservative judicial organization launched a national ad campaign to smear her nomination. it was disgraceful. just yesterday, a republican senator on the judiciary committee grilled another d.o.j. nominee, kirsten clarke, over an obviously satirical piece she published for her college newspaper. the political rights seems to relish in trying to score political points by connecting every justice department nominee to hot-button partisan issues, whether or not they have any relevance. sometimes to the point of absurdity. and in the case of miss gupta, the accusations of radicalism are especially false.

miss gupta has worked with stakeholders and legislators from all corners, including a number of republican senators during various criminal justice reform efforts. she has been endorsed by -- listen to this -- the national fraternal order of police. let me repeat that so my colleagues hear it. she has been endorsed by the national fraternal order of police as well as the international association of chiefs of police, the federal law enforcement association, and the national sheriff's association. making the decrying that she is a crazy left-wing radical just absurd, and you wonder how and why they come to that conclusion. venita gupta will make an outstanding associate attorney general. the senate should discharge her nomination from the judiciary committee this afternoon. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: time and again, prominent democrats show they are no longer content to work within the ground rules and norms of our institutions, but prefer to threaten the institutions themselves. we have seen it in presidential elections when democrats say our democracy is sacrosanct, when they win, but illegitimate and broken if republicans win. we have seen it with the senate's rules that democrats just spent four years not only

praising but using the legislative filibuster, but now that they hold the majority, they say it's actually been interrapinsicly evil -- interrapinsically evil all along and must be scrapped. we're seeing it now with voting regulations where the mere fact that sometimes republicans win elections has democrats wanting to rewrite all 50 states' election laws right here in washington and turn the federal election commission into a partisan body. and then there is the judiciary. in recent years, we have seen the democratic leader stand on the steps of the court and threaten that specific justice's, quote, won't know what hit them if they didn't rule the way he wanted. we have seen a number of democratic senators send a threatening brief suggesting the court might need to be, quote, restructured, end quote, if its rulings upset liberals. last week, president biden, who

was marketed to the country as a moderate, and an institutionalist, jumped in with both feet. he set up a pseudoacademic commission to study the merits of packing the supreme court. just an attempt to clothe this transparent power play in fake legitimacy. but alas, the far left cannot even wait for the fake theatrics of the fake study to play out. today democrats in the senate and the house have announced they will once again threaten judicial independence from the steps of the court. they are introducing a bill to add four new seats to the supreme court so that democrats can pack the court, destroy its legitimacy, and guarantee the rulings that liberals want. across the ideological spectrum, top jurists have been outspoken on what a terrible idea court

packing would be. the late liberal icon ruth bader ginsburg explicitly warned against court packing, saying, quote, if anything would make the court appear partisan, it would be that. nine seems to be a good number. justice ginsburg. justice steven breyer reaffirmed his own opposition just last week. the public, by the way, agrees. they see through this discredited concept. one survey late last year showed that a clear majority of americans oppose packing the supreme court, but the farthest left activists aren't interested in a common good. they want power. and the same democrats and the same corporate media that spent the last four years hyperventilating and declaring a new constitutional crisis was under way every 30 seconds seemed to be perfectly content to play along. now, if republicans had introduced a bill to add four

supreme court seats for the last president to fill, there would have been weeks of wall-to-wall outrage on every newspaper and cable tv channel, nonstop. now it seems the main strategies are either to shrug off and look the other way or to actively play along and somehow lend credence. it's not just about whether this insane bill becomes law. part of the point here are the threats themselves. the left wants a sword dangling over the justices when they weigh the facts in every case. as the democrat leader threatened just two years ago, democrats want the justices to know that they will, quote, pay the price, end quote, for rulings that democrats don't like. the left won't see swords dangling over the senate and state legislatures and

independent judges. the threats are the point. the hostage taking is the point. and responsible people across the political spectrum have an absolute duty to denounce this. now on an entirely different matter, madam president, colleagues in congress and my fellow kentuckians were heart heartbroken last june when our dear friend carol levelbar suddenly and unexpectedly passed away. she left behind two beautiful young daughters and husband, congressman andy barr. she was only 39 years old. since then we learned that her fatal heart attack was part of a condition called mitrovalve prolapse. she was diagnosed at a young

age. she lived with many years with no apparent symptoms. tragically it only took an instant for her condition to turn deadly. approximately 25,000 americans each year lose their lives from this half valve disease -- heart valve disease. her passing deprived the barr family from a wife and mother. one of the troubling aspects of the syndrome is just how much we still don't know. so congressman barr is taking action. he introduced the cardiovascular advances in research opportunities legacy act, the carol act, it would encourage new research in valvular heart disease, help us better understand the risk and bring together top experts to identify potential treatments. with this legislation, we can help prevent more families from enduring this tragedy. more than 120 how colleagues

have cosponsored the carol act. so today i'm proud to introduce the carol act here in the senate. i'm grateful to founding fatherser in with -- i'm grateful to partner with senator sin. ms. sinema: -- sinema. mr. mcconnell: i look forward to its passage. now, madam president, on one final matter. over the years a lot of talented kentuckians have joined my team at the start of their careers. i've gotten to watch them hone their skills and grow into real leaders. unfortunately the privilege of working with ultra talented young people means that you see a real all star fly the nest and today i have to offer a reluctant good-bye. katelyn connor bunning joined my

office almost 11 years. shows done just about every job there is from answering phones to mastering policy issues. i have relied on her extensively as my legislative director. she's been a key advisor to me, a role model to junior staffers, a key link between my leadership office and my kentucky-focused staff. who better to deliver for the commonwealth than a former mr. kentucky basketball. along the way, some of the trickiest issues facing the bluegrass landed on katelyn's dresk, securing pensions and health care, revitalizing abandoned coal fields, strengthening kentucky schools and helping students succeed, delivering certainty for kentucky farmers while opening new doors for industrial hemp and raising the minimum tobacco purchase age to 21.

last year i asked katelyn to take charge of improving safety standards in the thoroughbred industry even as there were calls to end the sport all together, katelyn joined breeders, owners, and fans to preserve kentucky's significant industry. this is a long list of accomplishments, yet it is only a short summary of katelyn's impact on my team and our commonwealth. she set very high standards. she helped everyone achieve them. we're certainly going to miss her around here, but i'm sure her husband eric and their new daughter alice are looking forward to seeing a bit more of her every day. so, katelyn -- katelyn, thank you for your ability, for your friendship. i wish you and your family all the best. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership

time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 937, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to s. 937, a bill to facilitate the expedited review of covid-19 hate kriels and for other purpose -- crimes and for other purposes. blument -- mr. blumenthal: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, madam

president. i feel privileged to speak on behalf of vanita gupta, a dedicated public servant who is devoted -- deeply voted to equal justice, civil rights and the rule of law. i've seen first hand, and i know i'm not the only one who has done so. her consummate dedication to the integrity of the department of justice, which is so vital to be restored at this moment in our history. the support for her reflects a broad professionally and ideologically diverse coalition of individuals and organizations that know that she is eminently qualified to be associate attorney general. when she is confirmed, she will

not only be the first civil rights lawyer, but also the first woman of color to serve as associate attorney general. she is, in effect, the leader we need in that position now. and we need it right now. the attorney general needs her right now. he has said so and we should be proud to confirm this eminently qualified woman. her's the character that the department of justice requires to restore trust and credibility. now, the fact is that she has been a target of a smear campaign, a vial and despicable campaign of lies and deception

that are completely unfounded. she attacks are based on demons strabl lies. she enforces the law with integrity and honesty, with balance and insight. she has a proven record as a consensus builder and as a leader and her work with law enforcement is the reason why she has such support among law enforcement leaders. and that support is -- is across party lines. every major law enforcement agency refers and supports her nomination. try as they might, unfortunately, our republican colleagues continue to smear

her. she has never -- she has never called for defunding the police. she has never said many of the lies that are attributed to her. and even more than being unfounded, she's attacks are really the hype of hypocrisy. it is unconscionable that republicans would criticize this lifelong public servant and justice department veteran after they silently sat by when there was no senate-confirmed associate attorney general for nearly three years during the trump administration. the outrage that they feign should fall on deaf ears. and our moment of reckoning is soon. it is not just our moment of

reckoning, it is a moment of reckoning for the nation because in the last year we have faced a global pandemic, we've grappled with racial justice issues that have been ignored for too long and we defended against an onslaught of hate and extremism. we're at a pivotal moment. we urgently need her kind of leadership to combat domestic terrorism, extremist violence, and hate crimes. in fact, we are in the midst right now of considering a measure that will help combat hate crimes, including my no hate legislation. we know hate crimes are surging and asian american and pacific islander have been the target of them, particularly the alarming

waive -- wave of attacks most recently. vanita gupta has been a leader in the fight against hate crimes. as the head of the civil rights division, she was the nation's chief civil rights enforcer and prosecutor and while leading that division, she also headed the first prosecutions of matthew shepherd -- under the matthew shepherd and james byrd hate crimes enactment, including crimes motivated by a victim's sexual orientation, crimes motivated by who a person loved. during her confirmation hearing, she committed to using the department of justice tools to investigate and investigate and

