NEWS: GOP & Dem Senators Tussle On Post-Midterms Judiciary Hearing On Key Nominations

[0:00] Good morning. On today's agenda, we have 18 nominations and one bill. We'll vote on the four district court nominees, Daniel Blow, Richard Berner, Courtney Coker, Kyle Ridden. The remaining nominations on the bill will be held over for future consideration. [0:22] The American Bar Association continues to find itself in hot water, and with good reason, although it claims to be an unbiased organization, it routinely takes public positions on divisive political, legal, and social issues. [0:43] I won't repeat the laundry list of ABA's rampant partisan activities. Indeed, I've run through that litany on many occasions, this and former Congresses, and I'll remind you that the ABA has repeatedly advanced hostile positions towards the Second Amendment and immigration enforcement, has promoted harmful abortion and liberal gender ideologies. [1:16] The ABA's political agenda has, of course, tainted its credibility in rating judicial nominees. It's all well documented that, historically speaking, a poor ABA rating has reflected a bias against conservatism, and there are dozens of examples across Republican nominations, like a broken record and a broken clock. [1:50] The ABA strikes midnight again, baselessly labeling a Republican president's nominees as, quote-unquote, minority, not qualified. [2:03] Although the ABA squandered its credibility long ago, I feel compelled to address this issue again because it affects multiple nominees pending before today and in coming weeks. [2:17] So let's take a look at a couple examples. [2:21] Judge Ballou, nominated to the Eastern District of Columbia, or Kentucky, has been a state judge for nearly a quarter of a century. [2:33] It's hard to imagine how any nominee could be more qualified for a judgeship as a current judge with that much experience. [2:44] The ABA's provided no justification for its rating minority not qualified. [2:51] It's the fox guarding the henna house telling us to trust it. [2:57] Now consider Mr. West, who we're holding over today. [3:05] He was nominated to the Eastern District of Oklahoma. [3:10] He, like many recent nominees, was a Solicitor General in his state. [3:17] The ABA's rated his Solicitor General peers, Judge Devine, Judge LaCour, and Judge Flowers, all well qualified. [3:31] Meanwhile, Mr. West gets a minority not qualified rating despite having as much or more years of legal experience than each of the three names I just mentioned. [3:45] The ABA's rating there lacks any transparency. [3:50] They're illogical, inconsistent, and plainly tainted by political bias. [3:59] I'd say that they should be taken with a grain of salt, but that's be giving them too much credit. [4:11] In spite of the ABA's baseless attempts to discredit recent nominees, [4:16] the Senate's confirmed nearly 60 highly qualified Article III judges so far this Congress, [4:24] and I look forward to today's votes that we can get to work confirming more. [4:31] Senator Durbin. [4:32] Chairman, I thought the decision was made by this committee to not engage the ABA in rating judicial nominees, [4:43] and I think they have been cut off by this committee and your chairmanship from basic information that was always available to the ABA, [4:51] such as the nominee himself or those who work with him on a legal basis. [4:57] So your opening statement about the ABA leaves them puzzled. [5:03] I don't know if you're suggesting they're coming back or that they have been officially recognized, [5:09] but I thought the position of the majority in the committee was they didn't care what the ABA thought. [5:14] At least that's what was announced at the beginning of the session. [5:17] I think you stated it, but I just want to know that I haven't changed my mind over the last 20 years. [5:23] That's good. I think that's good most of the time. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [5:27] I think there are a lot of things that this committee could have considered and didn't during the course of the last two years. [5:33] We have a responsibility. If I sound a little unusual, I just spent an hour or two in the dentist chair. [5:40] So a little bit. We'll forgive you. Thank you. [5:43] The committee has failed to fulfill its responsibility under Article One of the Constitution to conduct oversight of criminal misconduct by federal agencies and officials under our jurisdiction. [5:54] Let me be specific. Republicans turned a blind eye as immigration agents shot and killed Renee Good and Alex Freddie in Minneapolis. [6:05] Silverio Villegas Gonzalez in Franklin Park in my home state of Illinois. [6:11] Johan Sebastian Durand Guerrero in Biddeford, Maine, and Lorenzo Salgado Arroyo in Houston, Texas. [6:19] These are murders, killings by federal agents. The jurisdiction of this committee on the issue of immigration. [6:27] We've been too busy to consider it. Unfortunately, those investigations still need to take place. [6:33] Republicans have tried to minimize the January 6th insurrection and President Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election. [6:41] I