Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I yield for a question.

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.

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.

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

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. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I would guess if the American people could give us a word of advice in the Senate, they would suggest that we do our best to work together and to try to establish priorities and meet them, and that we try to bring to the new administration of President Joseph Biden the most competent and qualified people that we can to help our Nation through this pandemic and our economic recovery. It is in that spirit that I close the debate on Vanita Gupta to be the next Associate Attorney General of the United States. Yesterday's verdict in Minnesota certainly caught the attention of many in America and across the world. The killing of George Floyd was resolved in a court of law. Sadly, he will not be with us, but his legacy lives on, and it depends on us to use that legacy to make America a better nation. Can we really come together and put law enforcement at the table with community leaders and civil rights leaders and find common ground? Can we keep our streets and communities and neighborhoods safe and do it without discrimination against any person or group in America? These are big challenges--tough challenges. But to meet them, we need the right people in positions of leadership. Vanita Gupta is one of those people. As a former civil rights advocate, she did extraordinary things--in Tulia, TX, and many other places--to show progress in the area of civil rights. As a former acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of civil rights, she worked with law enforcement organizations to try to resolve the very problems that we have seen in Minnesota and Illinois and virtually in every other State. She is a dedicated professional with an extraordinary resume who wants to continue to serve this Nation. Will she be able to work with law enforcement groups? Well, they think so because they support her. There is a long litany: National Sheriffs' Association, Major County Sheriffs of America, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Major Cities Chiefs, 53 former police chiefs or sheriffs, the Police Executive Research Forum, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. The list goes on and on. But the simplest statement that was made comes from a pretty hard- nosed group, the Fraternal Order of Police, and those who are in politics know you have to work to earn their support. Here is what they said about Vanita Gupta: ``Gupta always worked with us to find common ground, even when that seemed impossible.'' Isn't that exactly what we want at this moment in American history as we cope with the civil rights challenges of our age? This is our chance. I hope the Senate, with its vote--I hope it is a bipartisan vote-- will give Vanita Gupta the chance to serve America again. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, before making a comment related to Vanita Gupta, which is before the Senate, I would like to respond briefly to the minority leader Senator McConnell's remarks. The Senate is a venerable institution, but when it comes to defining infrastructure in the 21st century, what we are hearing from the other side of the aisle is not venerable thinking. It isn't even old-fashioned thinking. It isn't in tune with the times in America. It doesn't reflect reality. For the Republicans to argue that unless it is bricks and mortar, the government shouldn't be involved in building it for the good of the economy and the strength of business and good-paying jobs really is sinking their head deep into the sand. And I think we ought to make a record, at least for the moment, that in the last 4 years of the last Presidential administration, there were no infrastructure bills--none. After all the promises of the Trump campaign and what he would bring, nothing happened--nothing. So to be lectured by the Republicans about what infrastructure is all about is to suggest to them that they missed a golden opportunity to help America, and we are not going to miss it. To think that the Republican definition of infrastructure in America does not include the expansion of broadband coverage across this Nation--what are they thinking? Their minds are back 10 and 20 years ago. Is broadband coverage for all Americans in every corner of this country a socialist idea to the Republicans? I think it is a commonsense idea to the people of America. They know it when their kids have laptops, and they have to sit in the parking lot of a library or next to a McDonald's or Starbucks in order to get access. They know what that means to their child, to their student in terms of their progress. Businesses know it too. Try to advertise some section of America without access to broadband coverage to locate a new business. It is a laughing matter, and we know it. So when President Biden suggests that broadband is part of infrastructure in America and then he is mocked as being a socialist by the Republicans, we have a clear definition of where the party values are today. When it comes to other basic things, the Senator from Kentucky just doesn't empathize with what families go through to put people on the job. It isn't just a matter of finding a good job and being qualified to fill that job. There is also a family concern--a family concern that can literally make a difference as to whether you take that job. The Democrats believe that childcare--affordable quality childcare-- is part of the equation in terms of good-paying jobs being filled by Americans, where families want to be sure their kids are safe. Is that socialism? Is that another example of socialism for the Republicans--quality daycare, affordable for families? It is not socialism in my book. It is a family value. That is why I think the efforts of the Republicans to run down President Biden's attempts to strengthen this economy really are antiquated and perhaps not in the best interest of this country.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Gupta nomination be waived.