prosecute hate crimes where they happened and use its bully pulpit to prevent hate from festering around the country. the plain truth is that vanita gupta is the right person at the right time for this job. the senate should confirm her as supremely qualified for this eminently important assignment and it should do so swiftly with bipartisan support. thank you, madam president, i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: 1

mr. thune: madam president. the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. thune: madam president, is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. thune: i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: madam president, i'm feeling a sense of deja vu this morning. in march, democrats used reconciliation to pass a massive partisan bill that served as a cover for a collection of payoff to democrat interest groups and democrat states. now just over a month later, we're facing the prospect of

round two. democrats are once again looking at reconciliation to pass a massive partisan piece of legislation that serves to cover a long wish list of liberal priorities. the subject this time of course is infrastructure. like covid relief, a subject that republicans are very ready to tackle. but just like with their covid bill, democrats aren't showing a lot of interest in bipartisan cooperation. once again their message seems to be, go along with everything we want or be completely excluded from any part of the bill. madam president, as i said, republicans would be happy to take up infrastructure legislation. our nation is overdue for additional infrastructure investment. but an infrastructure bill should be focused on actual infrastructure -- roads,

bridges, airports, waterways, digital infrastructure like broadband. democrats have some of that in their bill, but they also have been very busy expanding the definition of infrastructure to include a whole host of democrat priorities. one democrat senator tweeted, and i quote, paid leave is infrastructure, child care is infrastructure, care-giving is infrastructure, end quote. well, actually, madam president, no, they are not. neither is the civilian climate corps or community colleges or support for big labor. none of those things are infrastructure, madam president. now it may be that some -- and i say some -- of democrats non-infrastructure proposals are things that we should have a

discussion about here in congress, a bipartisan discussion, but they are not infrastructure. they don't belong in an infrastructure bill. and democrats should stop rewriting the definition of infrastructure to suit their purposes. the word infrastructure is not in fact anything that democrats say it is. infrastructure has an actual meaning, and it's not child care or assistance for unions. even democrats' actual infrastructure spending is frequently problematic. democrats' infrastructure proposal would cost $2.2 trillion, less than 6% of that -- less than 6%, madam president -- would be spent on roads and bridges. under the democrats' plan, spending on electric vehicle

promotion would exceed investments in roads, bridges, ports, and waterways combined. that includes tax credits and rebates for electric vehicles, measures that will primarily benefit wealthier car buyers and leave rural states like south dakota where electric vehicles remain impractical, behind. the bill also includes a massive sum for transit and high-speed rail, substantially more than the bill spends on highways, roads, and bridges, despite americans' limited interest in rail travel. on the tax front, speaker pelosi has expressed her interest in including a lifting of the current cap on state and local tax deductions. now this one's really interesting, madam president. it's a very interesting priority for democrats. considering that repealing the salt deduction would mostly

benefit wealthy taxpayers, including that evil 1% the democrats are always talking about. but i guess sometimes principle has to take a back seat to keeping democrat donors happy. and while we're talking about taxes, let's talk about how democrats plan to at least partially -- and i say partially because a lot this would go on the debt -- partially pay for this bill. democrats would like to partially pay for this legislation with the largest corporate tax increase in a generation. they would sharply increase the corporate tax rate, once again putting american companies at a disadvantage next to their foreign competitors and threatening american jobs and wages. it's pretty hard to think of any worse proposal right now with our economy still trying to recover from the effects of the

pandemic. and what in effect you are doing, madam president, when you are taxing -- raising taxes dramatically. when i say raising taxes dramatically, i'm talking the largest or highest tax rate in the developed world. we will be leading the oecd when it comes to taxation of businesses if the democrats get their way and raise the tax rate on businesses from 21% to 28%, which you -- what you're doing n you do that is not punishing some corporation. it is punishing workers who work for those companies, madam president. this is about jobs. it's fundamentally about jobs. they raise taxes on businesses, it hurts jobs. now, madam president, there is a history of bipartisan collaboration on infrastructure legislation. our last major transportation infrastructure bill, the fast act, was supported by both

democrats and republicans, and it was a remarkably successful bill. last congress the environment and public works committee here in the senate developed bipartisan transportation infrastructure legislation. there is absolutely no reason, no reason, madam president, why we couldn't replicate past bipartisan success in this congress. the word is that next week the democratic leader is going to bring up a bipartisan water infrastructure bill that recently passed the senate environment and public works committee unanimously. i hope he will. that should be a model for a larger infrastructure bill. not the partisan process that democrats embraced with their covid legislation. not the partisan wasteful proposal full of non-infrastructure-related measures the democrats have put

forward. madam president, i saw an op-ed the other day that pointed out, and i quote, president biden promised to usher in a golden age of bipartisan cooperation, but instead he is showing a reverse midas touch taking issues that once united republicans and democrats and making them partisan and divisive, end quote. sad but true, madam president. but the president has a chance to turn that around with infrastructure. it's not too late for democrats and the president to sit down at the table with republicans and develop a substantial bipartisan proposal that would address our country's infrastructure needs without spending taxpayer dollars on wasteful or extraneous proposals. i'm encouraged that president biden is meeting with republicans on infrastructure

legislation, but i hope, madam president, that these meetings are not just for show. the president, as we all recall, met with republicans on covid legislation too before rejecting bipartisan cooperation. let's hope he will choose a different path this time. it is not too late for the president to start fulfilling his inauguration promise of unity and bipartisanship. he should start with this infrastructure bill. madam president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: i ask unanimous consent that we -- we end our quorum call.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. president. mr. kennedy: mr. president, i want to talk a little bit today about a subject that i've struggled with in terms of how to address, and i'm going to finish my remarks by offering a bill up for the senate's consideration. mr. president, i know you are aware of all of this but we can't live without glucose.

glucose fuels our cells and, of course our cells make up our muscles and our tissues and our organs. and we can't live without insulin. insulin is a hormone that regulates the amount of glucose in our blood. thankfully for most people their pancreas produces insulin naturally, but it's just an undeniable fact without insulin, without glucose, you're dead. unfortunately, as you know, mr. president, sometimes our pancreas does not create insulin or doesn't create enough insulin or creates it erratically and

that condition, of course, is called diabetes. thankfully a00 years ago in -- 100 years ago in 1920, a canadian physician and scientist, he invented a synthetic form of insulin to help people whose pancreas could not produce the hormone. he won a noble prize for it. it was extraordinary. and he -- he was so committed to helping humanity that he and his other colleagues who had patents on this synthetic insulin, they sold their insulin patents for $1 -- one buck. they wanted to make sure that insulin was affordable. god bless them.

today 34.2 million americans have diabetes. now, not all people who have diabetes need insulin, but of that 34.2 million people, 7.4 million people need synthetic insulin, otherwise they are dead men. they are dead. 88 million americans have what we call prediabetes. that mean they are just a hair away from having full-blown diabetes. it's a problem in louisiana, mr. president, as i'm sure it might be in colorado. louisiana has about 500,000 people with diabetes. most of whom need insulin. that's 12% of my population. now, here, mr. president, is where the story becomes dark. three pharmaceutical companies have a monopoly on synthetic

insulin. these three companies control about 90% of the global supply of insulin. diabetes is certainly not unique to americans. and these three pharmaceutical companies control almost -- well, virtually 100% of the united states market. their cost, as best i can tell -- you might be surprised to learn, mr. president, that a lot of the cost of these pharmaceutical drugs, and that's what synthetic insulin is. some call it a biologic. but the cost, as best as i can tell to produce a vial of insulin is about $10 in today's dollars. there is no viable generic. you've got to buy a brand name from one of the three companies. now, the cost of synthetic insulin has increased fairly

recently very dramatically. the average list price for insulin tripled -- tripled from 2002 to 2013 and then from 2013 to 2016, it doubled again. in the last ten years the out-of-pocket cost -- because many people have insurance, not everyone, but many people have insurance -- in the last ten years the out-of-pocket cost for insulin for the average patient has doubled. and most diabetes patients, to give you some context, require two, quite often three vials a month. let me -- let me try to get out of the conceptual and be specific. one type of insulin -- i don't

just mean to single it out, but it's called humalog, it was released in 1996. its price since 1996 cost about ten bucks to make it per vial, has increased 1,700%. it's gone from $21 a vial to $375 a vial. now that same vial in canada costs -- it costs $375 here, it costs about $50 in canada. and, remember, you need three vials, sometimes two, hopefully, a month to live -- to survive. so if you use three vials a month at $375 a crack, the cost has gone from $750 a year in