think we may have one straight answer from nominee about what actually happened on the election in 2020. [6:50] Most eighth grade students can answer that question who won the election, but most of our judicial nominees cannot. [6:57] One committee Republican even mocked my criticism of President Trump's blanket pardon of January 6th insurrectionists. [7:06] Remember that? First day in office, unconditional, complete pardon of all the insurrectionists who attacked our Capitol Police, [7:14] who are guarding you right now to make sure that you are safe. They attacked our Capitol Police and two lost their lives. [7:21] That reality has been ignored by the majority of this committee. Meanwhile, the crime spree by these pardoned rioters continues. [7:30] Just last week, Cleveland Meredith was charged with threatening to murder the federal judges who presided over his January 6th criminal case. [7:41] Donald Trump gave a full unconditional pardon to Mr. Meredith, who came to Washington on January 6th with a car full of guns and threatened to, quote, put a bullet in then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's head. [7:56] On Sunday, President Trump again defended his pardon of these traitors saying, quote, I don't think any group has been treated more unfairly. [8:08] Any group has been treated more unfairly. But last week on Election Day, the American people rejected this administration's corruption and cruelty overwhelmingly. [8:21] President Trump responded to the stunning rebuke of his leadership by doubling down. [8:26] He made baseless claims again that the Democratic landslide was a result of fraud. No evidence forthcoming. [8:35] He promoted Stephen Miller. How about that? The architect of the mass deportation campaign that led to the deaths of the people that I mentioned earlier. [8:47] He is now chief of staff to the president of the United States. [8:51] He ordered the Justice Department to criminally investigate members of Congress for simply conducting oversight hearings. [8:59] Thanks to Republicans, President Trump has a loyalist as a Senate confirmed attorney general to carry out his orders. [9:07] Unfortunately, it appears our Republican colleagues who I thought may have learned a lesson from the last Tuesday election did not get the message. [9:16] Senator Grassi, this is not directed at you personally. [9:20] You probably are not aware of this, but I want to make it a matter of record. [9:23] The Republican majority in this committee continues to withhold committee records that Republican senators used to question Special Counsel Jack Smith. [9:34] Remember that hearing? Can you forget it? [9:36] That was Jack Smith who was spoken of by this committee over and over again as the eminence agrees in this plot to vilify President Trump. [9:47] He appeared before this committee under oath and testified. [9:51] Now the information that was used to attack him in the hearing, which we have requested and routinely is turned over, has been withheld in violation of Senate rules and longstanding committee practice. [10:05] The majority is also violating numerous longstanding standards in desperate attempt to confirm more than 30 qualified loyalists to lifetime appointments before Democrats take the majority. [10:17] By departing from these practices, Republicans are further undermining the committee's ability. [10:23] I won't be here to see it. [10:24] But don't be surprised if some of these violations have now become routine enough to be followed in the future. [10:30] And you're we are setting precedents for future Democrats, which unfortunately may turn that right. [10:38] We cannot have one set of rules for Republicans and another for Democrats. [10:43] Consider one of the nominees Republicans are violating committee rules to advance. [10:50] This dates back to the election day of November 3rd. [10:54] As Republicans know, the results in Texas were discouraging to their party. [11:01] The next day, the Republicans in the Senate moved into action and decided to send as nominees to this committee one that we'll talk about this morning, who was a Supreme Court justice in the state of Texas, lost the election on Tuesday, nominated for federal district court on Wednesday. [11:22] Well, that's pretty good. [11:23] He was running for office to be reelected to the Supreme Court, and now he's running for the federal district court. [11:30] And there's another one. [11:31] One of the nominees is Elliot Geiser. [11:34] Mr. Geiser has served as the assistant attorney general for legal counsel. [11:41] He has advanced some very unusual and unpopular and overturned theories as head of the office of legal counsel. [11:50] He issued numerous unhinged legal opinions. [11:53] For example, he declared that the Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional and signed off on the creation of the infamous January 6 slush fund. [12:03] Mr. Geiser has limited contacts with the state of Texas. [12:08] We'll discuss him later. [12:10] He decided the day after the election on November 3rd, he was leaving the Department of Justice. [12:15] Well, it's