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I understand a couple of my colleagues are on the way. I will defer to them when they arrive. But I want to thank, first, Senator Stabenow for her statement about Vanita Gupta. This is an extraordinary person. The Presiding Officer, as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was there for her testimony and knows her personally, and I have come to know her. When you read and learn of her personal story, it is amazing, nothing short of amazing. She was 6 months graduated from law school when she was sent down to Texas, a town called Tulia, TX, to tackle an assignment that a veteran civil rights lawyer would have thought twice about tackling. There was a group of over 30 African Americans who had been falsely accused of drug dealing and convicted and were imprisoned when she was sent down there to try to do something after their conviction. It is an incredible story, the courage she showed 6 months out of law school, and she ultimately was successful. Those African Americans and others were pardoned by the Republican Governor of Texas, Governor Perry. They were given a cash award for damages they had suffered as a result of it. Her commitment to civil rights is more than just a cerebral commitment; it is a commitment where she has risked many times her personal safety to show how much she cared for the rights of others. Thank you for saying those kind words about her. I am hoping that the Senate will give her a chance to continue to serve our Nation. Nomination of Lisa O. Monaco Mr. President, I would like to speak now, if I can, to a vote that is coming up momentarily, and that is the vote for Lisa Monaco to be the next Deputy Attorney General. The Deputy Attorney General--commonly known as the DAG--is the second highest ranking official in the Justice Department. The DAG is effectively the DOJ's chief operating officer, overseeing the Department's day-to-day operations. Lisa Monaco may be the most qualified individual ever nominated to be Deputy Attorney General. That is saying something, but I think we can back it up. Her credentials include a wealth of experience, her commitment to restoring independence and integrity at the Justice Department, and the broad, broad range of support she has garnered. Let me begin with her experience. She has served at nearly every level of the Justice Department. She knows that Agency, and she knows what it can do. She was an assistant U.S. attorney, counselor and chief of staff to the Director of the FBI, Associate Deputy Attorney General, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, and the Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division. She is also one of the Nation's foremost national security experts. That is when I first met her, working in the Obama White House. As President Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor, Ms. Monaco coordinated the Federal Government's response to major security threats, including pandemics, terrorism, mass shootings, and cyber attacks. Our Nation is facing serious challenges today: the COVID-19 pandemic; a gun violence pandemic; a surge in hate crimes; domestic violence extremism, which culminated in an assault on the U.S. Capitol and this very Chamber just a few short weeks ago; and global threats and challenges from Russia, China, and elsewhere. Ms. Monaco's experience responding to security threats has prepared her to oversee DOJ's operations at this critical moment in history. But it is not only Ms. Monaco's national security expertise that makes her the right person for this role. After President Trump used the Justice Department to serve his own personal and political agenda, we need to restore a well-functioning, independent Department, committed to the principle of equal justice under the law. It is just that basic. Ms. Monaco understands the importance of protecting DOJ's independence. She has praised two of her mentors, Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI Director Bob Mueller, for their ``reverence for the institution, for upholding the norms and traditions of independence and of doing justice without fear or fervor, and never, ever letting politics or partisanship influence an investigation or prosecution decision.'' She committed to me that she would have the same reverence. That is precisely the attitude we need to restore the Justice Department's integrity. It is no surprise, then, that individuals from across the political spectrum support Ms. Monaco's nomination. The Judiciary Committee received scores of letters from a broad range of advocacy groups: the Alliance for Justice, gun safety organizations, law enforcement groups, environmental organizations, victims and survivors of crime, and so many more. We also received a letter supporting Ms. Monaco's nomination from 29 former senior DOJ officials who have served under Presidents of both parties, including Attorneys General Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder, who served in the Obama administration, and Attorneys General Michael Mukasey and Alberto Gonzales, who served in the George W. Bush administration. She has that kind of bipartisan support. Those DOJ officials wrote of Ms. Monaco: ``She has the values, temperament and strength to perform at the highest level of the Department.'' They went on to say: ``Each of us knows how demanding this job is, with its extraordinary span of control and the need for strong principled leadership. We believe that Ms. Monaco is highly qualified for this role. She knows the Department from every angle. She understands the job. And she has prepared well for it. We urge her confirmation.'' Attorney General Garland has praised Ms. Monaco's selection as the next Deputy Attorney General. He told us in the Judiciary Committee that he needed her on his leadership team at the Department, and so does the Nation. I look forward to voting for Ms. Monaco and urge all of my colleagues to do the same. Anniversary of Oklahoma City Bombing Mr. President, it was an idyllic spring morning in Oklahoma City 26 years ago. Downtown, the Alfred P. Murrah Building was bustling with activity as people went about their morning routines. Parents dropped off their children at the daycare center on the second floor, office workers sat at their desks, with fresh mugs of coffee in hand--and parked under the building was a truck containing nearly 7,000 pounds of explosive materials. At 9:02, the truck exploded, killing more than 165 people and injuring hundreds more. Oklahoma City and America would be forever scarred by the bombing. It was the deadliest act of homegrown terrorism in modern American history. For most people, that day--April 19, 1995-- is a somber day in our history, but for some, it was an opening salvo in a war against America. More than a quarter century after the Oklahoma City bombing, the threat of violent extremism looms larger than ever before. Recently, the Department of Homeland Security warned that violent, White