1996 to $13,500 a year. and nothing's changed about the insulin. this insulin is 100 years old. that of course is the list price. as we know, many people have insurance and there are all sorts of insurance plans with differing amounts of deductions and differing amounts of copays. but i think a recent report by the health cost institute is instructive. it found that the average american with type one diabetes who needs insulin has out-of-pocket insulin costs every year of about $6,000. that's every year. and you'll not be surprised to learn, mr. president, as a result of that, about one in four americans have to ration their insulin. they don't take their full doses

to make it last longer. now, i have a bill, mr. president. it's called ending pricey -- ending the pricey insulation act. how may staff comes up with these names. i can hardly say that. it's try to lower the cost of insulin. it's going to cap out-of-pocket costs if this bill in its wisdom passes the senate. it's going to cap the cost at 50 bucks for a 0-day -- for a 30-day supply. it's going to cap the cost for people who have insurance. it's going to cap the cost for people who have medicare. it's going to cap the cost for people who have medicaid. and it's going to cap the cost

for people who don't have anything. no insurance whatsoever. it's going to cover high deductible health plans. it's going to cover the chip program. it's going to cover veterans health plans. it's going to cover tricare. it's going to cover everybody. maximum out-of-pocket costs per month $50. this plan is going to take effect for -- this bill would take effect for plan year 2022. health plans, as you know, mr. president, set their rates six to nine months in advance. soy want to give them fair warning here. so that my bill provides the workable runway for the insurance plans to comply. but the bill does include a retro active clause that ensures any out-of-pocket costs above 50 bucks that a person pays after enactment will be reimbursed.

the bill is only five pages long. i don't think it's complicated to fix this problem. now, i really struggle with whether to offer this bill, mr. president. and let me say first, i'm not trying to pick on our pharmaceutical drug companies. what they've done in the last year is nothing short of miraculous. it's -- to me it's just evidence that american and human ingenuity can never be underestimated. and it's extraordinary what the private sector can accomplish when government gets out of the way. i'm talking of course about the coronavirus vaccines. i happen to have two brothers who are physicians. and i called both of them right after the coronavirus was determined to be the coronavirus and said how long for a vaccine. they all said minimum two years, probably three or four.

the pharmaceutical drug industry did it in less than a year and god bless them. i don't mean to criticize. i understand they have research costs. and i understand they have marketing costs. and i certainly understand that the health insurance delivery system and the market itself is opaque. god, you know, how did we design such a system? i yearn for the day, we all do, when we have a health care delivery system for pharmaceutical drugs. it looks like somebody designed it on purpose. i've spent a lot of time -- i certainly don't pretend to be an expert -- but researching the problems of the cost of insulin. but everybody blames everybody else. the pharmaceutical companies blame the p.p.b.'s. the p.p.b.'s blame the insurance companies. they blame each other. some blame the doctors.

some of them blame the patients for whining. at some point you say gosh, you know, why -- it's almost as if you're intentionally making it opaque. and that's a big part of our health insurance market problem. i was reading an article the other day on a slightly different subject. as you know, the trump administration issued an executive order saying hospitals have to post their prices. and the hospital sued and the government won. so now the hospitals have to post their prices. "the wall street journal" did a very interesting investigative piece. it really was a fine piece of work in this post-journalism pay to play world we live in. it looks at the website of all

the major hospitals of the united states. it found i think -- i don't remember the number -- but over a hundred that had implemented or put it on their website software so their posted prices for their services that they offer which the executive order required was there on the website. you just couldn't see it. consumers couldn't find it. and those that could find it had to go through about ten different layers to get to it. and when "the wall street journal" contacted the hospitals, they said whoops, it's just a software mistake. we'll get it fixed. so the market is opaque. and, look, some of my colleagues are going to oppose this bill. i understand their point of view saying kennedy, this is price-fixing. we thought you were a free market guy. i am. i am. i don't want to have to do this. but we have been talking about this problem for years. and it just keeps getting worse

and worse and worse. and i think the members of the united states senate, the most interesting group of people i've ever been around, are intelligent enough to understand nuance. they understand that this is price-fixing, but they also understand that this argument well, you're going down a slippery slope. no, we're not. there's nothing in this bill that says we have to go down a slippery slope. i think most fair-minded people understand that insulin as a biologic, as a pharmaceutical drug is unique. we're not talking about a drug that the pharmaceutical industries have spent billions of dollars developing taking on an extraordinary risk. this is a product that's been around since 1920. it's sirteually unchanged -- virtually unchanged. it costs ten bucks a vial to

produce. there's virtually no risk, none whatsoever. it hasn't changed much in a hundred years. and people have to have it. the costs have been recooped long ago. i'm not accusing anybody of anything. but i think a big part of the problem is the fact that three companies have a monopoly. and there is no generic because some people engage in what is called evergreening which is a very clever way devised by the patent lawyers to keep patents from ever running out. and i'm just tired of us holding hearings and issuing press releases and talking to the press about it and then doing nothing.

and i just say i'm going to end because i know senator crapo has something he wants to say. and i want to hear him. i really struggle with this. i guess i am being inconsistent because i do believe in the free market. i don't believe in having government set prices. but i don't know what else to do. and i don't think we're going down a slippery slope. insulin is unique. we've got -- we've all got good pairs of l.l. bean and other boots to keep us from going down that slippery slope. there's nothing that's -- no law that says the united states can't -- the senate can't consider issues on an ad hoc basis. senators understand nuance. and in any event, i'd rather be right than consistent. so for that reason, mr. president, i ask unanimous

consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 1132 introduced earlier today. i ask unanimous consent that the bill be railroaded read a third time and passed and i ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator -- a senator: reserving the right to object. first of all i want to respond to senator kennedy. the first thing i want to say, senator kennedy, is i'm impressed you did this in only five pages. i wish we could all learn to write our legislation in five pages or less. mr. crapo: and i don't disagree with the history senator kennedy went through with his declaration, his powerful declaration that this is a critical issue that we must deal

with. and i don't disagree with the fact that we've got to have some serious pressure built here in the united states congress to get this over the finish line. that being said, what senator kennedy is asking us to do -- and i think we just got this language last night. what senator kennedy is asking us to do today is to bypass the committee and go immediately to the floor with his language. and there are several reasons why i'm going to ultimately have to object to that. the first is that he's correct. i and a number of my colleagues who would be here if i weren't standing here have a real problem with the solution, the mechanism that senator kennedy has chosen. outright price-fixing. and senator kennedy doesn't even try to deny that. going beyond just imposing government regulatory price controls in government-run

programs but through the private market as well. and that is a solution mechanism that i'm -- i've opposed and many of my colleagues oppose in terms of dealing with this issue. and for that reason -- that's one of the key reasons for my objection. the other one is, though, that the committee, the finance committee on which i'm the ranking member is working on this. and i know that that's not an answer because the finance committee has been working on this now for a year or two or more. but there is work under way in a number of different arenas to try to get a handle on how to solve this without having to take the drastic step of just having the government come in and take control of a private sector market. and i'll just point, for example, to what happened under the trump administration in just the last couple of years.

through the trump administration's effort to try to deal with this, a demonstration project has been operating in which under medicare part d in which the effort was to try to get the monthly cost of insulin down to $35 a month. and they had some success in that program to demonstrate how it can be accomplished. now, look, i get that medicare part d is different than private sector insurance and it's different than medicaid and it's different than other pieces of our health care system. it's different than chips. but in one sector, a pretty significant sector, we've got some solutions that are starting to show real potential. in addition, as senator kennedy knows, i've drafted legislation in the last congress and have -- and i'm working on that legislation in this congress that will deal not just with insulin but with many different other pieces of drug pricing in our system.

and i can tell you that senator wyden, my counterpart on the democrat side in the finance committee himself has been working on his own ideas, and he and i have been working hard to prioritize this to get to a solution in the committee. and i know -- i talked to senator wyden just before i came to the floor. senator wyden and i both welcome the opportunity, senator kennedy, to work with you as we try to put together that bipartisan solution. i know that there would be other senators on the other side of this issue who would stand here if i weren't today saying they don't like this solution because they want it to go further in the other direction. they want to see a complete government tak takeover of the entire market and move to a single-payer system and that single payer being the government. that's another thing some of our side have been working hard not to have happen. there's a lot of political controversy over what the mechanism must be. that's the primary reason why i

want this be to able to be worked on in the committee in the proper way that we manage legislation in the senate and i commit to you, senator kennedy, that you can be as engaged as you want to be with this as we move forward. it's not time right now to come and bypass that whole process. i think senator kennedy would probably make a very powerful rejoinedder. we've heard we're working on it a lot and we need now to get to the point where we put solutions here on the floor for the entire senate to consider, but today is not the day to do it by a unanimous consent request. for that purpose, mr. president, i do object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: mr. president, my colleague, the senator from idaho, knows how much i respect him and i certainly appreciate the invitation to work with him

and his committee, and i intend to do that. and i know that the senator didn't say this, but i don't believe in government-run health care. but we have a discreet problem here in a very unique situation that can be addressed. this is not a biologic that, as the senator recalls, cost hundreds of billions of dollars to develop. this is insulin, and lot of americans need it or they will die. and there is a monopoly, and there are efforts that have been made to maintain that monopoly. and my people in louisiana -- i know the people from idaho, many them, feel the same way. that's why they applaud senator crapo's efforts, but they're

hurting. you can die without insulin. you can die, and it costs $10 a vial to make, and it's been around 100 years, and now it costs $375, and all you got to do is walk across the border into canada, and you can buy it for $50, and the market is many manipulated. -- is being manipulated. and i know it's complicated. i understand politics. i've been appeared it a good portion of my -- and i've around it a good portion of my life. we need to stop talking about it, strutting around, issuing press releases and doing nothing. i don't want a price fix. i don't. and it makes me real uncomfortable to be proposing this. but i don't know what else to do. there comes a point where

patience -- where patience ceases to be a virtue. and here's what i know. i mean, the built has been objected to. -- the bill has been objected to. i appreciate it. you pass a bill like this or a similar bill like this, you're going to see a solution pretty fast, mr. president. you're going to see a solution real fast. you're going to see some -- this opaque market react with new energy. they're going to be running around like hounds from hell trying to keep this from becoming a law. that's why we need it. i thank the presiding officer for his attention, and i thank my colleague for his eloquent remarks. i suggest the absence of a

quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, all ppostcloture time is expired and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: calendar number 13, s. 937, a bill to facilitate the expedited review of covid-19 hate crimes and for other purposes. mr. schumer: mr. president? , i have nine requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate.

