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 allowed for extended debate and

even delayed reporting of matters before the committee. like attorney general sessions' nomination and the crossfire hurricane subpoenas until the next markup. when we set votes with the consent of the majority, the chairman followed committee precedent and did so through a roll call vote. again, consistent with committee precedent. now, you might ask why republicans felt so strongly about speaking on ms. gupta's nomination before the vote was cast in the committee markup. well, that might have something to do with the fact that ms. gupta's answers to questions were troubling to many members of the committee, including answers to questions regarding a wide range of topics, including the legalization of narcotics, eliminating qualified immunity, defunding the police, the death penalty, among many others, and the fact that it appears that

many of those answers were inconsistent with her past statements and in other cases difficult to defend. when before the judiciary committee, ms. gupta provided answers to questions regarding some of these evolving positions. many of those answers were less than compelling. indeed, she seemed to be attempting to distance herself from barely radical -- from fairly radical positions that she had in fact taken in the past. before the same committee, the senate judiciary committee, the very same judiciary committee that recently had this markup vote that ended a violation of the senate rules, before that same committee last year, on june 16, 2020, ms. gupta testified under oath that leaders must, quote, heed calls to decrease police budgets and the scope, role, and

responsibility of police in our lives, close quote. now, when asked about her advocacy for defunding the police, ms. gupta said that she disagreed with that characterization. even "the washington post" -- not exactly a conservative media outlet -- caught ms. gupta's flip-flop, correctly characterizing her june 16, 2020 testimony as, quote, exactly what defunding the police is all about. now gupta says she has never supported the idea, close quote. now, does president biden really think it's a good idea to put radical ideologues who publicly espouse support for defunding the police in charge of the department of justice? well, perhaps he does, as evidenced by his nominations of vanita gupta and kristen clarke for top roles. i am concerned about ms. gupta's

apparent disregard for americans who hold views dissimilar from her own. in 2018, she tweeted that senator susan collins had failed her constituents, based on her support for justice brett kavanaugh and was, quote, sending a dangerous message to a survivor of sexual assault. while ms. gupta repeatedly asked senators for forgiveness for her many inappropriate tweets and asked for is a second chance, it is significant here that she didn't give that second chance to others when the shoe was on the other foot. for example, when ryan bounds was nominated to the u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit, ms. gupta said the following about some comments he had made when he was in college. quote, while he has recently apologized for those comments, the timing of that apology suggests it is one of convenience rather than remorse offered in a last-ditch effort to salvage his nomination and

win the support of his home state senators, close quote. it appears here that ms. gupta perhaps wants to provide no grace, no second chance to others for things they wrote in college, but then has asked for senators to give her grace and a second chance for insensitive statements from only a few years ago or in some cases only a few months ago. if past practices are any indication of concern that she might attempt to wield the department of justice as a weapon of sorts against anyone and anything holding different views from her own. and that she may do so aggressively by conducting as many expensive, hostile pattern and practice investigations against state and local law enforcement as you can, whether they are warranted or not. if in her view, based on if they deserve it, based on if they

disagree with her, based on her past use of pattern and practice investigations while she was running the department of justice's civil rights division. i worry that she might subject state and local law enforcementer jurisdictions to lengthy and expensive review requirements, forcing them to buckle to her policy preferences and sending warning messages to other jurisdictions. i'm concerned that she might inappropriately rely on the outside activist groups for which she has lobbied to formulate policy and practices for the department of justice and state and local law enforcement agencies. i'm concerned, too, that she will use the third party settlement agreements to reward the activist groups for which she has lobbied at the expense of others. now, advocates of ms. gupta claim frequently that she is a consensus builder. i don't -- i don't doubt that. in fact, i would note here that

ms. gupta and i have worked on the same side of issues that i care deeply about, and i note here that i find her to be a delightful person, a remarkably gifted mind and lawyer. she is very talented, and she is someone who seems to be a genuinely nice person in many, many ways. but if we're going to talk about consensus building, i think a fair test to evaluate whether someone is a consensus builder like involved looking at -- might involve looking at how they tweet those with whom they disagree. unfortunately, ms. gupta's public statements don't necessarily result in flying colors on that test. again, the issue here is not whether she agrees with those who disagree with her. we have already established that she disagrees with those who

hold different views than her own. the question is how does she treat them. here is what ms. gupta said about judge sara pitlick. sara pitlick is unqualified and unfit for a lifetime appointment on our courts. she has defended the most extreme antiabortion laws our nation has see to date. this is what she said about judge steve rudolfksky. he has effectively asked the supreme court to overturn roe v. wade and casey versus planned planned parenthood. rudolfsky is unfit and would bring a clear bias to the bench, unquote. in a 2017 blog post, ms. gupta advocated for forcing jack phillips to create a custom-designed cake celebrating a same-sex wedding even though it would violate his religious beliefs. she said, quote, religious liberty is not a talisman that confers absolute immunity from

any personal constraints at all. at times, the free exercise of religion yields to other foundational values, including freedom from harm and freedom from discrimination, close quote. now, fortunately in this instance, supreme court justices, seven of the nine supreme court justices, in fact, disagreed with her position in the masterpiece case. she has reiterated this sentiment time and time again. in twecht b 2017, she tweeted, yes, freedom of religion is a fundamental right but it is not an absolute right, close quote. after the supreme court ruled in favor of the conscience rights of the little sisters of the poor, she called the decision troubling and discrimination sanctioned by the court, writing that, quote, this type of discrimination will potentially inflict harm on hundreds of thousands of people and disproportionately impact women of color and people in lower income groups.

now, let me be very clear on this issue. let me be very clear about what she was talking about. ms. gupta in that statement was indicating that she thought the government should force a convent of nuns who have taken vows of celibacy to provide birth control against their religious convictions. that's troubling. and that's not consistent with the understanding of the free exercise of religion. look, no one would argue that any one constitutional right is absolute and that no other consideration can ever come into play. no one would argue that a generally applicable religiously neutral law can have no

application everywhere it conflicts in some way with an assertion of religious freedom. we're not talking here about whether it's absolute or not. but her own application of that would be deeply troubling, i think, to most americans. what also concerns me is whether with the force of the u.s. department of justice behind her, whether she is capable of respecting the constraints of law, of the constitution, and of federalism. in her efforts to push her policy preferences and reward those with whom she disagrees, i am very concerned that she might stretch the boundaries of her authority much further than it was ever intended to go. ms. gupta has exhibited on twitter and elsewhere that she is someone who holds very

strident political views, views that many would regard as very radical, and i feel neither confident nor comfortable that she will respect those with views contrary to her own. on that basis, mr. president, i urge my fellow senators to vote against ms. gupta and this illegitimate motion to discharge. i urge president biden to send us nominees who will achieve his stated goal of unifying our country and not dividing it. thank you. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois is recognized. mr. durbin: mr. president, my friend and colleague from nevada is not the first to come to the floor on the republican side and raise questions about committee procedure that led to vanita gupta being considered today before the united states senate. they say it is unheard of, unthinkable, unimaginable, unfathomable that the senate

committee rules were not carefully followed and that their attempt at a filibuster was in some way diverted. i would like to ask consent to enter into the record a memo entitled senate judiciary committee rule violations by senate judiciary committee chairs graham, grassley, and hatch. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota is recognized. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i thank senator durbin for his leadership and following my colleague and friend, senator lee, i disagree with him vehemently about vanita gupta. she is someone that i have worked closely with for years on voting rights, on police reform, and just last year, i marched with her across the edmund pettus bridge with the late john lewis to mark the 55th anniversary of bloody sunday in

selma, alabama. after working alongside her to build a more just system, i have no doubt that she will take this job on with two words, two words that i think are so important right now to build trust with the people of this country -- honor and integrity. that is what has marked her career. as a civil rights lawyer, public servant, and as president of the leadership conference on civil and human rights, the nation's oldest, largest, and most diverse civil and human rights coalition, she has a record of fighting for all americans with dedication, consistency, and, and a willingness to work across ideological lines to achieve results. why did she get those police endorsements and the kind of support that she got?

