Nomination of Vanita Gupta

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it has been many years ago that I went to law school, and I still remember some of the courses and some of the teachers and certainly some of my grades. One of the most interesting courses that should have been required of every student in every law school in America basically was about this document, this Constitution, because in its simplicity, you are sometimes put off by the fact that there is real wisdom behind the words, and applying them in real life can take twists and turns. I found one way, a quick course in constitutional law, where average people come to understand the Bill of Rights better than most, and I found this when I was practicing law in Springfield, IL.

I would get a telephone call from a parent who would say to me: Durbin, you have got to help me. They arrested my 17-year-old son for possession of marijuana. What are his rights under the Constitution? Did they give him a Miranda warning?

I started hearing things from parents coming back to me about this document, which I was surprised--surprised to hear. The point I am trying to make is this: The many years ago when I was practicing law in Springfield, IL, we were going through a learning process about drugs and addiction, and it has continued to this day. In fact, I don't believe there is a single Senator on either side of the aisle who would say: You know, I have been here 20 years or plus, and I have never changed my views on drugs. Maybe some feel that way. I am not one of them.

There have been dramatic changes in the American attitude toward drugs. I think we know that, obviously. There have been changes in many States. In my State of Illinois, I think about that parent who called so many years ago--in a State where the sale and possession of marijuana and products made with marijuana is now legal and taxed.

Things have changed dramatically when it comes to drugs. There are very few people who hold to the old school, which says: Simple possession of one marijuana cigarette, and we are going to put you in jail and throw away the key.

No, it has changed a lot. In fact, it has changed in Washington so much so that there was a bill called the FIRST STEP Act. The FIRST STEP Act was a bill that I worked on with Senator Grassley and Senator Lee and Senator Booker, who is here today, that basically said: We are changing our attitude toward drugs. Simple possession of a small amount of drugs will not require a mandatory minimum sentence because we have seen the terrible outcome otherwise.

We put that bill together on a bipartisan basis, and President Donald Trump signed the bill into law. He not only signed it but came before us in the State of the Union Address and was proud of the fact that he had changed and reformed drug laws.

So when I hear the arguments made on the floor that perhaps some nominee coming before us may have changed her or his opinion on drugs as, say, America has, by and large, think about what has happened with this opioid crisis now that it is no longer just an--I say ``just,'' underlined--an inner-city crime but a crime that affects families who live in wealthy suburbs. We now are looking at addiction so differently.

So let's go to this issue of Vanita Gupta and her positions on drugs. In questions for the record, Senator Cornyn, the senior Senator from Texas, asked Vanita Gupta what research, books, studies, and other material did you rely on before concluding that ``all drugs should be legal''?

Gupta said that she has never said that all drugs should be legal or completely decriminalized.

In his floor speech last week, Senator Cornyn claimed 15 times that Gupta had lied in response to this question. Senator Cornyn held up a poster purportedly showing that Gupta had denied ever making a 2012 statement in favor of decriminalizing the simple possession of small amounts of drugs. The Senator said: 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.

Senator Cornyn's claim, I am afraid, is false. Vanita Gupta was completely honest and forthright. Cornyn's poster left out the very next sentence of Gupta's response, in which she clearly acknowledged her past position on decriminalizing the simple possession of drugs. Gupta stated, and I quote: ``I have never advocated for the decriminalization of all drugs, and I do not support the decriminalization of all drugs. In 2012, nine years ago, I coauthored an article that advocated for states to decriminalize and defelonize simple possession of all drugs, particularly marijuana, and for small amounts of other drugs.''

Does this sound like a person who is on a crusade to promote fentanyl, opioids, heroin? It sounds like a person who might have voted for the FIRST STEP Act, signed into law by President Donald Trump, who said we have to take an honest look at what arrest and imprisonment for simple possession of drugs has done to America. When one out of three Black adult males, has, unfortunately, a history of incarceration, it raises a question about overincarcerating for possession--possession-- of drugs. So I think this argument that she cannot be trusted on the issue of drugs falls apart when you read what she actually said.

Then there is the question of defunding the police. I don't know who dreamed up that phrase. I don't think much of it. I have never espoused it nor argued for it because I think it is so misleading, and, in many respects, it has been exploited.