they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. schumer: mr. president, i move to proceed to executive session. and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: is sta

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are 45. the motion is agreed to. the majority leader. mr. schumer: mr. president.

mr. president, pursuant to senate resolution 27, the judiciary committee being tied on the question of reporting, i move to discharge the senate judiciary committee from further consideration of the nomination of vanita gupta of virginia to be associate attorney general. the presiding officer: under the provisions of s. res. 27, there will be now up to four hours of debate on the motion equally divided between the two leaders or their designees with no motions, points of order, or amendments in order. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president.

mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. durbin: i would like to ask the chair for clarification. it is my understanding there are four hours of debate, evenly divided between the democrats and republicans on the charge petition? the presiding officer: yes, between the leaders or their designees. mr. durbin: and either side can yield back? the presiding officer: that's correct. mr. durbin: let me be the first to rise today on our side and say that i am in strong support of the nomination of vanita gupta to be the associate attorney general. the justice department has not

had a senate-confirmed associate attorney general in over three years because president trump never put forward a nominee. the number three position in the department of justice has been virtually vacant of a senate-confirmed nominee for three years. that position, by definition, oversees the department's civil litigation components. this is no small deal. it's a big deal. the department of justice needs and deserves to have full leadership in place. vanita gupta will be the first woman of color and the very first civil rights attorney to serve as associate attorney general. this historic nominee is also exceptionally well qualified. she is a veteran of the justice department. she has a proven record of working across political and ideological lines to uphold the rules of law in a nonpartisan

fashion. i don't believe president biden could have picked a better nominee. vanita gupta first joined the justice department shortly after the shooting death of michael brown by a police officer in ferguson, missouri. i remember it. i'm sure many of my colleagues do as well. it was a difficult moment for many. as the head of the department's civil rights division, ms. gupta worked closely with all of the stakeholders involved in police reform. community leaders, civil rights leaders, and law enforcement. not only did ms. gupta implement meaningful reforms in ferguson, missouri, and other cities, but she did so by helping to repair the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve. can you think of a better qualification at this moment in time in our history? sadly, in recent days, our nation has been rocked by controversial police shootings. vanita gupta is exactly the type

of person we need at the justice department at this very moment. one strong piece of evidence is the incredibly broad range of support her nomination has received. when you say the word civil rights lawyer, you say oh, way off on the left. i will bet she is out of touch with reality. not so. it's not just the civil rights groups that support her. her nomination has the support of virtually every major law enforcement organization in the country. i want to repeat that, because in the ensuing several hours when we will discuss the discharge of her nomination, there will be assertions made which do not acknowledge the obvious. vanita gupta has the support of virtually every major law enforcement organization in the country, including the fraternal order of police, the national sheriff's association, the major cities chiefs association, and the international association of chiefs of police, just to name a

few. i can read numerous quotes from law enforcement groups praising ms. gupta. i'm going to read one. in a letter to the senate, david mahoney, president of the national sheriff's association, here's what he said. i strongly believe that ms. gupta is exactly the type of leader needed in the justice department today. she possesses immense credibility among law enforcement leaders and community leaders. immense credibility. with both law enforcement and community leaders. isn't that exactly the type of person we need in the department of justice at this moment in history? it comes as no surprise when you look back on her background. throughout her career, ms. gupta has worked across the partisan divide, forming broad coalitions to get things done when people said it was impossible. a great example of this is criminal justice reform. over a number of years, vanita gupta partnered with numerous

conservatives, certifiable reported conservative. let me give you a couple of names. grover norquist. mark holden. the former general counsel of koch industries. these efforts helped lay the groundwork for the passage of the first step act, a bill which i worked on with senator grassley, senator lee, senator whitehouse, senator cornyn, a number of democrats, cory booker included. we put together a bipartisan bill signed into law by the president of the united states. vanita gupta was part of that effort. she knew how to put republicans and democrats at the table and come up with a reasonable compromise. isn't that exactly what we need at this moment in history? the judiciary committee has received so many letters from republicans supporting ms. gupta's nomination, i only have time to scratch the

surface. former republican congressman tom coleman who i served with in the house put it very well. you see, he represented missouri's sixth congressional district for 16 years. he understood the challenge of ferguson, and he understands the record of vanita gupta. here's what he wrote. ms. gupta is a person who seeks the common good without concern for partisan gamesmanship. he added i urge you, my former colleagues, to recognize the truth with respect to vanita gupta. she is an ideal public servant. she possesses wisdom and ability to work across partisan lines. ms. gupta has spent her career fighting to uphold the rule of law. almost always on behalf of those who had little power or little money. in her previous tenure at the justice department, vanita gupta undertook critically important work. in addition to police reform, she led efforts to prosecute human trafficking, combat rouge discrimination, and protect the

rights of service members to ensure that they didn't have to be worried about being taken advantage of financially while they were protecting our nation. more recently, during her tenure at the leadership council conference on civil and human rights, ms. gupta led initiatives on voting rights, criminal justice reform, and the census. ms. gupta began her career as a civil rights lawyer with the naacp legal defense fund and educational fund. one of the first matters she worked on as a young attorney involved nearly 40 wrongfully convicted individuals in the small town of tulia, texas. the individuals who had been wrongfully convicted were almost all african americans, and they had been convicted of drug charges based solely on the false testimony of one corrupt, blatantly racist undercover police officer. how about walking into that situation, trying to resolve that situation? she did.

despite being completely innocent, these individuals were sitting in jail, and their appeals have been rejected. vanita gupta took their case anyway. as a result of her work, not only were these individuals exonerated, but they received pardons from the republican cover of texas, rick perry, and texas eventually paid out a $6 million settlement. that is nothing short of a political miracle, and she achieved it by hard work, being smart as can be, and reaching out to both sides to find some area of agreement. ms. gupta's commitment to ensure the equal protection of the law has brought praise by republicans and democrats alike. michael chertoff, former secretary of homeland security under president george bush, here is what he said about ms. vanita gupta in a letter to the senate. she is a relentless advocate for fairness and the rule of law. how would you like to have that

as a lead sentence of your legal biography, a relentless advocate for fairness in the rule of law. how would we like to have a person like that in this administration in the department of justice? obviously, we would jump at the chance. she is the right person at the right time. she will bring experience, dedication, and a nonpartisan approach to the role of associate attorney general. i urge my colleagues to support her nomination. now, if you heard what i just said about vanita gupta, you might think why was this a tie vote in the senate judiciary committee? first, it is an evenly divided committee. 11 democrats, 11 republicans. and there is a lot of things going on, both sides of the table, when it comes to the final vote on nominees like this. several republicans told me they might be leaning in her direction, but they couldn't vote for her in the committee. i hope they will reconsider when it comes to the floor.

and there was another thing going on, too. right-wing groups were spending millions, millions of dollars on television in washington, trying to attack the reputation and character of vanita gupta. i think i have made it clear. vanita gupta is highly qualified and historic, with broad support from law enforcement, civil rights organizations, advocates across the political spectrum. she clearly on the merits will be an outstanding associate attorney general, but every step of the way, her detractors have tried to delay and obstruct her nomination. we saw that in our judiciary committee markup on march 25. i allowed committee republicans to speak for 94 minutes about ms. gupta's nomination markup. one senator from texas spoke for 29 minutes himself. i didn't cut him off. but someone on the republican side made the decision to invoke

the two-hour rule, a senate rule that says a committee cannot operate more than two hours after the senate comes into session to try to cut off the markup for the vote, even before the vote. i had received assurances earlier that the two-hour rule would not be invoked, but at 11:55 with barely five minutes to spare, i was told the other side had changed their mind. just as the previous two chairs of the committee, senators graham and grassley had done in the past, i ended debate notwithstanding committee rule 4 that called for -- and called for a vote on the nomination. i won't go into a debate over committee rule 4 other than to say it is a doomsday filibuster. any senator can object to the business in the senate judiciary committee and virtually stop all proceedings indefinitely. there is no recourse. i gave republicans ample time to make their arguments in the committee. i was prepared to give them even more time until the two-hour rule was invoked. but someone on the other side decided to force my hand. i had to act quickly.