not too late for Republicans on this committee to change course. [12:20] If you're listening to the American people, I would suggest that you abandon efforts to hold our regular DOJ oversight hearings back instead of using them as an opportunity to inform the American people about the facts. [12:34] That we hold a hearing finally with the big tech CEOs. [12:38] We have a month and a half left. [12:40] Let's bring them in. [12:41] We have a lot of questions I think both parties would like to ask about protecting our children and families. [12:47] We need to respond to Senator Curtis, Republican Senator of Utah's request for a bipartisan investigation of the Trump family famous wedding reception paid for by a Russian oligarch. [13:00] You think that would have drawn a hearing under the Biden administration? [13:03] I think so. [13:04] Well, Mr. Chairman, there are many things we still can do, and I hope we'll use them. [13:10] And one of them is not to expedite nominees who have not been carefully vetted. [13:14] I hope we don't accept that as a standard in this committee. [13:17] I yield. [13:18] Mr. Chairman. [13:19] I know that I have an answer for a couple issues you brought up. [13:26] I addressed this access to record issue in an October 8th this year's letter. [13:35] And I'll introduce that letter into the record without objection. [13:41] Over recess, my staff briefed Democratic offices over a two-week period to provide a review of whistleblower records and other records at issue. [13:55] My staff spent as much time as necessary to explain the records and answer questions. [14:03] In fact, my staff allocated more time and resources to the minority than they did the majority. [14:11] Then my staff sent a memo to Republican and Democrat offices, which also included possession of whistleblower records before publication. [14:26] That level of care hasn't been afforded by Democratic chairs to Republicans. [14:32] Regarding standards, when then-Senator Durbin, chairman of the committee, ran his Trump January 6th investigation in 2021, there were multiple in-camera reviews of National Archive records. [14:49] Now, once was another member's office present for those in-camera reviews of government records. [15:00] There wasn't any outrage by my Democratic colleagues at that time, and Republicans didn't complain either. [15:11] We respected ranking member Durbin's decision as then-chairman of this committee. [15:17] What's unique here is that my office negotiated access to whistleblower records before publication, not just government records. [15:27] And that's in addition to the thousands of pages that I've made available to both majority and minority. [15:35] That conduct shows the respect that I have for members. [15:40] Appropriately balanced with my responsibilities as chairman to run investigations and protect whistleblowers. [15:49] It would certainly be better if my Democratic colleagues cooperated with my investigation rather than trying to publicly undermine it. [15:58] Instead, in this investigation, as well as others, with Senator Johnson, we've been personally attacked by the other side. [16:10] I've told that story many times. I'm not going to go back into that. [16:14] We all remember the outrageously false accusations that we advanced Russian disinformation. [16:22] Some members on this very committee, even after releasing authentic bank records, no member has ever apologized to me or Senator Johnson for these false attacks. [16:35] These very public and very false attacks caused my office rightful caution with how to share certain records, especially whistleblower records, which I can do as chair just as the Democrats have done in the past. [16:54] In addition, you brought up another issue that I have to respond. [17:00] Consider a consideration of judicial nominations is some of the most important works that this committee does. [17:09] And as chairman, it's been my priority to ensure that the federal branch bench is filled with judges who will uphold our constitutional rule of law. [17:20] It's no secret. I've worked hard to efficiently advance judicial nominees throughout my six years as chairman. [17:29] You've seen the statistics under my leadership. This Congress, we've advanced and confirmed judges at a fastest rate in decades. [17:39] But now my Democratic colleagues criticize the pace and timing of how I'm proceeding with pending nominations. [17:48] They say I'm moving too quickly and breaking quote unquote precedent. So let's look at that precedent. [17:57] Democrats say that I'm doing something new by holding nominations hearing less than two weeks apart. [18:04] But there's no Senate or committee rule that requires that. The chairman has always had discretion to set hearings scheduled since the Obama administration. [18:14] Truncated hearings have been held at least three dozen times. [18:19] Nearly 7% of those happened when the Democrats were in the majority. [18:24] In fact, it happened 16 times while I served as ranking member. [18:30] Democrats also say that I'm breaking precedent by allowing nominees to sit fewer than 28 