Republicans like to claim that Vanita Gupta supports efforts to defund the police. She has never called for defunding the police. Suggesting she has done so, including an ad by the conservative, dark money-funded Judicial Crisis Network--they pop up around here whenever mysterious groups want to spend millions of dollars to discredit someone. These claims in that ad are patently false.

A Washington Post editorial wrote of the Judicial Crisis Network claim: ``Awkwardly, there's zero proof of that, including in the ad's own footnoted citation.'' The Washington Post called Judicial Crisis Network's ad a ``baseless smear campaign,'' ``categorically dishonest,'' and ``mainly notable for the magnitude of lies and distortions it crams into 30 seconds.''

And listen to the response and the source. The executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police, Jim Pasco, called this ad that claimed that Gupta wanted to defund the police--do you know what he called it?--``partisan demagoguery.'' And yet we still hear it on the floor of the Senate as if it is gospel truth.

The Fraternal Order of Police supports Vanita Gupta's nomination to this position in the Department of Justice, and they aren't the only ones. Virtually every major law enforcement group supports Vanita Gupta. You wouldn't know that, would you, when you hear on the floor that she wants to legalize all drugs and take the money away from police. Those simplistic statements belie the truth and the fact that these organizations support her.

The Republicans, starting with Senator McConnell and continuing to this moment, will not acknowledge the obvious. These are hard-nosed organizations that don't give their endorsement out easily, and they weren't fooled by Vanita Gupta. They know Vanita Gupta.

In a letter to the Senate endorsing Gupta's nomination, the president of the Major County Sheriffs' Association of America--that is a pretty hard-nosed group. Here is what they wrote: ``During our meetings, Ms. Gupta emphasized that she does not support efforts to defund the police.'' They addressed it directly. They didn't beat around the bush. You don't expect them to; do you?

During her tenure at the Justice Department, Vanita Gupta worked closely for law enforcement, which is why the Senate has received numerous letters of support for her nomination from law enforcement groups. I can go through the list, and it is long. I won't. Trust me, it has all been entered into the Record. Every Senator--Democrat and Republican--has had a chance to see it.

But I think there is something more fundamental to this nomination, which we are considering Wednesday, April 21, in the year 2021. Late yesterday afternoon, a verdict in a trial in Minnesota captured the attention of America and other places around the world. We all know what it was about. It was about the death of George Floyd and the culpability of a law enforcement officer in his death. It was a trial that was followed as closely as any trial that I can remember, and the verdict against the police officer gave some people the hope that we are finally going to walk down that path again of civil rights and be honest about it and demand equality under the law for everyone in this country in the enforcement of law.

I hope that happens, and I hope that we can be a part of it--and we should be--in the U.S. Senate. But I will tell you, and I can predict with certainty, that it is going to be a rocky path for those advocates for asserting civil rights. History has shown it, and many of us have lived it, at least as witnesses, that those who step out and speak out for civil rights and human rights often pay a heavy price.

One of the people in our history--our recent history--who has done just that is Vanita Gupta, the nominee who is before us today.

I mentioned earlier, and I want to commend to my colleagues and anyone else, this book ``Tulia,'' written by a man named Nate Blakeslee. It is a story of a town in Texas. I want to briefly describe to you why they would write a book about this town in Texas.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Sure.

Let me read the summary of this book and the book cover. I have had a chance to read parts of it but not in its entirety. Here is what it says: ``Early one morning in the summer of 1999, authorities in the tiny West Texas town of Tulia began a roundup of suspected drug dealers. By the time the sweep was done, over 40 people had been arrested and one out of every five black adults in town was behind bars, all accused of dealing cocaine to the same undercover officer, Tom Coleman. Coleman, the son of a well-known Texas Ranger, had been named Officer of the Year in Texas. Not until after the trials, in which Coleman's uncorroborated testimony secured sentences as long as 361 years, did it become apparent that Coleman was not the man he claimed to be. By then, two dozen people were imprisoned, and the town of Tulia had become a battlefield in the national debate over the war on drugs.''

And there they sat, dozens of them, in prison, accused of serious drug crimes.