even though she was taking on reform. it's because she earned people's respect. she is the right person for the right time in the justice department, and i say this coming from minnesota where my state is reeling after the killing of daunte wright. our hearts break for dante's family and for our community which is still in the midst of the george floyd trial. i was so proud and am so proud of the ordinary citizens that came forward and testified from my state. a clerk in the store, a man walking by, all of them having carried the burden -- the burden of this murder. looking inside themselves thinking what could i have done

better? and that case will soon conclude, but those citizens coming forward and actually the law enforcement coming forward and testifying at all levels of law enforcement for the prosecution of derek shoven, that meant something to the people of my state and i want to be able to go back and tell those citizens who testified that you don't carry this burden alone. that we have a justice department that's going to stand up for you and for me one of those key people is vanita gupta. she is exactly who we need right now to champion the cause of equal justice under the law. she has described the department as an institution she loves dearly. because as she said, it bears the name of a value, justice, one that carries a unique charge and north star. it is the sacred keeper of the promise of equal justice under the law, and coming from the

north star state, that means a lot. her commitment to defending the constitution and upholding the integrity of this important agency is for her a professional calling it is also a personal calling as she has described, she inherited from her parents who came to this country a belief in the promise of america, one that carries with it a personal responsibility to make this country better for everyone. we all know immigrants that think like that every day. people who have just arrived. people who have raised their families here. they are vanita gupta. there is no question that ms. gupta has the experience for this job. as an attorney for the naacp legal defense and occasional fund, she -- educational fund, she worked on the front lines fighting in court to protect the civil rights of some of the most vulnerable people. later at the american civil liberties union, she brought cases on behalf of immigrant

children and keeping communities safe. while serving as our country's chief civil rights prosecutor at the department of justice during the obama administration, she led critical work on criminal justice reform, prosecuting hate crimes, defending the right to vote and protecting the rights of the lgbtq community and those with disabilities. ms. gupta's depth of experience at the department of justice and her years as a civil rights attorney make her eminently qualified to serve as associate attorney general. in that position she will oversee the work of the department of civil rights division and will help direct the department's work to reform our justice system. having helped to lead the federal review of police practices, she understands the need for systemic reform in our justice system as well as ways to work with law enforcement -- with law enforcement to make necessary changes. that is why she has the support

of police chiefs, sheriffs and major law enforcement groups across the country, including the national sheriffs association, including the international association of chiefs of police, including the major cities chief association. they know that ms. gupta is a trusted partner who, as a fraternal order of police wrote in a letter of support has, quote, always worked with us to find common ground even when that seemed impossible. end quote. grover norquist, a republican and president of americans for tax reform described ms. gupta as an honest broker, someone with an ability not only to understand but also appreciate different perspectives. she was someone who sought consensus, he said. that is exactly the kind of person we need at the department right now. i look forward to working with her on the next steps in our efforts to reform our criminal

justice system, which we were able to discuss at our hearing. we talked about her commitment to police reform, the need to increase funding, such as in drug courts, which i worked on for years during my time as county teernd her support for conviction integrity units to help states review legal cases for people believed to be innocent. she gets that the work of a prosecutor is, yes, working for safety, but it also is to be a minister of justice, to make sure that people are treated equally under the law. i also have talked to ms. gupta about the urgent need to reauthorize the violence against women act, which i hope my colleagues and i will help to pass and get to president biden's desk. in the obama administration she coordinated the department of justice's efforts to provide guidance on how law enforcement

can prevent gender bias. at her hearing she affirmed the important role that the department has in protecting victims of domestic violence and i look forward to working with her on these issues as chair of the subcommittee on competition policy, antitrust and consumer rights, i'm also pleased that ms. gupta committed to make vigorous antitrust a priority. i think there is agreement that robust competition is essential to protect workers, businesses large and small. i'm confident ms. gupta will confront monopoly power and restore competitive, markets along with lisa monaco and along with the attorney general himself, merrick garland. ms. gupta's history as a champion of civil rights and record as consensus builder makes her, as i said, the right person at the right time.

she has the becoming of more than 220 national and civil and human rights organizations, including the aclu, naacp and human rights campaign. she has, as i said, the support of the law enforcement and former department justice leaders from both parties. she is a person who works to bring people together to get things done. that is who we need, someone who sees that vision, but also understands the way to get to justice is by doing things step by step by step and bringing people with you as you march along. we need to do more than restore what has been undermine or lost. we need the courage of leadership to preserve and strengthen our democracy by protecting the rule of law. i would have liked -- i would like to finally acknowledge that her nomination is historic. in addition to ms. gupta's

experience and to justice she will be the first civil rights lawyer and the first woman of color to serve as associate attorney general. i look forward to confirming her to be associate attorney general and i urge my colleagues to do the same. thank you and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the the senator from delaware is recognized. mr. coons: mr. president, i rise today in support of vanita gupta's nomination to be the associate attorney general of the united states department of justice. those of us who have had the ji, the honor -- joy, the honor of getting to know her, of working with her, know ms. gupta to be engaging and smart, a skilled and balanced lawyer and practitioner and someone who will bring great values an leadership to the united states department of justice. ms. gupta has devoted her career to public service and to protecting and advancing the civil and constitutional rights we all cherish as americans. president biden, attorney

general garland, lisa monaco, the president's nominee to be deputy attorney general have all made clear, ms. gupta would serve as an intregal part of the leadership team at the justice department. she would bring to that critical role, a long record of working with folks across the ideological spectrum in our country on difficult and sensitive issues, some that are urgent and pressing like criminal justice reform and policing. unfortunately, a campaign launched against ms. gupta shortly after her nomination has painted a misleading portrait of her as a partisan and a radical. i won't repeat or rehash these unfounded critiques, but the fact is this caricature could not be farther from the truth as letter after letter has come in from her supporters from the judiciary committee on which i served, we heard over and over at her core, ms. gupta's a person who seeks to build

bridges, to understand others points of view. to build consensus and solve problems. one of the elements of this campaign to mischaracterize her suggests that someone she is antipolice or anti-law enforcement. and in this particular instance, the distinction between those who worked with her and know her and what we heard in the social media campaign and in our committee and here on the floor of the senate could not be sharper. we heard from multiple leading national law enforcement organizations that have worked with her in specific and clear and concrete terms. the nationaller is i was association, in their -- sheriffs association said, and i quote, ms. gupta has an open mind and an ability to find common ground with law enforcement. they added, ms. gupta possesses

immense credibility among law enforcement leaders and is the type of leader who is needed in the justice department today. from the fraternal order of police. she always worked with us to find common ground even when that seemed impossible. her open and candid approach has created a working relationship grounded in mutual respect and understanding. on the federal law enforcement officers association, they said that she has a proven history of working with law enforcement agencies and elected officials across the spectrum. even heard from a leading conservative advocate and activist grover norquist, the leader of americans for tax reform. he wrote, i have come to know and respect ms. gupta on criminal justice systems, i found her qualified, effective, principled and driven to see common purpose and consensus.