supremacy is now the ``most persistent and lethal threat in the homeland.'' Among the hundreds of Americans arrested for suspected ties to violent White supremacy in recent years, a common theme has emerged: The FBI has uncovered references to Timothy McVeigh and his attack on Oklahoma City in ``several'' of these investigations. In the eyes of far-right extremists, McVeigh's attack on Oklahoma City is a lodestar, and like McVeigh, many of the violent extremists active today are motivated by baseless, anti-government conspiracy theories, conspiracy theories like the ``Big Lie,'' which inspired a mob of extremists to storm the Capitol on January 6. More than 400 people are facing Federal charges for their involvement in the January 6 insurrection. Last week, we received word of the first guilty plea in that case. The defendant, who has agreed to fully cooperate with the Federal Government, is a founding member of the Oath Keepers, a far-right extremist group that helped plot the insurrection. The defendant's affiliation with the Oath Keepers highlights an important distinction between the extremists of yesterday, like Timothy McVeigh, and the extremists of today. Today, violent White supremacists are not only peddling debunked conspiracy theories or disproven race science; they are organizing online, on radical platforms like 8chan and Parler, and coordinating attacks under the cover of anonymity. Worse yet, these radicals have easy access to high-grade military weapons designed for one purpose: human slaughter. The extremists of today are galvanized. They are organized. And they are deadly. We must equip our law enforcement officials and intelligence agencies with new, modernized resources to combat the growing threat of violent White supremacy. There are a number of steps we can take to weed out the threat of domestic terrorism. This week, the Senate is considering one such step: the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act. It would direct Federal resources toward addressing the rise in hate crimes against members of the Asian- American and Pacific Islander, AAPI, community. This legislation must be passed immediately. Nearly 3,800 hate incidents against members of the AAPI community have been reported between March of last year and February of this year. We also will consider Senator Blumenthal and Senator Moran's NO HATE Act, which has been added as an amendment to the bill to improve hate crimes reporting. In addition to that legislation, there are more comprehensive steps we can take to address the broader threat of domestic terrorism. In March, I reintroduced the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act. It will enhance the Federal Government's ability to prevent acts of extremist violence. By establishing dedicated offices to combat domestic terrorism at the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act will bring the Federal Government's efforts to weed out violent White supremacy into the 21st century. Congress must also take steps to limit access to the weapons of war favored by violent extremists. This is a no-brainer. The House recently passed a bipartisan bill to close existing gaps in the background checks system. I certainly hope we can find 10 Republican votes to overcome a filibuster and get that signed into law. Let me be clear: Background checks are table stakes for combatting the public health crisis that is gun violence in America. We are just 4 months into 2021, and already there have been more than 150 mass shootings in our country. It is time to put politics aside and save American lives. As chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I was honored to gavel in the confirmation hearing for the man who led the government's investigation into the Oklahoma City bombing: Attorney General Merrick Garland. Yesterday, with a slightly greyer head of hair and the full authority of the Justice Department behind him, Attorney General Garland returned to the site of the bombing. He promised the residents of Oklahoma City that ``the Department of Justice is pouring its resources into stopping domestic violent extremists before they can attack . . . prosecuting those who do . . . and battling the spread of the kind of hate that leads to tragedies like the one we mark here today.'' The question for us here in the Senate is, Will we help Attorney General Garland lead the charge against the largest threat we face today? Will we work together to save future lives against attacks like the Oklahoma City bombing? In Attorney General Garland, we have a leader who is committed to weeding out the threat of domestic terrorism. Are there enough leaders in the Senate who are willing to do the same? I sure hope so. I hope they will join me in taking immediate, meaningful action to combat the crisis of violent extremism. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I was sure that I wouldn't like him. I was convinced that we weren't going to get along. I had so many grievances against President George W. Bush--the war in Iraq, the interrogation of prisoners--I really was prepared not to like him at all, and then I met him. Darn it. I met him and I liked him and I still do. We still have some profound differences on issues. I think back on his Presidency, and there are some things that I want to give him credit for. First and foremost, I want to thank him for being our President during 9/11 because, if you remember what he said after 9/ 11--and how profound it is in light of our history since--he said our war against terrorism is not against people of the Islamic faith; it is a faith of peace. What a remarkable statement to make by a President because we have seen just the opposite since by another President from his party. He did great work when it came to global health, extraordinary work. He changed the world for the better. I was glad to be his ally in that effort. That wasn't the sum total of all the work on the good side of the ledger that he had done, and I won't recount the areas of disagreement because there were many, but I do want to tell you that I was touched, personally touched by an article that President George W. Bush wrote in the Washington Post this weekend. It was about his new book, a collection of paintings entitled ``Out of Many, One.'' He said, in putting this book together, he was really setting ``out to accomplish two things: to share some portraits of immigrants''--and he has become an accomplished painter--``each with a remarkable story,'' he says, ``I try to tell, and to humanize the debate on immigration and reform.'' George W. Bush, a proud Republican, speaks not