days after receipt of his Senate questionnaire. [18:42] Again, there's no Senate or committee rule that requires that. [18:47] The 28 day norm has been waived for nominees in the past. [18:53] It's happened for district judges multiple times, including twice in the 115th Congress. [19:01] And chairman from both parties have also done it for higher court nominations like for Justice Barrett and for Justice Jackson. [19:12] Historically, this committee has shortened timelines when circumstances warrant it. [19:19] For example, an article by Mike Fergosos titled Democrats whine about hearing schedules. [19:28] That article discusses how the Democrats undertook similar measures during the 2022 lame duck session. [19:39] Without objection, I would enter that into the record. [19:44] So that's the precedence. [19:46] Now let's talk about what's unprecedented. [19:49] During Biden administration, more than 94% of the U.S. Attorneys and 100% of the U.S. Marshals were confirmed by voice vote or unanimous consent. [20:06] During this Congress, because of Democrat obstruction, that percentage has dropped to zero. [20:15] Democrats have undertaken unprecedented levels of obstruction to stall President Trump's nominees. [20:22] And once the Democrats take control Senate next year, they've made clear that they're planning to block Trump nominated judges from ever being confirmed. [20:33] So don't take my word for it. [20:36] Senate Minority Leader Schumer has publicly said in multiple occasions before the election, [20:43] he even told the press that blocking lower court judges was, quote, [20:47] one of the reasons that we want to do everything we can to take back the Senate, end of quote. [20:53] My Democratic colleagues on this committee have indicated the same. [20:57] One advocated for, quote, hard reset on nomination process next Congress, end of quote. [21:06] Another said, quote, I think it's slim to none that we would support nominees from this administration, end of quote. [21:16] So I want to be very clear. [21:18] Some Democrats so despise President Trump that for the first time in our nation's history, [21:23] they're planning to stonewall a president's ability to appoint judges. [21:28] Now that is what is unprecedented. [21:31] So, yes, I'm working. [21:33] I'm going to work hard to get judges confirmed quickly during the lame duck session while we still have time, [21:41] because I know what's coming and I care too much about this country and the American people not to do it. [21:47] We have a quorum. [21:50] Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond. [21:53] First, I'm glad we have a good working relationship, a trusting relationship. [21:58] We do have. [21:59] Yes, we do. [22:00] I want to continue that. [22:01] But there are some things that are that bear observation from the opposite side. [22:07] All the norms you talked about that had been changed in the past had one distinction to the norms being considered now. [22:14] The changes are made with the consent of the minority. [22:17] So we would ask the Republicans, would you go along with shortening a period of time for a nominee? [22:24] And if they said yes, we did. [22:26] But otherwise, no, that is not the case now. [22:29] The decisions being made unilaterally without requests for our consent. [22:33] And let me also say a word, because this one really gets under my skin a little bit. [22:38] Why do we have roll calls for U.S. attorney nominees? [22:42] Who insisted on that? [22:44] Well, the first Trump administration, there were 87 U.S. attorneys approved by voice vote. [22:51] Why do you require a roll call vote now? [22:55] One senator insisted on it. [22:57] Who is that senator? [22:58] The mystery senator? [22:59] J.D. Vance. [23:01] I went to the floor of the Senate seven times asking unanimous consent that then-senator Vance stop his objection to having just the basic vote of an individual by voice for U.S. attorney, as we'd always done. [23:16] He insisted he was going to bring down the Justice Department by any means, and he objected each and every time. [23:23] So to blame us on the Democratic side for something that was advanced by the now Vice President, it's just plain wrong, and the record will show it. [23:32] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [23:33] Okay, now we'll go to vote on these nominees. [23:36] We're going to lose- [23:37] Chairman, can I be briefly recognized? [23:38] No, no, we're going to- I'll recognize you just as soon as we get done with these votes. [23:43] We'll now turn to the nomination of Daniel Ballou to serve as judge of the U.S. District Court, East District of Kentucky. [23:54] On a favor of reporting the nomination, the clerk will call the roll. [23:59] Aye. [24:02] No by proxy. [24:24] No by proxy. [24:26] No by proxy. [24:28] No by proxy. [24:31] No. [24:33] No by proxy. [24:35] No by proxy. [24:37] No by proxy. [24:39] No by proxy. [24:42] Aye. [24:43] No by proxy. [24:46] No by proxy. [24:47] No by proxy. [24:48] No by proxy. [24:49] No by proxy. [24:50] No by proxy. [24:51] No by proxy. [24:54] No by proxy. [24:55] No by