at every step ms. gupta was an honest broker, able to understand, appreciate different perspectives, someone who sought consensus. last but not least we heard from mark holden, general counsel of coke industries, who worked with her on criminal justice reform and wrote the committee saying, quote, i respected and admired how ms. gupta was not ideologically driven but principled and solutions oriented. ms. gupta, is a principled leader who seeks to find common ground and will work with anyone committed to making the system better and more effective. i just plead with my colleagues to reflect for a moment. are these the sorts of letters that we would have received in support of someone who is queen queen -- genuinely intolerant in support of someone as they have

attempted to portray her as being. she has demonstrated in her work and career, she is pragmatic, principled, a relationship builder in search of solutions. given this broad and bipartisan support in the letters that came to us on the committee and as members of this body, i was surprised and disappointed some of my colleagues on the other side have continued to levy this misleading barrage of unsubstantiated attacks. so in conclusion, i'd ask my colleagues to consider her fairly, to listen to the range and the scores of groups that have described her as a principled, honest broker. she cares deeply about protecting the civil rights and civil liberties of all americans and about being fair-minded and taking into consideration all points of view. she will bring that same approach to her service and leadership as associate attorney general. this should not be a party line partisan vote.

vanita gupta is the right leader at the right time to help our u.s. department of justice tackle some very difficult issues and i am pleased to stand in support of her nomination and will vote for her confirmation. thank you. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mr. cornyn: mr. president, later this afternoon, the senate will vote on whether to discharge the nomination of vanita gupta, the nominee for associate attorney general from the judiciary committee. ms. gupta is a polarizing figure, as reflected by the vote in the judiciary committee. it was a tie vote, 11 votes to 11. so she failed to receive majority support from the committee and so now the senate must vote on whether or not her nomination can be -- can come to the senate floor for consideration. i want to be clear.

the passionate opposition to this nominee is not about politics. i voted to confirm the vast majority of president biden's nominees. my attitude being that he won the election, he's entitled to populate the cabinet and other important positions with people he has confidence in. but there are limits. the president's nominee for the top two positions at the department of justice did not require this extraordinary step. i voted to support ms. monaco's nomination who has been nominated for deputy attorney general as well as the attorney general himself, judge merrick garland. as i said, the -- those were not controversial nominees. this nominee is a polarizing, partisan activist and should not be confirmed to this important position. the lack of support for

ms. gupta is not a reflection on her political affiliation nor of her gender, nor of her race. as the chairman of the judiciary committee intimated. the opposition to ms. gupta is as a direct result of her history of inflammatory public statements, radical policy positions, and a laundry list of misleading statements and flat out lies during her sworn testimony before the judiciary committee. the position of associate attorney general is not some bureaucratic paper pusher. this is the third ranking position at the department of justice, the highest law enforcement agency in america. the american people deserve to know that the individuals leading the department have no agenda other than to fairly and impartially administer justice.

but based on everything we now know about ms. gupta, i do not have faith in her ability to deliver on this most basic principle. ms. gupta is not a career public servant. she is a partisan culture warrior with a radical agenda. during her tenure in jobs outside of government during which she was a registered lobbyist, ms. gupta was quite outspoken about her views on just about every topic you can imagine. she slandered supreme court nominees. she vilified out organizations she disagreed with. she even took a crack or to at a number of our senate colleagues. but the words i find most troubling are those that relate directly to the policies of the department of justice itself. as the judiciary committee devaluated ms. gupta's qualifications, she was asked

about her previous writings and her public statements on a variety of topics. there's a lot to sort through. first, following the tragic killing of george floyd last summer, people across the country engaged in an important discussion and debate about the use of force by police officers and responsible policing strategies. the judiciary committee held a hearing on this very topic, and ms. gupta was one of the star witnesses. at the time she was the president and c.e.o. of the leadership conference on civil and human rights. she testified before the committee there under oath that it is critical fof state and local -- for state and local leaders to heed calls to decrease police budgets and the scope and role and responsibility of police in our lives. well, for obvious reasons the

phrase decrease police budgets and defund the police lead to the same conclusion, that she believes police departments need less, not more resources in order to maintain public safety. when ms. gupta was asked about this in her confirmation hearing, she did not mince words. she said she does not support defunding the police. so i followed up with a written question for the record. i asked ms. gupta following the hearing to explain the distinction between decrease police budgets and defund the police so we could understand her views. after all the associate attorney general will play an important role in making grants to the funding of state and local police departments. but ms. gupta offered no explanation. she simply said once again she does not support defunding the

police. now, mr. president, i can understand when people change their minds. reasonably intelligent people aqiring new information -- acquiring new information reflecting their point of view, people change their minds. but ms. gupta did not offer a single bit of information for this shift between her statement last summer saying that state and local leaders must heed calls to decrease police budgets and her current position which is she does not support defunding the police. then there were her statements on qualified immunity. this is an important issue for congress to discuss and debate because it is qualified up mute that protect -- qualified immunity that protects law enforcement officers given the nature of their discretionary

decisions they need to make in emergency circumstances. again, there are people on both sides of that argument. but in june 2020, less than a year ago, ms. gupta argued in a "washington post" opinion piece that it's time to revisit qualified immunity. well, you can imagine i asked her about that at the hearing. and again she said unequivocally she does not support eliminating qualified immunity. but once again we received no explanation for her change of position. and while her statements are intentionally, i believe, unclear at best, her words about previously-held beliefs on drug policy represent an irreconcilable conflict. back in 2012, ms. gupta authored

an opinion piece on november 4, 2012, in the "huff post." in that article she argued that the states should decriminalize possession of all drugs, all drugs, not just marijuana, all drugs presumably to include prescription opioids, heroin, methamphetamine, fentanyl, you name it. all drugs. well, i don't have to remind members of this senate that more than 80,000 americans have died from drug overdoses this last year alone, and much of it would include the sorts of drugs that back in 2012 ms. gupta said should be legalized or at least decriminalized, to be fair.

decriminalized. although the distinct it that may be lost on some. -- distinct between that may be lost on some. this may surprise no one that this is a controversial view. congress has spent billions upon billions of dollars to fight the opioid epidemic in this country. we passed the cures act, the cares act to try to get at this epidemic of opioid addiction and abuse. but ms. gupta circa 2012 said that these drugs, all drugs should be decriminalized for personal use. well, i followed up with a question because during the hearing ms. gupta talked about how her views had evolved since

2012. and again, as we all have different experiences over time, we learn new information, perhaps reflect on our previously-held views, i understand how people's views can change. but then, mr. president, she wasn't satisfied with that answer. so i followed up with a written question. i asked ms. gupta if she ever made this statement that is printed in black and white in the "huff post" dated circa 2012. she said, quote, i have never, never advocated for the decriminalization of all drugs. states should decriminalize simple possession of all drugs. compare that with i have never advocated for the decriminalization of all drugs.