only to the people of America but especially to his own political party in this article. ``I hope that these faces, and the stories that accompany them, serve as a reminder,'' he writes, ``that immigration isn't just part of our heritage. New Americans are just as much a force for good now, with their energy, idealism and love of country, as they have always been.'' He goes on to talk about some of the amazing stories, the story of a young man from France who followed his dream to become an American soldier and went on to earn the Medal of Honor, the story of a champion runner who barely survived ethnic violence in East Africa and who told President Bush: ``America has given me everything I dreamed of as a boy.'' He says the backgrounds of these immigrants are varied, ``but readers won't have to search hard for a common theme.'' President Bush writes: ``It's gratitude. So many immigrants are filled with appreciation, a spirit nicely summed up,'' he writes, ``by a Cuban American friend who said: `If I live for a hundred years, I could never repay what this country has done for me.''' President Bush writes: ``The help and respect historically accorded to new arrivals is one reason so many people still aspire and wait to become Americans.'' And then he asks the important question: ``How is it that in a country more generous to new arrivals than any other, immigration policy is a source of so much rancor and ill will?'' The short answer, he says, is that the issue has been exploited in ways that do little credit to either party. And no proposal on immigration will have credibility without confidence that our laws are carried out consistently and in good faith. ``One place to start,'' bless him, he writes, ``is DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.) Americans,'' he writes, ``who favor a path to citizenship for those brought here as children, known as `dreamers,' are not advocating open borders. They just recognize that young men and women who grew up in the United States, and who never knew any other place as home, are fundamentally American. And they ought not be punished for choices made by their parents.'' Let me just add, thank you, President Bush. He speaks of our border, and he should. Another opportunity for agreement, he calls it. ``I have long said that we can be both a lawful and a welcoming nation at the same time.'' He writes we need a secure and efficient border, and we should apply all the necessary resources to ensure it. He goes on to say we need a modernized asylum system that provides humanitarian support and appropriate legal channels for refugees. The rules for asylum should be reformed by Congress to guard against unmerited entry and reserve that vital status for its intended recipients. I don't disagree with a word he has written. ``Increased legal immigration, focused on employment and skills,'' and here we may have some area of disagreement, ``is also a choice that both parties should be able to get behind.'' He also writes about improving our temporary entry program for some workers. And listen to what President George W. Bush writes about the undocumented in America, estimated to be in the numbers of millions, 11 million. Here is what he says: ``As for the millions of undocumented men and women currently living in the United States, a grant of amnesty would be fundamentally unfair to those who came legally or are still waiting their turn to become citizens. But undocumented immigrants should be brought out of the shadows through a gradual process in which legal residency and citizenship must be earned, as for anyone else applying for that privilege. Requirements should include . . . work history, payment of a fine and back taxes, English proficiency,'' and other things. He closes by saying: ``If we trust those instincts in the current debate, then bipartisan reform is possible. And we will again see immigration for what it is: not a problem and source of discord, but a great and defining asset of the United States.'' I was touched by those words and still am that he would be so caring and so pointed in his message. That is the basis for bipartisan immigration reform which America desperately needs. Now I am looking for George W. Bush and the Republicans to join the Democrats in a bipartisan effort to get it done. I have called together a group for that purpose, and we are going to meet again soon to talk about the progress that we might be able to make. I do want to thank the President. We have a job to do, and we need the values that George W. Bush still brings to the American people in this debate. Gun Violence Madam President, over the weekend in Chicago, a 13-year-old boy, Adam Toledo, on March 29, in the wee hours of the morning, was stopped by police and shot and killed in an alley in the city of Chicago. Thousands have been gathering since in his memory. The videotape of the arrest was released last week, and there is that stark moment with his hands up, and he is being shot and killed--13 years old. There is a lengthy debate going on in our city and our Nation about the role of the police, the fairness of law enforcement, and what is happening with children in areas of poverty and guns. This past weekend, our Nation's epidemic of gun violence continued to devastate families and communities. The Adam Toledo tape wasn't the only thing that happened. In the city of Chicago, yesterday, Sunday, 7-year-old Jaslyn Adams was shot and killed in the backseat of a car while with her father at a McDonald's drive-through. She was one of 27 people shot in Chicago this weekend--5 of them fatally. In Kenosha, in the Presiding Officer's home State, a gunman in a tavern, on Sunday morning, killed three people and wounded three more. In Austin, TX, three people were fatally shot on Sunday morning in a reported domestic violence incident. Then, on Thursday of last week and for the third time this year, there was another mass shooting in Indianapolis at a FedEx facility. Eight people died. These were just some of the more than 100 Americans who are killed every single day by guns in this Nation. This, unfortunately, is not an isolated set of incidents, and this is not just a rare tragic weekend. This is America 2021. One of the key parts of an effective response to this crisis is understanding it, and that raises important questions about the news coverage of gun violence as well as anything else. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an April 5 column of the Chicago Tribune, entitled: ``Why aren't Chicago's mass shootings included in the outcry over recent violence in Atlanta, Colorado and California?'

