Nomination of Vanita Gupta

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I find it so interesting that my friend and colleague across the aisle is trying to deflect questions and concerns that we have by insinuations and some pretty disgusting slander, and I am sorry that we have listened to that here on the floor of this Chamber.

Yes, indeed, I am coming to the floor today to oppose discharging Vanita Gupta from this floor to be confirmed as the Associate Attorney General. And, yes, I have concerns. I have had questions in committee.

I will tell you I didn't expect to find a lot in common with her because I have had a difficult time finding a lot in common with some of the nominees that President Biden has sent over to us at Judiciary Committee. But as a member of that committee, it is my responsibility to approach each nomination with an open mind. Some I have decided were worthy of an ``aye'' vote. There are others, like Ms. Gupta, that I feel are not worthy of a confirmation vote.

Over the course of the review of information--and to my friend, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 11,000 pages of documents--you can send in a million pages of documents, but if you are not answering the question, if you are trying to circumvent the question or nuance it or dance around it, it still doesn't answer the question. So the volume doesn't really matter.

What matters is someone who steps up and says: Here is my answer-- clear, concise. That is what you want, and that is what the American people expect.

I arrived at the opinion that, no, I didn't think she was fit to take that No. 3 position, not because I disagreed politically but because the answers that she gave on some specific issues--police funding, drug legalization, qualified immunity--were so inconsistent with what she had previously said or what she had previously written that no one can say with any degree of certainty what she will do with the newfound power if we decided to give that to her. No one knows what she would do.

Due to the time constraints we have on the floor today, I want to go back to the 2012 article and use that as one example. There has been quite a bit said about that. Now, she was in the position of the ACLU's deputy legal director. She wrote an op-ed arguing--and I quote, and we have just heard a good bit about this--``States should decriminalize simple possession of all drugs, particularly marijuana, and for small amounts of other drugs.'' That is a quote.

Speaking as a Senator representing the interests of a State struggling to emerge from the opioid epidemic, this statement to me is a disqualifier. It is as simple as that.

Senator Cornyn added to that conversation with other specific items that have transpired in her past. In her hearing, which took place in March, Ms. Gupta almost got away with disavowing that op-ed. But when we pressed her on it, what did she have to say? That her position had evolved.

It seems there is an issue with some of these nominees that are coming before us. They are going through these just in time, road to Damascus, evolution processes. All of a sudden, they are evolving to a position of something that they think the committee wants to hear, that they think will help them skirt through, that they think will help them get confirmed so that they can hold the power.

Ms. Gupta has also evolved on criminal justice reform, on the fundamentals for that. And as we have discussed on this floor today, the fact checkers have had a pretty good time with that. Back in March, the Washington Post took her to task--Senator Cornyn talked about this--her evolving position, her shifting views on defunding the police, decriminalization of drugs. This is the Washington Post. This is the Washington Post that gave her the unusual upside-down Pinocchio because she was flip-flopping and evolving at such a rapid rate, they couldn't keep up with it.

Madam President, everyone has the right and the opportunity to change their mind. Absolutely, people have the right to change their mind, but trying to follow the many changes of her mind on the issue of drug crimes, on decriminalization, on defunding police--these are important issues to our communities. These are not a game. These are very important issues to the safety and security of our communities.

The number of inconsistencies in her testimony more than test the boundaries of understanding. Is she still evolving? Is she going to flip-flop, as the Washington Post says, back to her previous opinions of 2012? Is she going to flip-flop again? Would we see that in the next 11,000 pages of documents that were submitted that she has decided to change her mind one more time? From what standard is she going to work at the Department of Justice?

Each of these are concerns. Each of these are reasons that my hope is that this Chamber will refuse to discharge Vanita Gupta for a confirmation vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source