those are irreconcilable positions. and the fact is if you believe ms. gupta circa 2012, it's simply a lie. it's a lie under oath, potentially perjury. i mean, why do we swear witnesses in if some of them will take the burden of their oath so lightly and they will lie with impunity. i mean, what's the purpose? she didn't just lie to me. she lied toll chairman durbin. she lied to senator whitehouse. she lied to every member of the judiciary committee. and unfortunately, she's lying to the senate.

she's been given many opportunities to reconcile these radically conflicting statements. these are diametrically opposed positions. if she had a good answer, if she cared enough, if she respected members of the senate enough, she would have provided us an answer rather than just an outright lie. here's a fact-check from "the washington post," that great ultraor uber conservative publication. as you can see, they gave her a unique pinocchio award. i have never seen a opinion yolk -- pinocchio award like this.

ordinarily they would say you get one, two, three, or four pinocchios whether or not we find this to be a managers representation of the -- to be a misrepresentation of the facts or a lie. but here they said for this tango of previously unacknowledged flip-flops, gupta deserves ab upside -- deserves an upside down pinocchio. upside down pinocchio. they went on to say vanita gupta's shifting views on defunding police, decriminalizing drugs deserved this upside down pinocchio. march 10, 2021. if you publish an op-ed saying the sky is purple and now you say the sky is blue, don't tell us you never thought the sky was

purple. have a little more respect for your obligation, one of the highest positions in the department of justice, not to lie to the judiciary committee or the senate. have the courage to tell us the truth and stop trying to deceive the senate in order to be confirmed. as i said earlier, ms. gupta was a registered lobbyist and spent a good part of her career pushing a very specific agenda and a range of radical policies to go along with it. in the process, she disparaged individuals, organizations, and political parties who dared to oppose her beliefs. she wrote about the growing number of conservatives on the

federal bench and said republicans have planted the seeds of this takeover for decades. and now they're leaping into action. i wonder if she realized she might one day be in a position of advocating on department of justice before the very same judges that she's disparaged. she tweeted that justice kavanaugh lied to the judiciary committee and showed himself to be a partisan. and she's going to represent the american people on the highest court of the land populated by justices she's called a liar? well, she's called a number of other federal judges -- she's described a number of them with similar disdain. now, i find it hard to believe that these views which are not from decades-old law school writings or that you can write off to immaturity or perhaps

satire like we heard yesterday from ms. clarke who has been nominated for the civil rights division. these are recent public statements, but this nominee for longer claims to hold. like i said, if confirmed, she'll supervise litigation in front of the many federal judges she has disparaged and she'll be in an extraordinarily powerful position to bend the department of justice to her political whims. ms. gupta is the daughter of a gentleman who heads up a chemical company, produces all sorts of chemicals for a variety of legitimate purposes. and it looks like from her financial disclosure statement he's been very successful, and so has ms. gupta. family trusts worth tens of millions of dollars, much of it in the stock of aven ture.

i realize she is not a personal stockholder in this company, but it is clear from an investigative journalism story by "bloomberg" that aventure was selling an essential ingredient in converting poppies to heroin for at least the last decade. she owns tens of millions of dollars worth of that stock. i've asked the attorney general and the securities and exchange commission to look into aventure's conduct because if in fact an american chemical manufacturer has been selling

acetic anhydride in a country where they know that it will be available to the criminal cartels and drug runners and they should know that 29% of the heroin -- 92% of the heroin used manufactured by aventure in mexico, that's a serious problem. so i have aide ask the attorney general and the attorney general to look nike it. asked about this, asked about aventure's activity, ms. gupta said i'm aware of the allegations. mr. president, i do not have faith nor should the senate have faith nor should the american people have faith that ms. gupta will act fairly and impartially if confirmed to this position.

if she was willing to lie to the american people during her confirmation hearings before the judiciary committee, imagine how she might treat others with disdain, people who are -- who hold opposing views in our society, using the great weight and power of the department of justice for her -- perhaps to further some of her partisan, political, ideological agenda. can we really expect someone with this track record, this history to live up to the highest ideals of the justice department? for example, we all know lawyers are taught if you've got exculpatory information about a criminal defendant, you have a duty to disclose that to the other side. if you're the prosecutor, you

have a duty to the disclose it to the defendant. do weigh really -- don't do we really expect someone who appears willing to lie with such disregard for the truth to disclose exculpatory material that a person sued by the department of justice would have a right to or would she just try to sit on it? can we really expect her to hire people around her based on merit as opposed to some political litmus test? can we really expect her to disclose material information to the foreign intelligence surveillance court or encourage folks under her supervision to be meticulous and forthright with the court when seeking warrants? i don't think so. given the incredible power of the department of justice and all the tools available to it,

ms. gupta's radical beliefs and agenda that she believes inserial, apparently -- indiana is serial, apparently -- that she believes insincerely, apparently, these would be -- her views would be terribly dangerous to the american people based on her track record, i have no confidence in her ability to act with papers, candor or integrity. mr. president, as a member of the bar, as a lawyer, you have a higher duty than even a regular citizen of candor. the model disciplinary rules that apply to lawyers, members of the bar, like ms. gupta, who is a member of the new york bar as well as the supreme court bar, they're subject to discipline from grievance

committees, subject -- in those jurisdictions. we know that they have real teenage because former president clinton, as you may recall, lied under oath as a lawyer and was disbarred by the arkansas bar association and also had to give up his membership in the bar of the supreme court of the united states. if the senate is going to make a habit of allowing witnesses to come in and lie under oath in such a brazen way, why do we even go through this kabuki theater? why do we require them to take an oath in the first place, if you can lie with impunity? what's the point of going to hess hearings if the witness -- to these hearings if the witnesses are not going to be truthful and answer our questions honestly? as i say, i have grave concerns

about this nominee's ability to separate her well-documented personal beliefs from her role as a high-rank official at the department of justice. so, mr. president, it will come as no surprise, i will oppose discharging ms. gupta's nomination from the committee. i think she should have to come back to the committee, as we've requested of chairman durbin, to explain these inconsistencies, if she has a good answer. so far chairman durbin has declined to provide her and us that opportunity. but if we want to maintain any sense of legitimacy and respect for the confirmation process, we need to hold people accountable who come here and lie under oath. and that -- and for that and many other reasons, i will oppose the motion to discharge this nomination.

mr. durbin: mr. president, before -- the presiding officer: the senator from illinois is recognize. mr. durbin: before yielding to my colleague from rhode island, i would like to respond very briefly. my, have we come a long way since we had a president who for four years refused to disclose his tax returns? first time ever. oh, they're under audit. i'll get back to you some other time later. now we have witnesses and nominees coming before the committee suggested by president biden who are producing the documentation and the things that are being requested by this committee so that everyone knows the answers. so did ms. vanita gupta produce 100 pages of documents? no. did she produce 1,000? no. she produced 11,000 pages of documents. answering every question that was to be asked. and the suggestion the senator -- senior senator from texas raises, he raised before in committee, that somehow because of her family made a business

decision about selling a chemical legally into the nation of mexico that she should be held responsible as a shareholder or as a member of the family? and you'll notice if you listen very carefully to what the senator said, he's not saying that there was any wrongdoing. he is saying there was an article once that made that allegation. and he hasrrived the question to others to -- and he has referred the question to others to decide. that's a long way from saying that vanita gupta is responsible for whatever the company did, if it did anything wrong. she's made that full disclosure and i think raise this is unfair, fundamentally unfair. on the question of decriminalizing drugs, narcotics, she says her position on it has evolved. well, i think the senator from texas would be the first to acknowledge the position of america has evolved under the question of judges. has it not? hasn't the position of texas recently evolved on the question of drugs and possession thereof?