Mr. DURBIN. Heidi Stevens' column in the Tribune points out that the media often subjectively defines and covers what it considers to be mass shootings. All too often, mass shootings in communities of color are left out of the coverage, and this is wrong. It is unfair. It is nothing short of an outrage. It needs to change. We need to understand the full scope of this crisis that is killing so many Americans, with reliable, objective data that is quickly made available. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention keeps count, but there is a time lag with its data on firearm deaths and injuries. Right now, the latest official CDC report on gun deaths is from the year 2019. There is a website, though, Gun Violence Archive, that keeps track of shooting incidents virtually on a realtime basis. I believe that news coverage of mass shootings in America should use the definition and statistics provided by the Gun Violence Archive. They define a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people are shot and either killed or injured, not including the shooter. It is a purely numerical standard. It is not subjective. According to the Gun Violence Archive's definition--I want to put this on the record in the Senate--so far this year, by its definition, there have been 153 mass shootings. Yet we are only 109 days into the year. Nine of this year's mass shootings so far have taken place in Chicago. Four people have been fatally shot in these shootings, and 50 have been injured. It is important to gather this data as quickly as possible so that we can respond effectively. Last week, I spoke on the floor and commended President Biden for speaking out. He recently announced an important set of Executive actions on gun violence: steps to limit untraceable ghost guns, help for States to pursue extreme risk protection orders. Incidentally, the State law in Indiana was not, apparently, solid enough or tamperproof enough and was overcome there by the latest mass shooting. There is the reporting on firearms trafficking patterns and nominating experienced veteran David Chipman to be the first Senate-confirmed Director of that Agency since 2015. You see, many of the critics of gun safety legislation say to just enforce the laws we have, but if you have been around the Senate for more than 15 minutes, you will realize the Agency that has a major responsibility in that, the ATF, is notorious for being underfunded, understaffed, and going without leadership. That is part of the design of the people who really don't even want to see the laws enforced. I am particularly encouraged by President Biden's commitment to providing Federal resources for community violence interdiction programs through the American Jobs Plan and other grant programs. This is the type of serious investment we need to tackle this crisis. This President is taking constitutional, commonsense steps to reduce gun violence, but what have we done? Nothing. I held a hearing on gun violence in the Judiciary Committee a few weeks ago. We are going to hold more as Senator Blumenthal, of Connecticut, chairs the subcommittee with that responsibility. Hearings are important so that we can put together legislative reforms and appropriate funds. The House has already passed a bipartisan bill to close gaps in the gun background check system. Really, the ball is in the Senate's court at this moment. We need 10 Senate Republicans to help us get to the 60 votes necessary to overcome Republican filibusters. Will our Republican colleagues stand up and vote to close these gaps in the law? Will our Republican colleagues support the President's call for funding community violence interdiction? We need to act. Saving lives from gun violence should not be a partisan issue. It is an American tragedy. Sadly, we learn by the day that it is not an exclusive blue State problem. It is a blue State and a red State problem. It is an American problem. We have had too many mass shootings and too many Americans dying in gun homicides, suicides, and accidents. Let's take the bold action that meets the scale of this public health crisis. Our Nation is counting on us. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Chair for clarification. It is my understanding there is 4 hours of debate, evenly divided between the Democrats and Republicans, on the discharge petition.

Mr. DURBIN. And either side can yield back; is that correct?