i told republicans in writing in a march 24 letter that we would hold a vote on ms. gupta's nomination the incomes day, and i meant it -- on the next day, and i meant it. in the future, i would be happy to limit the number of minutes that senators can speak in order for all senators to have an opportunity, but at this moment in time, we have to accept the obvious. vanita gupta has been subjected to blatantly false attacks from many right wingers and conservative dark money groups. republicans have falsely claimed that she supports defunding the police. be prepared, you're going to hear this mantra again and again. in reality, gupta has the support of virtually every major law enforcement organization in america. republicans have made false claims about gupta's position on drugs. for example, the senior senator from texas alleged that gupta previously advocated, quote, all drugs should be legal. in reality, vanita gupta has

never advocated that all drugs should be legal. as a senior -- as the senior senator from texas knows, gupta did write nine years ago that she favored decriminalizing the simple possession of small amounts of marijuana and other drugs. take a look at what we have done with sentencing in drug crimes in america even under the trump administration. at her hearing she was forthright in explaining she changed her mind over the years in decriminalizing drug possession due in part to family experience with opioid addiction. despite the fact that they strongly supported president trump and many of his nominees many of whom were just white males who made such harsh statements and speeches and social media posts they were legendary. they argue that she is dangerous. she has a career-long record of

working with business leaders and law enforcement. that's why she has the support of so many prominent republican leaders now. i am looking forward to voting for her and to watching her serve in the department of justice. she will follow the trail that she set in her legal career, looking for solutions, bringing us together. can you think of a moment in history in this country when we needed that more? i can't. every day we have these conflicting stories coming at us, from the courts in minnesota on a question of george floyd and the culpability for his death to honoring law enforcement when officer billy evans of the u.s. capitol police gave his life serving this country. we are torn trying to find the right combination for law enforcement that is sensible and

principled and humane. we need someone like vanita gupta at the table in the department of justice leading. i hope her critics will have second thoughts. give this outstanding woman an opportunity to serve her country even more than she has in the past. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you. right now i just want to speak about the motion to discharge as opposed to whether people should vote for or against gupta.

i'm opposed to this effort to discharge gupta from the judiciary committee. in fact, it's not properly in order. in theory, we're moving this nomination because it failed in committee by an even tie vote. but that vote should never have been called and it was improper when it was. under the committee rules members have a right to unlimited debate. this can only be stopped either by bipartisan vote to end debate under the rules or by a vote of a majority of the committee to set a time certain to vote under precedent. because republicans at ms. gupta's markup wanted to talk, there couldn't have been bipartisan vote to end debate. in fact, some, like my

colleagues from north carolina, didn't have a chance to speak and were still waiting their turn. and because the democrats don't have a majority in the committee, they couldn't have a time certain. under the rules and precedence of the committee then, they had to let republicans talk. and if it took more than one markup, so be it. the democrats did this talk-a-on this when i was chairman. during our second markup of 2017, in order to delay senator sessions' nomination to be attorney general, democrats filibustered in the judiciary committee. when it happened, i didn't interrupt anyone or break any rules. i simply continued the markup the next day, checking to see who would want to be recognized

and for how long. the fact is that the democrats frequently use these filibuster tactics against us over the past four years. we simply dealt them from a position of confidence in the rules and precedence of our committee. sometimes being chairman and moving nominees takes hard work, but we did the job we needed to do. that's not what happened in the discussion of gupta. instead my colleague from arkansas was interrupted and the roll was called while he was still speaking. this was not the power of the majority being used. it was the power of the chairman. what's the point of having rules if you can just ignore them?

just ignore them when you find yourself dealing with an unfamiliar situation. so i don't think the even vote -- the tie vote in committee even properly happened. as far as i'm concerned, senator cotton had the floor. that roll call vote was illegitimate under committee rules and so is this one we're going to have in the senate this afternoon is just as illegitimate. and why did the chairman craft the committee -- scrap the committee rules for this nominee? this isn't a supreme court nomination. this is a -- this is for the jpt. so i have to wonder why. i think it's because the democrats know how really powerful she will be in the justice department.

as judge garland told us during his hearings, he didn't pick up -- he didn't pick ms. gupta. he only got to know her after they were both picked. that's quite a position for a subordinate to be in. the late congressional dingell famously said this, and i will clean it up a little bit. quote, you let me write the precedent and i'll beat you every time. end of quote. the judiciary committee has done him one better. now there is no procedure. if the rules are not respected, the senate is an institution that loses every time. so i urge my colleagues to vote no and protect the traditions of the body.

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois is recognized. mr. durbin: i don't know that there's another republican senator that i worked with as much and as effectively and as much pleasure as senator chuck grassley of iowa. and i mean it. we've done some good things together and we sometimes started off in opposing positions and try to find some common ground. the first was a good illustration of that, but it's not only the one but i trust there will be more. two points, rule four, as described by senator grassley is virtually, as i mentioned earlier, a doomsday filibuster. there's just no way out of it, particularly with an evenly divided committee. i'm not the first to discover that as a chairman. i will make this part of the record and i will share with my colleague from iowa, the four or five instances when previous republican chairs of the committee did exactly what i did with this nomination and said

we're moving forward, we're not going to pay attention to rule 4. senator graham, senator grassley and others have done just exactly that in the past. so i -- i think we adopted that as a rule because it was already in the rules and we were an evenly tied committee, but it sure ties the hand of a chairman or anyone who is trying to accomplish anything if there's one person who just stands and objects and objects and objects. it's a very difficult situation. the second thing i'll mention is i'm going to make this part of the record and i don't have it at hand as i stand here. the quote from merrick garland in his nomination hearing when someone raised the question about vanita gupta and kristen clarke, merrick garland may not have known either one of them beforehand, but he made it abundantly clear this is the

team he wanted to run the department of justice. no ifs ands or buts about it. they knew the law and their own legal experience valuable to him and the department of justice and to the nation. there is no question that he is committed to vanita gupta as he should be. i will yield back at this point and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia is recognized. mr. warner: thank you, mr. president. and i'm sorry i missed the -- the incredibly thoughtful comments of the democratic whip who i think spoke on the topic -- one of the topics that i'm going to speak about. mr. president, how much -- i think i've got ten minutes, is that right? okay. okay, thank you.

mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senator from use whatever time he needs. mr. warner: i thank the presiding officer and thank -- mr. durbin: if i can -- mr. warner: i want to thank again the brilliant ruling of the parliamentarian on that clarification. mr. durbin: as i understand it we are in measured time two hours to a side, any speakers from our side will be taken from that two-hour total? the presiding officer: that is right. mr. durbin: thank you very much. mr. warner: i want to touch on two critically important subjects that the senate is considering today. first, i want to rise in support of vanita gupta, president biden's nominee to serve as the associate attorney general. the third highest ranking position in our justice department. i think my good friend, the senator from illinois, has already spoken about ms. gupta. i want to make a personal note

first that ms. gupta is a fellow virginian. i'm proud to say she and her husband lee are raising their two sons in the commonwealth, i believe in arlington. ms. gupta is also an outstanding public servant. she served from 2014 to 2017 as the principal deputy attorney general at d.o.j. she led the division as the acting assistant attorney general until 2015. since 2017, she's led the country's preeminent civil rights organization, the leadership conference for civil and human rights. if confirmed, ms. gupta will be the first civil rights leader in any of the top three positions at justice. the sheer depth and breadth of ms. gupta's legal experience makes her an outstanding selection to serve as the associate attorney general. that's why her supporters span the political spectrum.

my friend from illinois pointed out some of the broad-based bipartisan support. let me elaborate on some of that support. grover norquist calls her an honest broker in his endorsement letter. i've had interactions with grover norquist since before i was governor, over 20 years, and never called me anything as nice as he did with ms. gupta. the former counsel of coke industries, ms. gupta is one of the most talented lawyers i worked with. she has spent years and years to promote a more fair and equal justice system. i have not always agreed with ms. gupta. i was very gostled in housing finance reform. ms. gupta was chairman of the conference on civil rights had a different opinion. but i also respected her

intellect, her willingness to listen to alternative views and her willingness toll really dig in -- to really dig into the facts. that background as a civil rights leader in the thick of issues around criminal justice reform has led to investigations and she's actually led the investigations of police departments in ferguson, and baltimore. there is a lock list of those who support -- long list of those who support her, the in think in all of my career, one time they endorsed me. her receiving that endorsement is different than myself and perhaps even the senator from illinois. ms. gupta has led broad ranging and robust enforcement to combat rate crimes, including the first-ever prosecutions under the newly enacted matthew shepard and james byrd jr. hate

crimes prevention act. she helped to train local and federal law enforcement throughout the country in recognizing, investigating and improving this, and ensured public safety and encouraging better hate crime reporting and data collection. i'd like to close on one other timely credential. as chairman of the intelligence committee, i've me particularusly chronicled the corrosive effects of disinformation, something that the presiding officer is also a national leader on. ms. gupta has been a leading force for election integrity. addressing disinformation on the platforms as well as voter suppression, hate, division, and violence. among the many important roles the department of justice has right now, securing our democracy itself is surely near the top of the list. vanita gupta is a person of extraordinary ability. she has the right experience for

this role. and i'm honored to support her in her nomination today and hope that later today we will get broad bipartisan support to move forward with that nomination. and this may be -- i'm going to transfer to a second subject which actually goes a little bit in concert with talking about vanita gupta. and that is rising in support of the covid-19 hate crimes act. and the jabbar ra higher no hate act. during the pandemic our nation has witnessed a surge in racism, xenophobia, and violence against asian americans and pacific islanders. in fact, between march of last year and february of this year, there were nearly 3,800 hate incidents targeting asian americans. it should go without saying that these actions have no place in our communities. to address this spike in anti-asian rhetoric and hate crimes, we must stand in solidarity with the aapi community and we must act

against these heinous crimes. the covid-19 hate crimes act helps address this crisis headion. this bill very simply requires attorney general garland to designate a coordinator within the department of justice, to expooh diet, review -- expedite, review and facilitate reporting of covid-19-related hate crimes. further, it requires the d.o.j. to issue guidance to state and local law enforcement to equip them with the tools needed to deal with the disturbing surge in incidents targeting the aapi community. it's tragic but not surprising that hate crimes in america have always been critically underreported. in fact, reports released by the department of justice in recent years suggests that the majority of hate crimes are not even reported. not even reported. our current patchwork system paired with inconsistent reporting and resources guarantees that many instances of hate-related violence and

crimes go uncounted. not only does this mask the true scale of hate incidents across our nation, it also means that investigative resources and support structures may not be available to victims who need them. this problem can be exacerbated by culture -- cultural language glariers and made even worse by the pandemic which has made it more difficult for folks to get connected. fortunately, the covid-19 hate crimes act seeks to address these challenges providing a clearing house for these cases. over the past decade, our nation has seen a steady rise in hate crimes. groups and individuals targeting minority and religious groups have increasingly perpetrated sickening acts of violence fueled by hateful ideologies. we've seen that here on january 6 but we also saw it earlier in my state in virginia. in charlottesville back in 2017 we saw this hate and violence on

our streets. when a white supremacist drove a car into a group of peaceful protesters injuring many and killing a young woman named heather hire. it is critical that we give our law enforcement tools -- give our law enforcement the tools they need to curb these horrific acts. that's why on a related item, i'm also cosponsor of the bipartisan jabbara no hate act. my hope is it will be offered as an attempt into the covid-19 -- an amendment into the covid-19 bill that we hopefully will be addressing shortly. it modernizes our reporting system for hate crimes so we can respond to accurate data. it also provides grants to establish hate crime on the lines, to record information about hate crimes, and to redirect victims and witnesses to law enforcement and local support services as needed. finally, this bill provides a federal private right of action for hate crime victims. and allows judges to sentence

community-specific education and community service. together these changes create a new model for addressing these crimes and preventing them from going unreported or unpunished. both the covid-19 hate crime act and the no hate act are straight forward pieces of legislation that give victims and law enforcement officers the tools they desperately need to tackle the increasing prevalence of hate incidents in our country. i hope that we move quickly on both these pieces of legislation and major -- in major bipartisan fashion. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for arkansas. mr. cotton: vanita gupta,

president biden's pick is unfit for her role. she's unfit for her view that every single american and every single institution in the united states is inherently racist. she's unfit because she lacks the temperament to do the job. as evidenced by her relentless attacks on the integrity and character of judges and senators alike. seemingly any time she had a mere disagreement with them. she certainly is unfit based on her attempts to mislead the senate in her judiciary committee hearing. ms. gupta has been before the congress many times as a partisan advocate and there's nothing wrong with that. but her past appearances do give us a glimpse of what she believes when she isn't seeking votes for confirmation. less than a year ago, june of last year, she came before the senate judiciary committee to testify on police reform. when she was asked, do you believe all americans are

racist? she replied under oath yes, i do. think about that. the person nominated by joe biden to oversee among other things the federal government's civil rights enforcement says that she believes every single american is racist. this preposterous idea that anyone and everyone is inherently racist is at the core of a per nirks ideology -- pernicious ideology pushed by the left called critical race theory. but the position was not an anomaly, misstatement or a new position for mrs. gupta. in 2005 she published an article in the fordham law review which she called critical race lawyering. in that article mrs. gupta argued that the rule of law and equal justice for all and equal protection aren't the great bulwarks of our liberty, aren't

the signal -- single achievements of our republic and constitutional form of government but instead code words. code words, that's what she called them, for some kind of twisted rac race -- racism. anyone who thinks that the rule of law or equal justice for all or equal protection are simply code words for racism is unfit for any position in our government but especially a position of leadership in the department of justice. the concerns with ms. gupta's nomination are not limited to her extreme views on these and other topics. she has made a career over the last few years on social media attacking the character and integrate of federal judges, judicial nominees, and members of the senate. she accused four different jurists currently on the supreme court, currently on the court of being liars, extremists, dangerous, or opposed to civil and human rights. she must have had a keyboard

macro. she hit a shortcut button and it said opposed to civil and human rights. by my count she's leveled similarly incendiary attacks on the integrity and character of around 50 currently sitting judges. it could have been more. i may have lost count when is got so high. i asked her about these attacks. while she said during her hearing that she regrets some of her rhetoric, she steadfastly refused to renounce these attacks on those judges. ms. gupta has leveled similarly caustic comments against members of this body posting online that dozens of members of the senate are -- you guessed it -- opposed to civil and human rights. she accused one of our colleagues of being a disgrace, another of being a hypocrite, another failing her constituents. at one point she commented, how many of us are done with susan collins' concerns? now, i want to be clear. disagreement with or even deep dislike of members of the senate does not disqualify her for any position in the federal

government. people are entitled to have their opinions. they're entitled to have their political views. but honestly, the associate attorney general of the united states must be able to effectively represent the united states in court while also working with congress on important issues. it might be hard to represent the united states in court when you've accused dozens of federal judges of being opposed to human and civil rights or being a disgrace or a liar. likewise, i wonder what senator collins thinks about vanita gupta being done with her concerns. perhaps most concerning, though, is that ms. gupta has repeatedly misled the judiciary committee under oath. every single republican member of the judiciary committee joined a letter on march 23 outlining some of her most blatant misrepresentations. ms. gupta made -- that she made during her hearing. and we asked the chairman of the committee for a second hearing. that request was promptly

refused. i asked unanimous consent that the march 23 letter be included in the record. and finally, mr. president, i have to observe something independent of ms. gupta herself. the discharge petition filed today requires that there have been a valid tied vote in committee. that's the rural we all agreed on at the beginning of this congress. yet ms. gupta still has not received a valid vote in the committee. in fact, during the markup of our nomination just minutes into my 15-minute remarks, the chairman of the committee cut off my remarks mid-sentence and called for a vote in vie leation of the -- violation of the committee rules. i guess somehow allowing members to finish their statements which are guaranteed under the committee's rules have somehow become inconvenient for the scheduling preferences of our democratic colleagues or perhaps the committee's meeting had been

mismanaged and they were worried about the two-hour rule. and it wasn't just me. my remarks were interrupted. at least one republican senator didn't have an opportunity to speak at all. the democrats simply broke the rules and voted out mrs. gupta's nomination not in accordance with the judiciary committee rules. there must be consequences when the democrats break the rules. and here's what the consequences are going to be in this case. i will refuse consent or time agreements for the nomination of any u.s. attorney from any state represented by a democrat on the judiciary committee. what we need to have is a valid vote in committee in accordance with the committee rules, not ramming through this nomination today. not today. we're faced with not only the choice whether ms. gupta is fit to be the associate attorney general, we're also faced with the question of whether to legitimatize yet again the partisan bull diseasing of the senate's rules if those rules

are even marginally inconvenient, even in committee session. going down this path is not going to improve the senate. sol i will be voting no. -- so i will be voting no and i urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator for rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to be allowed to talk as if if morning business for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, president biden has decided to withdraw all forces from afghanistan by september 11, 2021. i believe this decision was one of the hardest president biden

will ever make. "washington post" columnist pointed out, biden's military and intelligence advisers have presented him with three unpleasant alternatives. leave may 1 as previously agreed even though this would probably mean the fall of the cabal government and return to civil war. stay for a limited period perhaps negotiate with the taliban which would delay its eventual takeover or stay for an undefined period which could mean a long continuation of what's already the united states' longest war. in effect, there were no good choices. the president exercised his best judgment to endorse a path that is most likely to protect the national security interests of the united states. i believe there were several factors over 20 years of conflict in afghanistan that shaped the president's decision. the most critical miscalculation over the past 20 years was the