proxy. [24:56] No by proxy. [24:57] No by proxy. [24:58] No by proxy. [24:59] No by proxy. [25:00] No by proxy. [25:01] No by proxy. [25:02] No by proxy. [25:03] No by proxy. [25:04] No by proxy. [25:05] No by proxy. [25:06] No by proxy. [25:09] No by proxy. [25:11] No by proxy. [25:31] No by proxy. [25:33] No by proxy. [25:35] No by proxy. [25:38] No by proxy. [25:40] No by proxy. [25:42] No by proxy. [25:43] No by proxy. [25:46] No by proxy. [25:48] Mr. Bennett will now be reported after that favorable vote. Now, Courtney Coker, clerk will call the roll. [25:59] Aye. Aye. No, by, no. In person. No, by proxy. No, by proxy. No, by proxy. No, by proxy. No, by proxy. No, by proxy. No, by proxy. No, by proxy. [26:41] Aye. Favorably reported. Now, Courtney Coker, after that favorable vote. Now, Kyle Reardon, clerk will call the roll. [27:00] Aye. Aye. No, by proxy. Aye, by proxy. Aye, by proxy. Aye, by proxy. No, by proxy. No, by proxy. No, by proxy. No, by proxy. [27:40] Chairman Grassley. Aye. Okay. The nominee getting her favorable recognition, or I mean favorable vote, will be reported to the floor. [27:59] Senator Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Seeing that we have a quorum, I move for a vote pursuant to Rule 4 of the Committee's Rules on a subpoena for Volume 2 [28:08] of Special Counsel Jack Smith's final report, directed at the Department of Justice, [28:13] which already possesses a final version redacted with grand jury materials. [28:18] I have a resolution that we can vote on requiring production of Volume 2, [28:23] as previously requested by 10 members of this committee over a year ago. [28:27] Although there is a pending court order in Florida sealing the Volume 2 report, the court order is on appeal. [28:33] With oral arguments scheduled for January 2027, the district court's order in that case relied on a woefully inaccurate factual finding [28:41] that Congress had expressed no formal interest in the report. [28:45] This committee should correct that record as soon as possible. [28:48] The committee's recent oversight hearing, which Jack Smith confirmed, [28:52] the committee's interest from both parties in the conclusions and conduct of the special counsel. [28:58] It is, I think, inexcusable. [28:59] The public still does not know the evidence supporting the criminal charges involving classified documents [29:04] against President Trump and his co-conspirators. [29:08] This committee has been receiving and releasing documents related to special counsel reports, [29:13] but doing so selectively. [29:16] And the, I think, simple, obvious next step would be to actually release the report. [29:21] So I would urge the committee to join me by voting to subpoena DOJ, reclaim our oversight power. [29:27] And under the committee rules, I'm entitled to a roll call vote on this. [29:32] The request is out of order. [29:36] I'll explain. [29:37] My Democrat colleague, who's faultfully, they have accused my side of violating committee rules, [29:47] have broken the committee rule that the chairman sets the agenda. [29:50] Judge Cannon issued an order that blocks the release of Jack Smith's Volume 2 outside of the Department of Justice. [30:01] Litigation regarding that order is before the 11th Circuit without oral arguments scheduled, [30:09] with oral arguments scheduled January 12th. [30:13] Any litigation over a subpoena issued by the committee on this matter [30:18] wouldn't finalized before the court ruling. [30:23] Judge Cannon noted in her order that, quote, [30:27] manifest injustice, end of quote, would result from releasing the report. [30:34] Judge Cannon said special counsels have released final reports at the end of their investigation, [30:41] but noted that, quote, [30:43] the court strains to find a situation in which a former special counsel has released a report [30:51] after initiating criminal charges that did not result in a finding of guilt, [31:00] at least not in a situation like this one, [31:03] where the defendants contested the charges from the outset [31:08] and still proclaim their innocence, end of quote. [31:11] As Judge Cannon noted in her order, [31:16] President Trump and the other defendants in the case, quote, [31:21] still enjoyed the presumptions of innocence, [31:25] held sank in her constitutional order, end of quote. [31:31] In this instance, what Judge Cannon said is persuasive for now. [31:37] All Congress, with record after record, [31:42] I've shown Jack Smith and his staff were politically weaponized. [31:48] As one example, Smith's deputy wanted to prosecute any nun wearing a head habit. [31:56] Another example, Smith's operation intentionally circumvented the speech and debate clause of the Constitution. [32:05] I've also made public government emails showing officials had concerns about proceeding with classified document cases. [32:17] Smith and his team obtained invasive and irrelevant information on hundreds of thousands of Republican supporters. [32:27] I've repeatedly asked my Democrat colleagues to join my investigation, which they have refused to so do. [32:36] Some of these facts were