Mr. DURBIN. Thank you. Mr. President, let me be the first to rise today on our side and say that I am in strong support of the nomination of Vanita Gupta to be the Associate Attorney General. The Justice Department has not had a Senate-confirmed Associate Attorney General in over 3 years because President Trump never put forward a nominee. The No. 3 position in the Department of Justice has been virtually vacant of a Senate-confirmed nominee for 3 years. That position, by definition, oversees the Department's civil litigation components. This is no small deal. It is a big deal. The Department of Justice needs and deserves to have full leadership in place. Vanita Gupta will be the first woman of color and the very first civil rights attorney to serve as Associate Attorney General. This historic nominee is also exceptionally well qualified. She is a veteran of the Justice Department. She has a proven record of working across political and ideological lines to uphold the rule of law in a nonpartisan fashion. I don't believe President Biden could have picked a better nominee. Vanita Gupta first joined the Justice Department shortly after the shooting death of Michael Brown by a police officer in Ferguson, MO. I remember it. I am sure many of my colleagues do as well. It was a difficult moment for many. As the head of the Department's Civil Rights Division, Ms. Gupta worked closely with all of the stakeholders involved in police reform: community leaders, civil rights leaders, and law enforcement. Not only did Ms. Gupta implement meaningful reforms in Ferguson, MO, and other cities, but she did so by helping to repair the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve. Can you think of a better qualification at this moment in time in our history? Sadly, in recent days, our Nation has been rocked by controversial police shootings. Vanita Gupta is exactly the type of person we need at the Justice Department at this very moment. One strong piece of evidence is the incredibly broad range of support her nomination has received. When you say the words ``civil rights lawyer,'' you say, ``Oh, way off on the left. I will bet she is out of touch with reality.'' Not so. It is not just the civil rights groups that support her. Her nomination has the support of virtually every major law enforcement organization in the country. I want to repeat that because in the ensuing several hours, when we will discuss the discharge of her nomination, there will be assertions made which do not acknowledge the obvious. Vanita Gupta has the support of virtually every major law enforcement organization in the country, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police, just to name a few. I can read numerous quotes from law enforcement groups praising Ms. Gupta. I am going to read one. In a letter to the Senate, David Mahoney, President of the National Sheriffs' Association, said: ``I strongly believe that Ms. Gupta is exactly the type of leader who is needed in the Justice Department today. She possesses immense credibility among law enforcement leaders and community leaders.'' Immense credibility, with both law enforcement and community leaders. Isn't that exactly the type of person we need in the Department of Justice at this moment in history? It comes as no surprise when you look back on her background. Throughout her career, Ms. Gupta has worked across the partisan divide, forming broad coalitions to get things done when people said it was impossible. A great example of this is criminal justice reform. Over a number of years, Vanita Gupta partnered with numerous conservatives-- certifiable, reported conservatives. Let me give you a couple names: Grover Norquist; Mark Holden, the former general counsel of Koch Industries. These efforts helped lay the groundwork for the passage of the FIRST STEP Act, a bill which I worked on with Senator Grassley, Senator Lee, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Cornyn, a number of Democrats, Cory Booker included. We put together a bipartisan bill, signed into law by the President of the United States. Vanita Gupta was part of that effort. She knew how to put Republicans and Democrats at the table and come up with a reasonable compromise. Isn't that exactly what we need at this moment in history? The Judiciary Committee has received so many letters from Republicans supporting Ms. Gupta's nomination that I only have time to scratch the surface. Former Republican Congressman Tom Coleman, whom I served with in the House, put it very well. He represented Missouri's Sixth Congressional District for 16 years. He understood the challenge of Ferguson, and he understands the record of Vanita Gupta. Here is what he wrote: ``Ms. Gupta is a person who seeks the common good, without concern for partisan gamesmanship.'' He added: ``I urge you, my former colleagues, to recognize the truth with respect to Vanita Gupta: She is an ideal public servant. She possesses wisdom and an ability to work across partisan lines.'' Ms. Gupta has spent her career fighting to uphold the rule of law, almost always on behalf of those who had little power or little money. In her previous tenure at the Justice Department, Vanita Gupta undertook critically important work. In addition to police reform, she led efforts to prosecute human trafficking, combat religious discrimination, and protect the rights of servicemembers to ensure that they didn't have to be worried about being taken advantage of financially while they were protecting our Nation. More recently, during her tenure at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Ms. Gupta led initiatives on voting rights, criminal justice reform, and the census. Ms. Gupta began her career as a civil rights lawyer with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. One of the first matters she worked on as a young attorney involved nearly 40 wrongfully convicted individuals in the small town of Tulia, TX. The individuals who had been wrongfully convicted were almost all African Americans, and they had been convicted of drug charges based solely on the false testimony of one corrupt, blatantly racist undercover police officer. How about walking into that situation, trying to resolve that situation. She did. Despite being completely innocent, these individuals were sitting in jail, and their appeals had been rejected. Vanita Gupta took their case anyway. As a result of her work, not only were these individuals exonerated, but they received pardons from the Republican Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, and Texas eventually paid out a $6 million settlement. That is nothing short of a