And then a young lady graduated from law school and went to work in the area of civil rights. Six months out of law school, she traveled to Tulia, TX. Her assignment? Bring justice to the situation. I can't imagine, 6 months out of law school, barely having passed some State's bar exam, to be given that assignment. The woman, of course, was Vanita Gupta, and she got on a plane from New York. Her civil rights organization sent her to Tulia, TX, to take on this injustice.

By then, they were all sitting in jail. Most of them were African American. And she was sent to Tulia, TX, to rescue them and try to help them.

Well, she quickly assessed the situation, decided writs of habeas corpus would have to be filed to try to get reconsideration of the charges against these individuals, and then she quickly realized she was in over her head. She couldn't do this alone. There were too many cases.

So she went back to New York and started calling law firms, saying: I need your help. I need pro bono attorneys, volunteer attorneys who will help me do this case. She tackled it and took it on, and at the end of the day, this brave young woman, whom we are about to vote on in an hour and a half, was responsible for leading a team that liberated these prisoners.

The Republican Governor of the State of Texas officially pardoned them for the drug crimes they had been charged with, and the State of Texas offered damages to them for what they had suffered.

I can't imagine Vanita Gupta, fresh out of law school, heading down to this town of Texas and tackling this. How about that for your first assignment? Most new lawyers are stuck in a library looking up footnotes and cases. She didn't waste any time but to go down there.

The reason I raise that is, at this moment today, not even 24 hours after the verdict in the trial in Minneapolis, we are going to need people just like her who have the courage to stand up for civil rights, against what seem to be insurmountable odds, to bring back this Nation of ours--Black and White and Brown--together in moving forward.

I don't believe she should be discredited, dishonored by what is said on the floor of the Senate. She should be praised for her courage and determination.

She went on to serve in the Department of Justice as the head of the Civil Rights Division. She took that responsibility, and that is not an easy assignment. Many times, that division is called on to deal with police departments and law enforcement and to tell them the bad news that sometimes they had done things that are just plain wrong and unacceptable. She did it. She did it with class, with integrity, and the same law enforcement organizations have endorsed her today.

The Republicans who criticize her and they have come to the floor and called her a ``radical cultural warrior''--``radical cultural warrior.'' Recently, she was just called on the floor ``a clear-and- present danger.'' I find it hard to imagine that anyone could read or know of any section of what she did in this book and describe her as a ``radical cultural warrior.''

She brought justice to a situation where few people could have done it and did it fresh out of law school. She is an extraordinary person. She is a courageous person. She is a person of integrity and honesty and dedication to public service. I am happy to support her nomination.

I will yield for a question.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. I yield for a question.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Senator.

I will reconcile it in the words of Vanita Gupta: ``In 2012, I coauthored an article that advocated for states to decriminalize and defelonize simple possession of all drugs, particularly marijuana, and for small amounts of other drugs.''

How much more clarity do you need?

Now, you and I know that we live by our words. And many times, even as Senators, people find statements and speeches that we have made and come back and challenge us. And I would just say, her statement is not only clear, it is a mainstream statement. To argue that this woman is for legalizing all drugs, as someone has suggested, is ridiculous. She has never said that, and she had made it clear what her position is, and it is a position which most Americans share.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I reclaim my time, if the Senator is finished.

So do you believe that the Fraternal Order of Police thinks that she wants to decriminalize and legalize all drugs? Do you think the county sheriffs association believes that? Do you think they ever would have endorsed her nomination if they believed that for 1 minute?

They don't. I don't. Her words are clear.

The Senator from New Jersey had a question.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Let me stipulate, Mr. President, a pretty large mouse.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will tell you what, let me end my remarks, then, and just say to the Senator from New Jersey, I am here to listen to him as well and to close by saying this extraordinary woman is presenting her credentials for approval by the U.S. Senate at exactly the right moment in history.

We need, in the Department of Justice, Vanita Gupta, who has given a lifetime of courageous service in the pursuit of justice and in the pursuit of civil rights.

Is there a lesson from Minnesota that we should bring to the floor of the Senate? It is the fact that we need people like her who can communicate effectively with law enforcement and civil rights groups and resolve our differences, more at this moment in history than ever.

If you can still remember that verdict--and I will remember it for a long, long time, as others will--when you cast your vote on the Senate floor today, vote for Vanita Gupta to be part of this Department of Justice team.

At this moment in American history, never have we needed a person with her qualifications more than at this moment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source