we're thinking differently about it. we're trying to find the most effective way to end addiction and save lives. we no longer want to lock everybody up, nor should we. we've decided that there are some violations that shouldn't merit any time in jail. some people just need help to break their addiction. if vanita gupta has been part of that coverings in america over -- that conversation in america over nine or ten years, she's in good company. virtually all of us have been part of it. and this notion of defunding police? do you honestly believe the fraternal order of police would be endorsing her if she wanted to defund the police? she made it clear that reallocation of funds for law enforcement is just common sense. putting a psychologist in a delicate situation may spare a policeman a terribly he has to make. i think most of us agree that's common sense. i yield the floor. mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from rhode island is recognized. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i am here to express my support for the nomination of vanita gupta to serve as associate attorney general. it is a little strange here on the floor today because under normal circumstances i would talk about ms. gupta's a exemplary record of service and how she will excel as the third in canned at the department of justice, and she would be a consensus nominee. but the extraordinary effort to scuttle her nomination on a partisan basis in spite of her exemplary record asks some questions about what is going on here. vanita gupta is an accomplished lawyer with a record of working well with just about everyone. when she was last at the department working on really difficult issues, like use of force guidelines for police, she

built solid relationships with law enforcement. so they've thrown their full-throated support behind her nomination. here are the law enforcement agencies and leaders who are supporting her. the fraternal order of police, the major county sheriffs of america, the international association of chiefs of ploys, the major cities association, the police executive research forum, the federal law enforcement officers association, the hispanic american police command officers association, the national organization of black law enforcement executives, and a whole array of distinguished law enforcement leaders. she is are influential groups and respected individuals and for some of my republican colleagues, this kind of support from law enforcement is literally unbelievable. so here's what my colleague, the

junior senator from arkansas, asked ms. gupta about all of these law law enforcement endorsements during her hearing. did you or anyone on your behalf or anyone in or affiliated with the biden campaign tra significance or administration pressure those organizations with threats off retaliation if they did not support your nomination? no, senator, she answered. and she wasn't kidding. law enforcement doesn't -- threats from criminals, let alone presidential candidates and executive nominees seeking their endorsement. and indeed they stood up to dispute that insinuation. here is what jim pass mosquito, the executive director of the fraternal order of police, said in response. i was kind of shocked by it.

if the senator really suspects that, then he doesn't really know the law enforcement organizations as well as he thinks he does, and he certainly doesn't know vanita gupta as well as i know her. chuck wexler is the head of the police executive research forum and here's how he responded. do you really think you can stand up to law enforcement and threaten them? do you really think that's going to work? we never forgot that she stood with us when it mattered. that's the reason for her support from law enforcement. she stood with them when it mattered. and to say that she is such a radical and so against law enforcement and disdains those who disagree with her, which would presumably be law enforcement, if she is is such n

anti-law enforcement radical, as my colleagues single, is completely blown to smithereens by their continued support for her. not disdain. she stood with us when it mattered. so with that effort to blow her up exploded in her face, colleagues went after an op-ed that she authored nine years ago in which she supported decriminalization and defelonization of simple possession of small amounts of drugs. it could be read to say decriminalization of marijuana, other drugs small amounts. well, we know altitude about substance abuse that we didn't know then, that people who have addictions require treatment and

care, not punishment and incarceration. that's no radical position. the idea that you should not prosecute people for possession of small amounts is the basis of drug courts. i started the drug court in rhode island. it has been a roaring success. it's the basis for diversion programs. as attorney general of my state with full criminal jurisdiction over the state of rhode island, we constantly did diversion of cases of possession of small amounts of drugs, all kinds of drugs, because they don't belong in the criminal justice system. they get is swept up and you divert them out before prosecution. this is nothing peculiar or unusual. this is the position of the world health organization. this is the position of the organization of american states. this is the position of the international red cross. heck, even former speaker

boehner supported decriminalization of simple possession of some or all drugs. so they had to get into rhetorical tricks to try to make the point look different than it actually is, and republicans repeatedly asked her questions about that statement regarding small amounts with respect to what they call here, the legalization of all drugs. in response to that, she said i have never advocated for the legalization or criminalization of all drugs and i do not support the legalization or criminalization of all drugs. now, if i were to come up to you, mr. president, and say do you support the legalization or decriminalization of all drugs, what will you take that question to mean? it would seem to mean blanket

decriminalization or legalization of all drugs. not small amounts. all. well, they went on in this same vein. here's a question for the record from senator hawley describing senator cornyn's question, quote, whether you advocate decriminalization of all drugs. that's not what she advocated. what she advocated was decriminalization of small amounts, consistent with diversion, consistent with drug court activity, consistent with the way the substance abuse and recovery community treat this issue, and consistent with the position of all those organizations, and many, many more. this is the way we operate in law enforcement these days. so then they try to focus in on the word never. senator cornyn, who was speaking on the floor a moment ago, ominously said to me the

most important word in that quote is never, because as you can see, it's simply a misrepresentation of what she said in 2012. well, you can also argue, i have never advocated for the decriminalization of all drugs. you could also argue that the key word in that sentence isn't never. it's all. that's the subject of the sentence -- all drugs. kilos of cocaine, pounds of methamphetamine. no, small simple possession amounts. that's the way everybody treats drugs in law enforcement these days. so as lawyers, we know that it's important to get the question right, and it's not unusual for lawyers to flub the question. and when you're asking a question in court and you flub the question, you often get an

answer you don't like. and the remedy for that is not to call the witness who answered your question a liar. the remedy for that is to get the question right in the first place. and if the question is whether vanita gupta advocated decriminalization of all drugs, the answer is in fact no, because small amounts of simple possession is a very different thing than all drugs. and now they're hanging this extraordinary rampart of invik invik -- invictive liar, deliberate liar, all over getting an answer to a question they asked badly, or perhaps worse yet, a trick question intended to trip her up that she answered honestly. so what is going on? why are they going through this exercise?

well, step back a little bit, look what's going on in our country. the first thing that's going on is there is a massive dark money campaign for voter suppression. there's a guy named leonard leo who ran the dark money campaign that pushed three supreme court justices on to the court. "the washington post" reported that as a $250 million effort. $250 million. and after the "washington post" article came out and leonard leo was blown like a covert agent who suddenly is identified with all of this, he has to get out. where does he go? he goes to something called the honest elections project, which is the sister organization of a group called the judicial crisis network, which guess what? is running ads against vanita gupta. they used to run ads for the supreme court nominees. they spent tens of millions of

dollars running ads against garland, for gorsuch, for kavanaugh, for barrett. tens of millions of dollars. but with biden in the white house, nobody's listening to them any he longer. they're not getting their appointees through, so they've moved to voter suppression. and all that money, and that same guy -- leonard leo -- are now behind voter suppression. and so you get dark money ads paid for by judicial crisis network against the third-ranking person in the department of justice? they're used to going for the supreme court. they're going after the third-ranking person in the department of justice? why? because it's voter suppression. because she has been the head of the civil rights division which prosecuted voter suppression. she knows that stuff. she will supervise karen clark, we will hear a lot more nonsense from the other side, who will