conveniently left out of Smith's public report, [32:42] which, if passed, is prologue, volume two, [32:46] is assuredly filled with allegations benefiting the special counsel's political positions. [32:55] Smith also produced volume two after his appointment was deemed unconstitutional, [33:00] so he knew he was on borrowed time. [33:03] Attempting to force this release under this unique condition is premature. [33:10] Therefore, your resolution is out of order. [33:13] Mr. Chairman, if I may make two points. [33:16] First of all, rule nine of the committee rules states that the chair of the committee with the agreement of the ranking member [33:22] or by a vote of the committee may subpoena the attendance of a witness or record. [33:28] So under rule nine, the committee can vote to subpoena records. [33:33] And under rule four, if you wish to deny me that, [33:36] it says the chair shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the committee to a vote. [33:43] If there is objection, as you are objecting, [33:45] to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, [33:48] a roll call vote of the committee shall be taken. [33:52] So here's the thing. [33:54] We can vote on this now, or we can vote on this in January, [33:58] in which I think a subpoena will be issued. [34:01] The implication of not voting on it now, of denying the minority vote on it now, [34:06] will be, it will be the Republican position when you're in the minority [34:10] that the minority party no longer has the right to command a vote to require a vote on a subpoena. [34:17] So if you want to give up that right, you'll be doing it today. [34:22] You'll be taking a position that when you're in the minority, [34:25] you have no right to a vote on a subpoena. [34:27] So that's the implication. [34:28] This means it's going to go out, but you're establishing a precedent by denying me this vote [34:33] that you won't insist on a vote. [34:35] You'll have no position to insist on a vote in the minority. [34:38] The difference between what you're predicting will happen in the future and happening now, [34:45] the chairman does not have your motion on the agenda, so it's out of order. [34:54] If the chairman next year puts it on the agenda, then you'll deal with it at that time. [35:01] Okay, so everyone, I hope you'll stay in your seats. [35:05] I'm adjourning the executive business meeting and transitioning to our nomination hearing. [35:13] So we will gavel out and gavel in. [35:18] I'd like to welcome everyone to today's hearing. [35:21] We have two panels. [35:22] The first panel features Todd Butler, who was nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals [35:29] for the Fifth Circuit. [35:31] Our second panel has three district court nominees. [35:35] Samuel Atkinson for the Eastern District, Tennessee. [35:39] Phil Echt for the District of North Dakota. [35:44] Bradford Kelly for the Eastern District, Louisiana. [35:48] Our second panel will also feature Arthur Kleinschmidt, who was nominated to serve as the [35:55] Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs. [35:59] Because we have a number of introducers, a lot to get through today, I'm going to brief [36:06] in my keeping us on schedule. [36:11] Today's nominees feature a wide rear of backgrounds. [36:15] Mr. Butler has extensive experience in private practice. [36:19] Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Kelly are public servants at the federal level. [36:25] And Mr. Atkinson serves as the state level, as North Dakota's Solicitor General. [36:33] They're all exceptional nominees. [36:36] On multiple occasions, I've noted that the President continues to nominate individuals [36:42] with military backgrounds. [36:45] I think that disciplined experience is an asset for the federal branch, bench. [36:51] Mr. Kelly and Mr. Atkinson both served in our nation's military, and we all thank them [36:59] for their service, and especially I do. [37:02] Dr. Kleinschmidt also has an inspirational story. [37:07] As a clinician, he dedicated years of helping Americans in addition to counseling. [37:14] He managed many grants, including those that help victims of opioid crisis. [37:19] He's a leader in that field. [37:22] I look forward to hearing from all these nominees. [37:25] Now, Senator Durbin. [37:27] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [37:29] I mentioned part of my concern earlier. [37:32] I'd like to make sure that it's clear. [37:34] The second Trump administration has fallen behind Biden administration's pace [37:39] in confirming judicial nominees. [37:41] In fact, well behind, well behind the first Trump administration's pace. [37:46] So now in the waning days of this Congress, in light of the last election, [37:50] the chairman is violating numerous longstanding committee norms. [37:55] The Republicans and Democratic chairs alike have followed over the years without consent from the minority. [38:02] A key phrase when it comes to the rules of this committee. [38:05] The majority is planning to hold nominations hearings today and next week, contrary to our practice of holding nominations