political miracle, and she achieved it by hard work, being smart as can be, and reaching out to both sides to find some area of agreement. Ms. Gupta's commitment to ensure the equal protection of the law has been praised by Republicans and Democrats alike. Michael Chertoff, former Secretary of Homeland Security under President George Bush, said about Ms. Vanita Gupta in a letter to the Senate. ``She is a relentless advocate for fairness and the rule of law.'' How would you like to have that as the lead sentence of your legal biography: ``a relentless advocate for fairness and the rule of law.'' How would we like to have a person like that in this administration, in the Department of Justice? Obviously, we would jump at the chance. She is the right person at the right time. She will bring experience, dedication, and a nonpartisan approach to the role of Associate Attorney General, and I urge my colleagues to support her nomination. Now, if you heard what I just said about Vanita Gupta, you might think: Why was this a tie vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee? First, it is an evenly divided committee: 11 Democrats, 11 Republicans. And there are a lot of things going on, on both sides of the table, when it comes to the final vote on nominees like this. Several Republicans told me they might be leaning in her direction but they couldn't vote for her in the committee. I hope they will reconsider when it comes to the floor And there was another thing going on too. Rightwing groups were spending millions--millions--of dollars on television in Washington trying to attack the reputation and character of Vanita Gupta. I think I have made it clear. Vanita Gupta is highly qualified and historic, with broad support from law enforcement and civil rights organizations, advocates across the political spectrum. She, clearly, on the merits, will be an outstanding Associate Attorney General. But every step of the way, her detractors have tried to delay and obstruct her nomination. We saw that in our Judiciary Committee markup on March 25. I allowed committee Republicans to speak for 94 minutes about Ms. Gupta's nomination at markup. One Senator from Texas spoke for 29 minutes himself. I didn't cut him off. But someone on the Republican side made the decision to invoke the 2- hour rule, a Senate rule that says that a committee cannot operate more than 2 hours after the Senate comes into session, to try to cut off the markup for the vote even before the vote. I had received assurances earlier that the 2-hour rule would not be invoked, but at 11:55, with barely 5 minutes to spare, I was told the other side had changed their mind. Just as the previous two chairs of the committee, Senators Graham and Grassley, had done in the past, I ended debate, notwithstanding committee rule IV, and called for a vote on the nomination. I won't go into a debate over committee rule IV other than to say it is a doomsday filibuster. Any Senator can object to the business in the Senate Judiciary Committee and virtually stop all proceedings indefinitely. There is no recourse. I gave Republicans ample time to make their arguments in the committee. I was prepared to give them even more time until the 2-hour rule was invoked. But someone on the other side decided to force my hand. I had to act quickly. I told Republicans in writing in a March 24 letter that we would hold a vote on Ms. Gupta's nomination the next day, and I meant it. In the future, I would be happy to limit the number of minutes that Senators can speak in order for all Senators to have an opportunity, but at this moment in time, we have to accept the obvious. Vanita Gupta has been subjected to blatantly false attacks from many rightwingers and conservative, dark money groups. Republicans have falsely claimed that she supports defunding the police. Be prepared. You are going to hear this mantra again and again. In reality, Gupta has the support of virtually every major law enforcement organization in America. Republicans have made false claims about Gupta's position on drugs. For example, the senior Senator from Texas alleged that Gupta previously advocated, ``All drugs should be legal.'' In reality, Vanita Gupta has never advocated that all drugs should be legal. As the senior Senator from Texas knows, Gupta did write, 9 years ago, that she favored decriminalizing the ``simple possession'' of ``small amounts'' of marijuana and other drugs. Take a look at what we have done with sentencing and drug crimes in America, even under the Trump administration. At her hearing, Ms. Gupta was completely forthright in explaining that she changed her mind over the years in terms of decriminalizing drug possession, due in part to a family experience with opioid addiction. Republicans have criticized Ms. Gupta's past statements on Twitter, despite the fact that they strongly supported President Donald Trump and many of his nominees, many of whom were just White males, who made such harsh statements in speeches and social media posts that they were legendary. Republicans have argued that Gupta is radical and dangerous. In reality, Vanita Gupta has a career-long record of working closely with conservatives, business leaders and community leaders and law enforcement. That is why she has the support of so many prominent Republican leaders now. I am looking forward to voting for her and to watching her serve in the Department of Justice. She will follow the trail that she set in her legal career, looking for solutions, bringing us together. Can you think of a moment in history in this country when we needed that more? I can't. Every day we have these conflicting stories coming at us, from the courts in Minnesota on a question of George Floyd and the culpability for his death to a situation here in the Capitol, where we are honoring law enforcement when Officer Billy Evans of the Capitol Hill Police gave his life serving this country. We are torn trying to find the right combination for law enforcement that is sensible and principled and humane. We need someone like Vanita Gupta at the table in the Department of Justice, leading. I hope her critics will have second thoughts. Give this outstanding woman an opportunity to serve her country even more than she has in the past. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, my friend and colleague from Utah 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 U.S. 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 ask unanimous consent to have printed into the Record a memo entitled ``Senate Judiciary Committee Rule Violations by [Senate Judiciary Committee] Chairs Graham, Grassley, and Hatch.'