run the civil rights division, and sue for voter suppression. so what this is really all about is the vote suppression project that you see alive and well in the country from the republican party. there are reports that say that every single legislative body in the country controlled by republicans is pushing voter suppression measures. i don't know that it's true, but it sure looks like it's true, and if not, it's darned close. it is a pattern. wherever you go in the country, republicans in charge, boom, restrict the ballot. they know people don't like what they stand for. they knoll people can't stand the -- they know people can't stand the dark money forces behind ads like this. so the secret, as my distinguished colleague, senator warnock, said, some people don't want some people to vote. and so the two women who will be overseeing the department of justice voter suppression resistance, the legal fight

against voter suppression, the enforcement of the civil rights act are being subjected to this treatment. on this, i will stand with ms. gupta. thank you very much. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam president. i find it so interesting that my friend and colleague across the aisle is trying to deflect questions and concerns that we have by insinuations and some pretty disgusting slander. and i am sorry that we have listened to that here on the floor of this chamber. and yes indeed, i am coming to the floor today to oppose discharging vanita gupta from this floor to be confirmed as

the associate attorney general. and, yes, i have concerns. i have had questions in committee. and i will tell you, i didn't expect to find a lot in common with her because i've had a difficult time finding a lot in common with some of the nominees that president biden has sent over to us at judiciary committee. but as a member of that committee, it is my responsibility to approach each nomination with an open mind. some i have decided were worthy of an aye vote. there are others, like ms. gupta, that i feel are not worthy of a confirmation vote. over the course of the review of

information and to my friend the chairman of the judiciary committee, 11,000 pages of documents, if you can send in a million pages of documents, but if you're not answering the question, if you're trying to circumvent the question, or nuance it or dance around it, it still doesn't answer the question. so the volume doesn't really matter. what matters is someone that steps up and says here is my answer. clear, concise. that's what you want to hear. that's what the american people expect. but i arrived at the opinion that, no, i didn't think she was fit to take that number

three position, not because i disagreed politically, but because her answers that she gave on some specific issues -- police funding, drug legalization, qualified immunity -- were so inconsistent with what she had previously said or what she had previously written that no one can say with any degree of certainty what she will do with a newfound power if we decided to give that to her. no one knows what she would do. due to the time constraints that we have on the floor today, i want to go back to the 2012 article and use that as one example. there's been quite a bit said about that. now she was in the position of the aclu's deputy legal

director. she wrote an op-ed arguing -- and i quote -- " and we've just heard a good bit about this, states should decriminalize simple possession of all drugs, particularly marijuana and for small amounts of other drugs. that is a quote. speaking as a senator representing the interest of a state struggling to emerge from the opioid epidemic, this statement to me is a dis qualifier. it is as simple as that. senator cornyn added to that conversation with other specific items that have transpired in her past. in her hearing which took place in march, ms. gupta almost got away with disavowing that op-ed, but when we pressed her on it, what did she have to say?

that her position had evolved. and it seems that there is an issue with some of these nominees that are coming before us. they are going through these just in time, road to damascus damascus, evolution processes. all of a sudden they're evolving to a position of something they think the committee wants to hear that they think will help them skirt through, that they think will help them get confirmed so that they can hold the power. now ms. gupta has also evolved on criminal justice reform on the fundamentals for that. and as we've discussed on this floor today, the fact-checkers have had a pretty good time with that. back in march "the washington

post" took her to task. senator cornyn talked about this , her evolving position, her shifting views on defunding the police, decriminalization of drugs. this is "the washington post". this is "the washington post." that gave her the unusual upside down pinocchio. because she was flip-flopping and evolving at such a rapid rate, they couldn't keep up with it. now, madam president, everyone has the right and the opportunity to change their mind , absolutely people have the right to change their mind. but trying to follow the many changes of her mind on the issue

of drug crime, on decriminalization, on defunding police, these are important issues to our communities. these are not a game. these are very important issues to the safety and security of our communities. the number of inconsistencies in her testimony more than test the boundaries of understanding. is she still evolving? is she going to flip-flop, as "the washington post" says, back to her previous opinions of 2012? is she going to flip-flop again? would we see that in the next 11,000 pages of documents that were submitted that she has decided to change her mind one

more time? from what standard is she going to work at the department of justice? each of these are concerns. each of these are reasons that my hope is that this chamber will refuse to discharge vanita gupta for a confirmation vote. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. whitehouse: before my distinguished friend speaks, i wanted to ask if i might have an article appended as an exhibit to the remarks that i gave earlier, and i ask unanimous consent. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota is recognized.

mr. cramer: 12 days ago on apris of the passing of douglas britell of north dakota, the last living world war ii veteran surviving from the north dakota national guard. tomorrow would have been his 97th birthday, april 16. i join in remembering and honoring him and the generation of heroes he represents to our state and to our nation. doug as are britell joined the national guard in fargo at the age of 16. in february of 1942, two months after the attack on pearl harbor, this castleton native was among the 1,723 young men to mobilize in the 164th infantry regiment. ten months later, the regiment sailed into history as the first u.s. army unit to offensively engage the enemy in the pacific when they landed at guantanamo canal on october 13, 1942. there they reinforced the first

marine division and spent more than 600 days in the combat zone until august of 1945. his talent for illustration was noticed at the national regiment headquarters where he was trained in intelligence and reconnaissance. there he interpreted aerial photography, analyzed captured materials and drew maps based on patrol reconnaissance reports. his service included combat on the philippine islands, boganville, and guadalcanal, and he received the purple heart after being wounded in action. returning to north dakota after the war, mr. britell earned his high school g.e.d., attended art school in napes, and spent much of his life in lumber, millwork and camper sales. he spent his last years living nearing his daughter in bowman, north dakota. often attending reunions of the infantry association, he was present at its final gathering in october of 2017.

he helped relatives of other veterans with research about the war experiences of their loved ones, and he painted throughout his life, generously sharing his work with friends. mr. britell's artwork helped tell the everyday stories of the soldiers as they fought their way through the south pacific. his illustrations are a lasting testament to the heroic contributions of the 164th infantry regiment regiment to world war ii. he was honored in march when north dakota ajut antigen al dorman announced his sketches would be featured on a new coin. arches on the regiment memorial which is located at mr. britell's final resting place. on behalf of all north dakotans and a grateful nation, i offer my deepest condolences to douglas britell's family and

friends, including his daughter and son, his two granddaughters and five greatgrandchildren. today with most of our world war ii veterans now gone, his artwork preserves the face of so many brave north dakotaans and exemplifies their patriotism and dedication. their motto i am read inspired today's national guard motto of always ready, always there. god bless the memory of douglas britell and the brave soldiers of world war ii who were always ready. i yield.

the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mr. cruz: madam president, i rise today to express concerns over two of the democrats' nominees. there have been a number of questionable nominees put forth by this new administration, but these two nominees may be the two most radical nominees put forth. first, i'd like to talk about vanita gupta. today we are set to vote on discharging vanita gupta's nomination out of the judiciary committee because ms. gupta could not garner a majority vote in the committee on moving her nomination forward to the full senate. the judiciary committee is deadlocked, and for good reason. this nominee's record is that of an extreme partisan ideal og. -- idealogue.