hearings no closer than two weeks apart. [38:15] They're slating two nominees for next week's hearing whose questionnaires were received 10 and 14 days ago before the 14 days before the hearing, respectively. [38:28] Contrary to 28 days, which has been required by both political parties up until now. [38:33] They're calling nominees for hearings even if their FBI background investigation hasn't been cleared by the staff. [38:39] And they're slating as many as seven nominees for a single hearing. [38:44] Why? Because the Republicans are losing the majority. [38:48] And they're afraid that unqualified MAGA loyalists won't withstand close scrutiny when Democrats are in the majority. [38:55] Consider two Texas nominees who are slated for next week's hearing, James Sullivan and Elliot Geiser. [39:03] On Tuesday, November 3rd, James Sullivan lost his election for the Texas Supreme Court. [39:10] The very next day, the administration submitted his Senate Judiciary Questionnaire, which had obviously been prepared in advance. [39:19] So here's an individual who was running for the Supreme Court. [39:24] And when he didn't make the cut at the start of the next day, he decided his career was best at the federal level. [39:30] And this committee is giving this man expedited hearing. [39:33] The reason will be obvious in a second. [39:37] Another individual who's being considered is Elliot Geiser. [39:42] His questionnaire was submitted to this committee two days ago. [39:46] As I mentioned before, he's an assistant attorney general for legal counsel. [39:50] It says that Geiser's questionnaire was submitted, as I said, two days ago. [39:56] It says that Senator Cruz's office contacted him the day after the election about the nomination. [40:02] So once again, the defeat of the Republicans in Texas has created a scramble for lifetime appointments to the federal bench. [40:11] Under the committee's precedents, these two nominees can't be confirmed before the end of this Congress, [40:17] under accepted guidelines and schedules we've followed in the past. [40:21] So Republicans are breaking the rules to jam through these nominees and avoiding one obvious thing. [40:29] On January 3rd, there'll be a new senator from Texas. [40:32] Senator Tallarico has the right, as all senators do, to approve or disapprove district court nominees on a process known as Blue Slip. [40:41] What we're seeing here is an effort to scramble quickly to resurrect defeated candidates in Texas and others to fill the positions on the federal district court before Senator Tallarico is sworn in on January 3rd. [40:56] It's pretty obvious. There's such a scramble to do this. [41:00] They're ignoring the rules of the committee and ignoring the obvious before appointing a person to a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. [41:08] Shouldn't we take a close look at their background? We have in the past, but clearly we're not any any longer. [41:14] I think that's a serious mistake, Mr. Chairman. [41:16] And when it is when you have to live with it under a new chairman, I'm sorry to tell you, you asked for it. [41:22] Well, I've already addressed this issue, but let me do it for a second time. [41:29] Democrats have undertaken unprecedented levels of obstruction to stall President Trump's nominees this Congress. [41:37] And they've publicly made clear that they're planning to block Trump nominated, nominated judges next year. [41:46] So I'm working hard to get judges confirmed quickly during this lame duck session while we still have time. [41:53] Now, let's be very clear. This isn't any different than how Democrats fast tracked judicial nominees in recent lame duck sessions. [42:05] You heard me note earlier, Democrats held truncated hearings in 2022 during a lame duck session. [42:16] And in 2024, when the Democrats were about to lose control of the Senate, they rammed ahead with confirming 22 federal judges during lame duck. [42:28] That's essentially the same number of nominees currently pending in Senate right now. [42:37] So I hope you'll spare me the outrage. Democrats don't like this because we're getting ahead of their planned obstruction. [42:46] But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. [42:49] And then something about the FBI timeframe. [42:54] We're working with limited time remaining on the Senate counter. [42:59] So I intend to process nominations efficiently. [43:04] The majority and minority are still conducting full and complete review of nominees, FBI background investigations. [43:13] However, I'm not going to prejudice nominees and prevent them from sitting for a hearing because of delays outside of their control. [43:22] But let me be clear, nominees won't receive a committee vote unless the FBI background investigation has been cleared. [43:32] Because of the timing was hard to estimate. [43:36] Introducers should go as they arrived, starting with. [43:42] Let's see, I guess we have. Do we have Senator Hagerty? [43:49] Senator Hagerty, please go ahead. [43:54] And then anybody else that's in the room, sit down. [44:00] Go ahead, Senator Hagerty. [44:02] Thank you.