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, before yielding to my colleague from Rhode Island, I would like to respond very briefly. My, have we come a long way since we had a President who, for 4 years, refused to disclose his tax returns--first time ever. Oh, they are under audit. I will get back to you at some other time later. Now we have witnesses and nominees coming before the committee, suggested by President Biden, who are producing the documentation and the things that are being requested by this committee so that everyone knows the answers. So did Ms. Vanita Gupta produce 100 pages of documents? No. Did she produce 1,000? No, she produced 11,000 pages of documents, answering every question that was to be asked. And the suggestion the senior Senator from Texas raises--he raised it before in committee--that somehow, because her family made a business decision about selling a chemical, legally, into the nation of Mexico, she should be held responsible as a shareholder or as a member of the family? You will notice, if you listen very carefully to what the Senator said, he is not saying there was any wrongdoing. He is saying there was an article once which made that allegation, and he has referred the question to others to decide. That is a long way from saying Vanita Gupta is responsible for whatever the company did, if it did anything, wrong. She has made that full disclosure, and I think raising this is unfair, just fundamentally unfair. Secondly, on the question of decriminalizing drugs, narcotics, she says her position on it has evolved. Well, I think the Senator from Texas would be the first to acknowledge that the position of America has evolved on the question of drugs; has it not? Hasn't the position of Texas recently evolved on the decriminalization of some drugs and the possession thereof? We are thinking differently about it. We are trying to find the most effective way to end addiction and save lives. We no longer want to lock everybody up, nor should we. We are deciding that there are some drug violations that shouldn't merit any time in jail, that some people just need help to break their addiction. If Vanita Gupta has been part of that conversation in America over 9 or 10 years, she is in good company. We have all been part of it. Virtually all of us have been part of it. And this notion of defunding the police--do you honestly believe the Fraternal Order of Police would be endorsing her if she wanted to defund the police? She made it clear, as others have too, that reallocation of funds for law enforcement is just common sense. Putting a social worker in a delicate situation, putting a psychologist in a delicate situation, may spare a policeman a terrible choice that he has to make, and I think most of us agree that it is common sense. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I don't know that there is another Republican Senator that I have worked with as much and as effectively and with as much pleasure as Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa--and I mean it. We have done some good things together. We sometimes started off in opposing positions and tried to find some common ground. The First Step Act was a good illustration of that, but it is not the only demonstration, and I trust that there will be more. I am sorry we disagree today. Two points I will make. Rule 4, as described by Senator Grassley, is virtually, as I mentioned earlier, a doomsday filibuster. There is just no way out of it, particularly with an evenly divided committee. I am not the first to discover that as chairman. I will make as part of the Record, and I am going to share with my colleague from Iowa, the four or five instances when previous Republican chairs of the committee did exactly what I did with this nomination and said: We are moving forward; we are not going to pay attention to rule 4. Senator Graham, Senator Grassley, and others have done just exactly that in the past. So I think we adopted that as a rule because it was already in the rules, and we were evenly tied in committee. But it sure ties the hands of a chairman or anyone who is trying to accomplish anything if there is one person who just stands and objects and objects and objects. It is a very difficult situation. The second thing I will mention is--I am going to make this a part of the Record, and I don't have it at hand as I stand here--the quote from Merrick Garland in his nomination hearing when someone raised the question about Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke, another nominee working her way through the committee. Merrick Garland may not have known either one of them personally beforehand. He could have, but I am not sure. But he made it abundantly clear that this is the team he wanted to manage the Department of Justice--no ifs, ands, or buts about it. He totally committed and believed that each of them brought a perspective in the law and by their own legal experience valuable to him and the Department of Justice and to the Nation. So I don't think there is any question that he is committed to Vanita Gupta, as he should be. I will yield back at this point.

Mr. DURBIN. Excuse me. If I can have a clarification. As I understand it, we are in measured time, 2 hours to a side. Any speakers on our side will be taken from that 2-hour total.

Mr. DURBIN. Thank you very much