i can tell the american people ms. gupta is not a moderate, is not mainstream, but is rather an extreme political activist that the democrats want to be the number three lawyer at the department of justice. when she testified before the judiciary committee last month, she consistently dodged questions she wouldn't answer -- dodged questions. she wouldn't answer if she supported any restrictions on abortion whatsoever. she wouldn't answer not partial-birth abortion, not anything. when it comes to the second amendment, i asked ms. gupta if she thought the heller decision, the landmark decision upholding the individual right to keep and bear arms, if that decision was rightly decided. she refused to answer that question. for years, she has demonstrated a persistent hostility to religious liberty, such as when she defended the obama administration's targeting and persecution of the little sisters of the poor. not too long ago, religious

liberty was a bipartisan commitment in this body. the religious freedom restoration act was introduced by then-representative chuck schumer, now the senate majority leader. it passed the house unanimously. it passed the senate 93-3 and was signed into law by democratic president bill clinton. sadly, today's democrat party has abandoned religious liberty. that is no longer a commitment. instead, today's democratic party embraces extreme ideas like the equality act, which has just come out of the house of representatives, a radical piece of legislation that, among other things, explicitly repeals major parts of the religious freedom restoration act. designed to take away your religious liberty. ms. gupta has been a vocal

offender of the misnamed equality act. she lobbied for its passage, a fact that she didn't disclose to the committee initially. when she was before the judiciary committee, i asked in she -- if she agreed with the provisions in the equality act that take away religious liberty protections from americans. again, ms. gupta refused to answer that question, too. ms. gupta has demonstrated radical hostility to school choice, so much so that when she served in the department of justice during the obama-biden administration, she helped intervene in a case trying to kill a louisiana school choice program, even though many of the african american parents in louisiana strongly supported and desperately needed that program. the federal court involved in this case even reprimanded the department of justice under her leadership for ineffective lawyering in this case. at the judiciary hearing of

ms. gupta last month, i asked if she regretted using the department of justice to fight against the school choice program that was providing hope and opportunity to low-income minority kids in louisiana. again, she refused to provide a straightforward answer. and when it comes to defunding the police, it is here that ms. gupta is most radical. last year, ms. gupta, in a written filing with this senate, encouraged congress to, quote, reexamine federal spending priorities and shrink the footprint of the police and criminal legal system in this country. she also encouraged reallocating resources, writing, quote, some people call it defunding the police. other people call it divest, invest. but whatever you call it, if you

care about mass incarceration, you have to care about skewed funding priorities. these weren't ms. gupta's college writings. these weren't scribblings on a post-it she made somewhere. these statements were from last year, submitted to the united states senate and on their face and unequivocally advocate for defunding the police. there is no question on her record that ms. gupta is a hard-left partisan radical whose beliefs don't align with the majority of the american people. so why are democrats so hell-bent on making sure she gets confirmed? two reasons. reason number one -- headlines. democrats care so deeply about looking good in the press, they continue to press through partisan bills and partisan activists for adulation by an adoring media. reason two, today's democrats are beholden to the far-left

voices in their party, and their fulfilling campaign promises that they made to the radical left. that's why they nominated ms. gupta, and that's why they broke judiciary committee rules to move forward her nomination. rule four of the committee preserves the rights of minority members to speak before a vote. it only allows for stopping debate and bringing a matter to a vote if a majority of the committee agrees, including at least one member of the minority party. but the democrats didn't have a majority. they had tried to bring a matter to the vote under the rules, the vote would have failed, so instead, chairman durbin unilaterally silenced and stopped a member of the committee from speaking mid sentence and forced a vote. he did so in flat-out violation of the rules. without even a pretense of a justification under the rules. the chairman knew that this was an abuse of power.

every democrat on the committee knew it was an abuse of power. it was an abuse of power that had never been done against them when republicans had the gavel for six years. but today's democrats are about power. so if the rules stand in the way, to heck with the rules, ignore them. that's what senate democrats did on the judiciary committee. i also want to talk about kristen clarke who has been nominated to a senior department of the justice department. she is an extreme radical. last year she wrote an op-ed in "newsweek" entitled, i prosecuted police killings, defund the police, but be strategic. in that op-ed, ms. clarke

stated, quote, into that space has surged a unifying call from the black lives matter movement, defund the police. now, like ms. gupta, she tried to run away from her record. at the prompting of senate democrats, at the prompting of senate durbin, ms. clarke, said, no, i do not support defunding the police. she said it was the headline of the article. i didn't write the headline. ms. gupta did the same thing. both were instructed by their handlers, back pedal as quickly as possible from your advocacy in writing. ms. clarke says she doesn't support defunding the police. yesterday when ms. clarke came before the judiciary committee, i asked her straightforward if she still thinks, quote, dwunld the police is a unifying call.

that's what she wrote. not ten years ago, not five years ago, last year. she wouldn't answer the question. instead she just repeated her talking points, i do not support defunding the police. as i told ms. clarke yesterday, that claim is objectively ridiculous. she asserted she doesn't advocate cutting the funding of police, which on its face was a lie. that same op-ed she wrote in "newsweek," there's no less than three separate paragraphs that begin with the following words, we must invest less in the police. three paragraphs in a row. now when you write three paragraphs that begin with, we must invest less in the police,

we must invest less in the police, we must invest less in the police, you don't get to come and say, i don't support investing in the police. that is objectively absurd. but sadly it's even worse. not only is ms. clarke an extreme advocate for defunding the police, but she has a history of not just excusing, but celebrating murderers who have murdered police officers. it's been widely reported that in college ms. clarke helped organize a conference with speakers who referred to convicted cop killers as political prisoners. this included a man who murdered a philadelphia police officer and asasta who murdered a new

jersey police officer, escaped from prison and is on the f.b.i.'s most wanted list. multiple people thanked her for inviting her to speak. now they want her to head the civil rights division of the department of justice. i ask the question i asked ms. clarke yesterday? what's a police officer in philadelphia watching the proceedings before this body or a police officer in new jersey watching c-span today, what are they supposed to think about the democrats nominating someone to a senior position at the department of justice knowing that this individual participated in a conference celebrating and lyonizeing cop killers who murdered a new jersey state trooper? how should a police officer today react to that news?

there are numerous members of this body, senate democrats, who when they go home to their states, they like to tell their constituents they are not all that liberal. they are really quite reasonable, they are really quite moderate. well, the nice thing about politics is that actions speak much more loudly than words. these two nominations, ms. gupta, which we have before us right now and ms. clarke which i expect we will have before us relatively soon, are two of the most radical nominees ever to be put forward. indeed, you could call the two of them the radical twins. they are zealots, they are idealogues. i say to my democratic friends, this is is a 50-50 senate. that means just one of you, just

one out of 50 could say, okay, enough is enough. how many senate democrats have gone home and said, i don't support abolishing the police. quite a few senate democrats, i suspect, are telling their constituents back home that they don't support abolishing the police. well, today you've got a vote. because, madam president, i tell you, if you as a senator vote to convict the radical twins, both of whom are among the leading advocates for abolishing the police, your constituents back home will know exactly where you stand on abolishing the police. you don't get to put radicals who want to abolish the police in the top positions of the department of justice and claim you oppose abolishing the police. you know, president obama nominated for a senior position in the department of justice another lawyer who had celebrated and defended a cop

killer, and this body in one of the fuse instances decided that was too much, it that was too far and they were not going to confirm that lawyer. unfortunately, the democratic party has changed. the democratic party today is radicalized. they hate donald trump. now, i understand donald trump is a unique character. i understand that his existence and every word he uttered enraged democrats, but they emerged from four years of the trump administration more radical than any majority party in this body ever has been. there are quite a few democrats who when they are at home like to pretend otherwise.