bush administration's decision to invade iraq. we took our eye off the ball in afghanistan at a crucial time and instead pursued a war of choice in iraq. the attacks by al qaeda on september 11 galvanized the world. the authorization for the use of military force passed the senate 98-0. while a french newspaper proclaimed, we are all americans. most notably, for the first time, nato invoked alternate 5, which calls upon its members to take action on behalf of any member nation which is attacked. the world was with us. but before we could really gain momentum in afghanistan, the united states diverted to an unnecessary war of choice in iraq. as journalist steve cowl wrote, on november 21, 2001, months

after 9/11, on november 1 -- november 21, 2001, then central commander tommy franks took a call from donald rumsfeld who ordered him to start working on the plan for the invasion of iraq. rumsfeld told me to have something ready within a week. as a consequence, general frank's attention was being forced elsewhere. as journalist susan glaser wrote in "the washington post," in the battle of tora bora, corrupt warlords allowed bin laden to escape while special forces pleaded with the pentagon to let them get in the fight. as we now know, osama bin laden, the leader of al qaeda and the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, was notcaptured for another

decade. more recently, president biden inherited a flawed agreement from the trump administration known as the doha agreement. it required the united states, its allies and coalition partners to withdraw all military forts by may 1, 20 force by may 1, 2021. private security contractor, trainers, and advisors are also required to leave. in effect, the entire international presence that has been the foundation for almost two days of the afghanistan effort was to disappear on may 1. exchange, the taliban agreed not to attack the united states or its allies and promised not to allow other individuals or groups, including al qaeda, to use the soil of afghanistan to

threaten the security of the united states and its allies. the only really verifiable condition on the taliban of the trump agreement was that the taliban would not attack the united states or its allies. the remaining conditions were unenforceable and very, very difficult to certify. as general mackenzie, the commander of central command testified to the armed armed ses committee just a few weeks after the agreement was concluded, we don't need to trust them. we don't need to like them. we don't need to believe anything they say. we need to observe what they do. what we have observed is a lie. while the taliban may have adhered to one aspect of the deal by not attack ago u.s. forces, they have violated the spirit of the agreement and overall violence is on the rise. the special inspector general for afghan reconstruction assessed that any attacks against afghan security forces

and civilians increased by 50% in the third quarter of 2020. former acting special representative for afghanistan and pakistan, laurel miller, described an upin targeted assassinations, which have sent shock waves through urban areas. in midmarch, sentry defense austan noted that after meeting with afghan president ghani, it is obvious that the level of violence remains pretty high in the country. additionally, a united nations report from last fall concluded that the relationship between al qaeda and taliban had not been substantially changed by the february 2020 agreement between taliban and the united states. the u.n. assessment noted alarmingly that al qaeda has been operating covertly in afghanistan while still maintaining close relations with the taliban. and that the group is -- in

their words -- quietly gaining strength in afghanistan while continuing to operate with the taliban under their protection. beyond the substance of the trump agreement, the manner in which it was concluded was also deeply flawed. to begin with, the trump administration concluded a deal with the taliban, a fundamentalist group using the name islamic emirate of afghanistan. even though agreement states that the united states does not recognize such a state, it's very -- its very formulation is a propaganda boon for the taliban. as hugh san haqqani noted, allowing the taliban to refer to themselves as the islamic emirate, even in parentheses, allows them to build a narrative that they forced the united states to build an exit from afghanistan, just as the mujahideen had forced soviets

out. if the regime is eager to draw forces out of afghanistan, if would have done better than a how such a huge propaganda victory. additionally, the trump agreement was concluded between the trump administration and the taliban. there was no involvement of the afghan government. reversing the long-standing position of the united states which prioritized an afghan-led, afghan-owned reconciliation process. further, there was no visible involvement of our neigh a lice who went into afghanistan after we were attacked on september 11, 2001, when article five of the nato charter was invoked for the first time. as the afghan study group noted -- the group led by general dunford and our previous colleague, ayotte, our nato colleagues have been steadfast in their support and have shared the sacrifice, over 1,000

coalition troops basketball killed since 2001. the trump administration negotiated this exit without their say -- without their involvement. there was no involvement either by regional partners despite potentially significant consequences for security in the region. as the afghan study group further noted, an unstable afghanistan risked destabilizing the region through continued trade in illicit drugs, the attraction of extremist ideologies, and the possible rivalry between pakistan. trump's go-it-alone rush to the exits mentality led to a deal where the taliban emerged as the key benefactor. the united states, its allies and partners won very little from the trump deal. now, we are approaching 20 years of warfare in afghanistan,

spanning over three different presidential administrations, or perhaps more accurately, one year of warfare repeated 20 times, as we rotated troops in and out of afghanistan. in addition to the disastrous pivot to iraq and the flawed agreement with the taliban, despite all our efforts over multiple administrations, we have been unable to build an effective fighting force that could defeat the taliban and hold territory. afghan soldiers have fought bravely despite continuing pressure and massive casualties and several components have emerged as particularly capable. such as the afghan special security forces. but after 20 years, this is not sufficient progress. as the afghan study group assessed, the ongoing lack of capacity and inefficiency of the

forces limit its strategic options against the taliban. as a result, the andsf is generally on the offensive to provide security for much of the population. we were never able to change the checkpoint mentality of the afghan forces. their focus on static positions as much for appearance as for tactical advantage, still persists today making them extreme. ly vulnerable to more agile taliban. moreover, two decades later, the afghan forces still have no organic logistical capabilities. an assessment by the department of defense from last june noted, all components of the afghan national defense and security forces will continue to rely over the long term on contracted logistical support and on the united states and a for the vast

majority of the funding needed to sustain combat operations. as i recall, the agreement that the trump administration negotiated requires the withdrawal of all contracted logistical support. as napoleon once commanded, an army moves on its stomach. without logistical capability, without a tactically capable army, with a few exceptions, the ability of the government of afghanistan and military of afghanistan to resist the taliban is highly questionable. and indeed, we should be looking seriously ourselves, because for 20 years of efforts and billions of dollars, i would have hoped 20 years ago that we would have seen a credible, decisive, effective afghan force. another crucial factor contributing immensely to the taliban's success has been the

inability of the united states to eliminate the sanctuary the taliban was granted in pakistan. the center for strategic and international studies terrorism experts and journalists wrote in 2018 is the taliban sanctuary in pakistan and state support from organizations like the interservices intelligence or i.s.i. have been essential to their war effort and the u.s. failure to undermine this safe haven may be washington's most significant mistake of the war. as the afghan study group noted, these sanctuaries are essential to the viability. additionally you pakistan's i.s.i. aided and abetted while cooperating with the united states. as brookings scholar brown assessed in 2018, pakistan provided direct military and intelligence aid resulting in

the deaths of u.s. soldiers, afghan security personnel and civilians, plus significant destabilization of afghanistan. this support of the taliban runs counter to pakistani cooperation with the united states, including as they have the use of airspace and other infrastructure for which the united states provided significant funding. as the afghan study group noted, pakistan has played both sides of the field. these dynamics further play out against the complex environment in pakistan which has implications for the national security of the united states, its allies and partners. pakistan is simultaneously fragile and armed with nuclear weapons, making its vulnerability particularly dangerous. to add to this toxic mix, pakistan is in a long-standing battle with its neighbor india which is also armed with nuclear. as journalists described, pakistan and india have long

been involved in a battle of power struggle in south asia. both lay claim to the kashmir region and have fought three wars of the kashmir. afghanistan is not the ultimate objective of either country but rather a competition in what has long been called the great game. while bogged down politically and militarily in daily crisis in afghanistan and iraq, the united states, over multiple administrations, has been unable to focus the necessary attention on pakistan. therefore, these problems have only gotten worse. another factor shaping the president's decision is that the united states and its coalition partners were never able to develop an afghan government that could gain the confidence of the people, especially beyond the cities, and provide basic services including security, education, health care, and justice. a study by the world bank in late 2019 found that 55% of

afghans were living below the poverty line. with even basic civilian services underfunded. the lack of the government's ability to meet such needs erodes the people's support for the government. afghanistan has also been undermined by profound corruption. the afghan study group aseased that corruption has delegitimized the existing government and create grievances that are exploited by the taliban to gain support and at times legitimacy. corruption is a national security concern that further erodes the ability of the government to build faith and trust. additionally, the leadership of the afghan government is seen sasse being removed from the populace. this makes it harder to understand the needs of the people and to govern effectively. a prime example of this conundrum is the current president ghani. ghani was reequity willed after a five-month delay in the

polling results. and following a long-standing dispute with his political rival. while ghani is a serious scholar and technocrat who literally wrote a book on fixing failing states, he appears unable to fix his own state. as "the new york times" reported just last week, from most vantage points, mr. ghani, well qualified for his jobs and deeply credentialed with johns hopkins, the world bank and the united nations in his background, is thoroughly isolated. a serious author, he is dependent on the counsel of a handful, unwilling to watch television news, those who knew him say, and losing allies fast. but even if president ghani was a strong leader, it would likely not be enough. the instability of the central government which has been fueled by rival factions seeking power resulting inconclusive elections

has led to unwieldy power sharing arrangements. beyond power between technocrats who want to serve the government and may have competing visions, there is a fundamental tension between those trying to achieve the complex task of governing afghanistan in kabul and the taliban who have a single focus, ejecting foreign forces. there also appears to be a lack of willingness by the government to seriously negotiate with the taliban and make tough choices that could have obtained perhaps a lasting peace deal. the afghan government also remains unable to generate revenue to fund its operations. instead it relies almost solely on foreign contributions. this includes an average of $5 billion in security assistance along with a $3.5 billion in civilian assistance from the united states and the international donors each year. the world bank assessed in late

2019 that even if there was a peace agreement between the afghan government and taliban, afghanistan would still need as much as $7 billion a year from foreign sources to sustain its most basic spending. with all of these complex dynamics at play, it underscores a further, albeit profoundly unsatisfactory conclusion facing the president. the alternative to withdrawal was not the status quo. more u.s. and nato forces would have been required for self-defense, and especially if there was another attempt to surge forces to degrade the taliban. it appears that the president concluded that more troops might buy more time and casualities, but more time would not create a government that could defeat the taliban and effectively govern afghanistan. as the old afghan saying goes, you have all the watches, we have all the time.

it's important to emphasize, though, that the president's decision should be seen as a transition, not closure. we still have vital security interests in the region. once again, this should be viewed as a transition, not a closure. afghanistan is not in the rearview mirror. pakistan is not in the rearview mirror. theregion is not in the rear view security. without support the afghanistan forces will degrade and collapse which will ultimately cause the afghan government to collapse. the trump agreements with the taliban included departure of all security personnel and contractors which means that when the united states leaves, the international presence that, again, is the foundation for afghan resistance is removed. the intelligence community's annual threat assessment for

2021 noted the afghan government will struggle to hold the taliban at bay if the coalition withdraws support. and according to "the new york times," american intelligence agencies assess that if u.s. troops leave before a peace deal is reached between the afghan government and the taliban, afghanistan, quote, could fall largely under the control of the taliban within two or three years after the withdrawal of international forces. we have already seen evidence of this trend even prior to the full withdrawal. the international crisis group assessed that as u.s. forces levels have fallen, battlefield dynamics have steadily shifted in the insurgents' favor. dexter phillips described since 2001 the main region in afghanistan has been the countryside. the government held the cities while the taliban fought to control the villages and towns particularly in the south, their heartland. but by early this year, the

paradigm had begun to fall apart. the taliban were entrenched across the north and their shadow government had begun to creep into the cities. another possibility, either an interim or permanent fact, is that the country could fracture with local warlords and the taliban controlling different territory. this would further intensify conflict, increase instability, and create second order effects such as the flow of international displaced persons and refugees. the international crisis group noted that the likelihood of fracture increases if u.s. and other funding declines, and that it has the possibility of pulling afghanistan's neighbors and other regional powers into backing proxies in a multisided struggle. again, the afghan study group warned any scenario in which the state cole -- collapses as it did in 1992 will make it

considerably for difficult for the united states to ensure fundamental national security interests. if the taliban establishes its em emirate in afghanistan it would likely result in erasing all the progress that has been made toward building democracy, and particularly the rights of women and girls. as seth jones again wrote in a recent article published by the combatting terrorism center at west point, the taliban is in many ways a different organization from the one that governed afghanistan in the 1990's. yet, most of their leaders are nevertheless committed to an extreme interpretation of islam that is not shared by many afghans. an autocratic political system that eschews democraciened a the persist -- democracy and groups like al qaeda. if nato and the united states depart, another consequence is increasing pressure to limit or end international aid. afghanistan cannot fund itself,

and even under the best case scenario would require $7 billion from international donors annually. it will be extremely difficult to administer programs and provide aid on the ground without oversight, and that too would very well lead to smaller international donations. furthermore, the entire budget of the afghan military ministry of defense is paid for by international contributions. if soldiers are not getting paid, it would have a profound impact on national security. another likely consequence of withdrawal which has been previously discussed is the creation of a vacuum that allows the resurgence of terrorist groups including al qaeda and isis at the korason province. as the study group also pointed out these groups are limited by military presence in the united states and allies which allows the threat to be monitored that were necessary disrupted by also

enabling afghan security forces to continue to put pressure on these groups. the group warned that during its deliberations the study group was advised a complete u.s. withdrawal without a peace agreement would allow these troops to gradually rebuild their capabilities in the afghan pakistan region such that they might be able to attack the u.s. homeland within 18 to 36 months. this timeline is short, alarming and has detective implications -- and has direct implications for national security. also of immediate concern is an increase in attacks from afghan forces against the united states and coalition forces commonly referred to as green on blue attacks. we must anticipate a flood of refugees as afghans flee the chaos. in addition, we must do our part to aid those afghans who have aided us.

given these facts and given the president's difficult decision to leave afghanistan, i believe we must take serious actions to mitigate these threats. the withdrawal of u.s. forces should not mean an end to our counterterrorism efforts. most importantly, we must ensure that afghanistan will not be a source of planning, plotting or projection of terrorist attacks around the globe, including against our homeland. instead, we must transition to a new type of presence, leaving the country but staying in the region in a meaningful capacity. we must build an antiterrorism infrastructure on the periphery of afghanistan. we must continue to direct the proper level of attention, intelligence, and resources to evaluate the evolving terrorist threat in the region. this also includes closer cooperation with allies and partners. we must continue to engage regional powers diplomatically and thed biden administration has already begun to reinvigorate that process.

we must use the power of our alliances and particularly those in the region who would endure severe consequences and instability from sharing a border with a failed afghanistan. working in cooperation, the united states and its allies and regional partners must be a check on potential instability. president biden is committed to ensuring that this is not a forever war, but he has also made it clear he won't allow afghanistan to become a safe haven for terrorism. our mission to protect the homeland remains. our duty to do so remains. as we go forward, this is a moment of transition, not of closure. this is a moment to do all we can to protect this country and hopefully ensure a stable region. mr. president, i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah.

mr. lee: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that ben martin, my law clerk, be given access to the floor for the duration of this congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: mr. president, i stand today in opposition to this illegitimate motion to discharge the nomination of vanita gupta to become the associate attorney general of the united states. i say that this motion to discharge is illegitimate because it was, because senate judiciary committee and its chairman decided unilaterally to ram through a vote on ms. gupta in violation of the rules and precedents of the senate judiciary committee. as has been the longing standing tradition in the judiciary committee, members were debating the nomination of vanita gupta and expected that everyone would be given the opportunity to speak.

but in the middle of a speech being delivered by one of the judiciary committee's members, senator cotton from arkansas, the chairman of the committee, senator durbin, cut him off and unilaterally proceeded to a vote , effectively nuking the committee rules that should have allowed senator cotton and others to speak. never in the more than ten years that i've served on the judiciary committee have i seen a chairman of that committee so blatantly, brazenly violate rule and principle and precedent in this way. this behavior is not only unusual, but it's inexcusable. lengthy debate in committee markups is actually much more common than some in this chamber might have you believe. for example, democrats filibustered the nomination of former attorney general jeff

sessions for so long that then-chairman chuck grassley was forced to delay consideration of his nomination until the next markup. you've got that right. chairman grassley actually followed the committee rules and allowed for all of our colleagues to speak, notwithstanding the fact that they disagreed with him, notwithstanding the fact that it was contentious, notwithstanding the fact that he didn't like what they were saying. and by doing so, he was forced, because he was complying with the rules and the precedents of the senate, to delay the consideration of attorney general sessions' nomination. but that's what he did. he did that instead of because it was preferable to, an act of unilaterally forcing a vote and thereby nuking the judiciary committee's rules. to put this in context, we need to understand that judiciary committee rule 4 states that, quote, the chair shall enter a

nondebatable motion to bring a matter before the committee to a vote. if there is objection to bringing a matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call of the committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with 12 votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority, close quote. rule 4 essentially preserves the right of minority members to speak. chairman durbin decided to nuke that part of rule 4 in particular, because he knew that he didn't have 12 votes to prematurely end debate. now when you're in the majority, it can be tempting to run right past certain rules, knocking things over in the process in order to get your party's nominees confirmed. but i think it's important for us to resist that temptation in

order to protect the rules of our institution from partisan passions. following these rules, respecting minority prerogatives is precisely what allows us to maintain bipartisan cooperation in the senate and lower the partisan tensions in our country. this is all the more important when you consider that there is no true majority in the senate, and there is no majority at all on the senate judiciary committee. unfortunately, with this breach, it looks like some of my colleagues might prefer convenience over debate. i find that most unfortunate. especially because i have worked with so many of them on a bipartisan basis on so many issues. now, some of my colleagues may claim that republicans have done this very thing many times. that, however, is not the case. on multiple occasions, we

we