Nominations of Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke (Executive Session); Congressional Record Vol. 167, No. 65
(Senate - April 15, 2021)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages S1974-S1975]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



             Nominations of Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke

  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 would 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 ideologue. I can assure 
the American people, Ms. Gupta is not a moderate, is not mainstream but 
is, rather, an extreme political activist whom the Democrats want to be 
the No. 3 lawyer at the Department of Justice.
  When she testified before the Judiciary Committee last month, she 
consistently dodged questions. She wouldn't answer if she supported any 
restrictions, whatsoever, on abortion. 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 had passed the House 
unanimously. It passed the Senate 93 to 3 and was signed into law by 
Democratic President Bill Clinton.
  Sadly, today's Democratic 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. It is 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 defender 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 if she agreed with the provisions of 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.
  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 ``reexamine Federal spending priorities 
and shrink the footprint of the police and criminal legal system in 
this country.'' She also encouraged reallocating resources, writing, 
``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 U.S. Senate. And on their face and unequivocally, they 
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 No. 1: Headlines. Democrats care so deeply about looking good 
in the press, they continue to press through partisan bills and 
partisan activists for adulation by adoring media.
  Reason No. 2: Today's Democrats are beholden to the far-left voices 
in their party, and they are fulfilling campaign promises that they 
made to the radical left.
  That is why they nominated Ms. Gupta, and that is why they broke 
Judiciary Committee rules to move forward her nomination. Rule 4 of the 
committee, preserves the right 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. If 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, midsentence, and forced a vote. He did so 
in flatout 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 6 years.

[[Page S1975]]

  Yet today's Democrats are about power. So if the rules stand in the 
way, to heck with the rules. Ignore them. That is what the Senate 
Democrats did on the Judiciary Committee.
  I also want to talk about Kristen Clarke, who has been likewise 
nominated to a senior position at the Department of Justice.
  Like Ms. Gupta, Ms. Clarke's record is that of 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 wrote about the protests that erupted last 
year and stated:

       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 and at the prompting of Chairman Durbin, 
Ms. Clarke said: No, no, no, no, no. I don't support defunding the 
police. She said: You know, it was just the headline of the article. I 
didn't write the headline. Ms. Gupta did the same thing. Both of them 
were instructed by their handlers to backpedal as quickly as possible 
from their repeated and explicit advocacy in writing. So Ms. Clarke 
says she doesn't support defunding the police.
  Yesterday, when Ms. Clarke came before the Judiciary Committee, I 
asked her straightforwardly if she still thinks ``defund the police'' 
is a unifying call. That is what she wrote not 10 years ago, not 5 
years ago but last year. She wouldn't answer the question. Instead, she 
just repeated her talking point: ``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.
  In that same op-ed she wrote in Newsweek, there are no fewer 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 less 
in the police. That is objectively absurd, but, sadly, it is even 
worse.
  Not only is Ms. Clarke an extreme advocate for defunding the police, 
but she has a history of not just excusing but of celebrating murderers 
who have murdered police officers. It has been widely reported that, in 
college, Ms. Clarke helped to organize a conference with speakers who 
referred to convicted cop killers as ``political prisoners.'' This 
included Mumia Abu-Jamal, who murdered a Philadelphia police officer, 
and Assata Shakur, who was convicted of murdering a New Jersey State 
trooper, who escaped from prison, and is on the FBI's Most Wanted list. 
Multiple speakers at the conference thanked Ms. Clarke by name for 
inviting them to speak, and now the Democrats want Ms. Clarke to head 
the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.
  I ask you the question that I asked Ms. Clarke yesterday: What is a 
police officer in Philadelphia who is watching the proceedings before 
this body or a police officer in New Jersey who is watching C-SPAN 
today 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 lionizing cop 
killers who murdered a Philadelphia cop and 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, 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's, 
which we have before us right now, and Ms. Clarke's, 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 ideologues; and they both 
are leading advocates for abolishing the police.
  I say to my Democratic friends: This is a 50-50 Senate. That means 
just one of you--just 1 out of 50--could say: OK. 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.
  Today, you have a vote because I will tell you, if you as a Senator 
vote to confirm 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.
  President Obama nominated for a senior position in the Department of 
Justice another lawyer who had celebrated and defended a cop killer, 
who had lionized a cop killer, and this body, in one of the few 
instances, decided that was too much; 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 the Democrats, but they have emerged from 4 
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.
  Today is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that the pretense is 
not mere empty words. 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

                          ____________________