but today is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that that pretense is not mere empty words but, in fact, if you don't support abolishing the police, then don't support abolishing the police. and if you don't support celebrating cop killers, then don't confirm people who have celebrated cop killers to senior positions in the u.s. department of justice. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from indiana is recognized. brawn brawn i rise today to hon -- mr. braun: i rise today to authorize the 50th anniversary of the signing of coach robert

nye who set the standard for excellence as a collegiate men's basketball coach. coach knight had a legendary career as a college head coach for more than 40 years. 29 of which were at indiana university. during those 29 years, coach knight had 11 big ten conference championship teams, took 24 teams to the ncaa tournament, and earned eight big ten coach of the year awards. his 75-7 -- 1975-1976 team at i.u. remains the last team to complete an undefeated season and win every game in the ncaa tournament. got close this year. my wife and i attended indiana university, and i remember what it was like to watch his team play. their drive to win was

contagious and they continue to be a pride for the entire state of indiana. coach knight never focused his coaching on winning a game, but on the effort it takes to become a champion. saying that the will to succeed is important but the will to prepare is even more important. due to his focus on his players' success on and off the court, this is amazing, coach knight had an astounding -- an astounding 98% graduation rate for all players who he coached for at least four years. more than twice the average graduation rate for division i schools. on the world stage, coach knight led the u.s. men's national basketball team to a gold medal in the 1979 pan am games and to

a gold medal in the 1984 olympic games. victory is fleeting, but coach knight propelled young men toward greatness on the court and gave them experiences and lessons that have shaped their entire lives. we honor the drive, determination, and character of coach knight and all that he did in educating and mentoring hundreds of indiana university players over three decades to bring pride to the state of indiana. for all the memories coach knight, we give you a heartfelt thank you. madam president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. resolution 15 7, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution

157, honoring the 50th anniversary of hiring robert montgomery bobby knight as the head coach of the men's basketball team at indiana university. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. braun: i know of no further debate on the measure. the presiding officer: if there's no further debate, the question is on the resolution. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolution is approved. mr. braun: i ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection.

mr. braun: i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. durbin: madam president, what is it about this nominee vanita gupta and kristen clarke that drives some of the members on the other side of the aisle into a rage. listen to how they described them. the senior senator from texas describing vanita gupta, a political culture warrior slandering and vilifying people. and then of course the junior senator from texas, an extreme partisan ideologue, radical twins he calls it. what is it about these two nominees that drives them into such a state of mind that they say these things about individuals seeks an opportunity

to again serve our federal government? it's amazing to me that the junior senator from texas suggests that they are in the thrall of handlers, handlers. if you heard the story of the lives of these two women and what they have overcome to be where they are today, the last thing in the world you would use is a reference to handlers. they have defied handlers all throughout their lives. sons of immigrant, daughters of immigrants. like so many of them, they know they have to work hard to prove themselves and they have done time and again. vanita gupta. can you picture that moment when the civil rights organization said to vanita gupta, we want you to go to te tulia, texas, because something has happened there and looks like a

miscarriage of justice. 40 people have been arrested for drug crimes and we want you to go down there, even though they're in jail and they've been convicted and defend them and try to find a way that they'll be released. and that's exactly what vanita gupta did. the net result was they were not only released, but the law man who supposedly found them guilty was the one who was discredited and dishonored when it was over, and the texas governor, the republican texas governor acknowledged it with a pardon of these individuals and paying them millions of dollars for what they had lived through. who led that champ? vanita gupta. was she waiting for a message from a handler? no. she showed extraordinary courage there and throughout her life as an attorney fighting for the civil rights of others and as an attorney representing the government of the united states of america and the department of justice. when i listen to efforts to discredit her and her

professionalism, i think you haven't read the story. you'd know in a second. she doesn't wait to hear from a handler. she never has. she's shown exceptional courage and professionalism every step of the way. and kristen clarke the same. born in an area of new york city that i'm sure senator schumer knows in a public tenement type of building. she overcame all the odds. graduated from law school and served in the department of justice. and when the junior senator from texas comes and refers to vanita gupta and kristen clarke as radical twins, zealots, ideologues, it's disgusting. it's terrible. it's a terrible reference to a fine life each of them has lived. and this notion, this notion that somehow they have fooled

the fraternal order of police into believing that they really do love police when in fact, at the republicans argue, they just want to take all their money away, we know better. the fact vanita gupta has the endorsement of every major law enforcement organizations puts to rest some of the charges that are made against her. i can't believe what they're saying about these two nominees. but i think that a majority of this senate is ultimately going to judge that they are ready to serve this country again and should in the department of justice. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. schumer: the senator from utah has graciously yielded back his remaining time. i ask unanimous consent that i speak for a brief few minutes and then we vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. schumer: and yield back the rest of our time after that. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: okay. madam president, the senate will soon vote on a motion to discharge the nomination of vanita gupta to serve as the

next attorney general -- associate attorney general. the daughter of immigrants, she would be the first woman of color and the first civil rights attorney to serve as attorney general. ms. gupta is an exceptional nominee and an jowd standing lawyer -- outstanding lawyer. it's confounding her nomination has been tied up in the judiciary committee requiring the senate to take the extra procedural steps to move her nomination forward. but despite republican obstruction, she will be confirmed by this chamber in a few minutes. ms. gupta's cra den t -- credentials speak for themselves. she most recently served as president and c.e.o. on the leadership conference on civil and human rights and served four years at the justice department. her first case after law school involved the securing the release of several african americans wrongly convicted by all-white juries in texas. madam president, at a time when so many in our country call for action against civil injustices and racial violence, how can we

not install one of the nation's top civil rights lawyers at the department of justice? senate republicans rather than evaluate ms. gupta on the merits of her accomplishments have spent the last few weeks appealing to outlandish accusations that she is an out of touch far-left radical. the questions she has endured during her confirmation hearing were utterly inname from accusations she's antipolice to insinuations she wants to legalize all drugs. a conservative judicial organization launched a shameful national ad campaign to smear her nomination. these smear tactics are nonsense. gupta commands the respect of civil rights advocates and law enforcement and has the endorsement from the national fraternal order of police, the national sheriffs association, the association of chiefs of police and the federal law enforcement officers

association. and there's no mystery to ms. gupta's broad support. she's outstanding at what she does. she knows how to listen and work with others, including republican senators and is deeply knowledgeable in the field. that is exactly, exactly -- she is exactly the kind of person we need at the department of justice. so i look forward to now moving on ms. gupta's nomination and yield back the rest of our time. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to discharge. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 49, the nays are 34. the motion to discharge is agreed to. pursuant to senate resolution 27 and the motion to discharge, having been agreed to, the nomination will be placed on the executive calendar.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized.

mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: mr. president, i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 57. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of justice, lisa o. monaco of the district of columbia to be deputy attorney general. mr. schumer: mr. president, i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 57, lisa o. monaco of the district of columbia to be

deputy attorney general, signed by 18 senators as follows -- mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: mr. president, i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 34. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, securities and exchange commission, gary gensler of maryland to be a member. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the

nomination of executive calendar number 34, gary gensler of maryland to be a member of the securities and exchange commission, signed by 19 senators as follows -- mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: finally, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today, april 15, be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. noes. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: