Chuck Grassley Leads Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing On Pending Nominations

[0:00] Today's agenda will address an organization issue because this is our newest colleague, [0:10] Senator Graham's first markup. [0:12] I'll have a few words on that in a moment. [0:16] We'll be making it official that she'll fill the late Senator Graham's position on the [0:22] subcommittees. [0:23] It's my understanding that we can adopt this measure by voice vote in terms of committee [0:31] assignments. [0:33] On today's agenda, we also have four nominations that we'll vote on. [0:39] Daniel Domenico to serve as the circuit judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 10th [0:47] Circuit. [0:48] Matthew Byrne to serve as judge on the U.S. District Court, Southern District, Ohio. [0:56] Christopher Nassar to serve as U.S. Attorney, the Northern District of Oklahoma. [1:03] The remaining nominee, Todd Blanche, was listed for the first time and will be held over for [1:12] future consideration. [1:13] All three of the nominees that we're voting on today are highly qualified. [1:21] I want to go on to the point about our newest committee member, Senator Graham. [1:35] I speak for all of the colleagues here. [1:42] Welcome you as a new member of this committee. [1:46] And I hope you know on this committee that for this senator sitting beside Senator Graham here [1:54] when he was chairman and also when I've been chairman and then also on the budget committee [2:01] where he was chairman, I sat beside him. [2:06] We work together on a lot of things and I really miss his advice, but more his humor and everything [2:19] that went with it, all good humor. [2:23] He was surely a true patriot and a defender of this nation. [2:29] And all of us, as you know, are deeply saddened by his passing. [2:35] We're honored to have you here and we're confident that you'll continue to make Lindsey very proud, [2:46] serving in his place on this committee and any other committees you're on. [2:53] I want to go on and speak about the hearing that we had last week on Acting Attorney General [3:02] Blanche regarding his nomination for permanent role. [3:07] He demonstrated his ongoing commitment to transparency and rule of law. [3:14] Indeed, the Justice Department has thrived under his leadership. [3:19] The nation's murder rate is the lowest it's been in a century. [3:25] The Justice Department has protected Americans at every turn. [3:30] We've seen an increase in violent crime arrests, the disruption of terrorist activities, and seizure [3:39] of illegal firearms and controlled substances. [3:43] We've also seen an increase in the arrests of child predators and human traffickers and [3:50] a massive recovery of missing children lost during the Biden years. [3:57] Mr. Blanche has also led major successes in thwarting federal program fraud and ending racial [4:05] discrimination embedded in our government under the Biden administration. [4:12] Despite all of Mr. Blanche's successes, the Democratic members of the committee and throughout the [4:24] entire Senate, like clockwork, sought to defame him. [4:32] Yesterday we saw committee Democrats hold what one reporter called, quote unquote, a shadow form [4:42] to lodge their attacks against Mr. Blanche. [4:46] That description seems appropriate because the Democrats has operated in the shadows for years. [4:55] Now they're not hiding it. [4:58] Some of yesterday's panelists was the former spokesman for Special Counsel Jack Smith. [5:07] As my and Senator Johnson's oversight has repeatedly uncovered. [5:13] Time and time again, Jack Smith ushered in a weaponization of government unparalleled in our nation's history. [5:25] So if the people who engaged in the worst partisan law affair this country has ever seen have a problem [5:33] with Todd Blanche, the American people should take notice because it means Mr. Blanche is doing something right. [5:44] To be clear, I don't agree with how Mr. Blanche or the Justice Department has handled every matter. [5:53] And I've demanded answers and will continue to do so. [5:57] But I'd like to address a few of the recent attacks waged by others. [6:02] Some has falsely alleged that Mr. Blanche hadn't met with Epstein victims. [6:09] At the hearing, Mr. Blanche confirmed that he and other Justice Department officials personally met with more than 30 victims. [6:18] He also rearranged his schedule to meet with victims present at the hearing that same day. [6:25] It's clear that Mr. Blanche is sincere when he stated, quote, everyone at the department, including myself, remains committed to engaging with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, end quote. [6:43] Many have also criticized Mr. Blanche for President Trump's settlement with the IRS. [6:51] That settlement purported to establish the infamous anti-weaponization fraud. [7:00] Mr. Blanche has unequivocally stated on multiple occasions before Congress, and not just on this committee, [7:09] but including sworn testimony before this committee and in multiple court filings across different courts, that the fraud, that the fund is dead. [7:21] Still, many of my Democratic colleagues have challenged the portion of the settlement that remains intact, [7:29] specifically a release of claims against President Trump and his family. [7:35] To be clear, their tax information was stolen and unlawfully disclosed by a convicted criminal contracting with the IRS, [7:47] and a mutual release of claims is as commonplace in a settlement as the paper it was written on. [7:55] But for those criticizing the scope of immunity afforded to the president's family, who were victims of that crime, I ask this. [8:08] Where was the Democratic outcry when President Biden granted blanket pardons for his own family and associates? [8:18] Those pardons often offer blanket and prospective immunity for prior crimes. [8:28] I'd like to read to you now from Hunter Biden's pardon. [8:33] It was, quote, a full and unconditional pardon for those offenses against the United States, [8:41] which he has committed or may have committed or taking part in during the period January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024, end of quote. [8:54] Blanket immunity for any crime whatsoever, known or non-known. [8:59] That's a fact. [9:01] No future prosecution for conduct covered covering a decade. [9:08] That's a fact. [9:10] President Biden issued sweeping decade-long prospective immunity for his entire family. [9:19] And he did the same for political allies like Dr. Fauci. [9:24] So, isn't that self-dealing? [9:30] I heard crickets from my Democratic colleagues when President Biden afforded this widespread, unprecedented immunity. [9:38] So, spare me the outrage. [9:41] I get it. [9:42] My Democratic colleagues don't like President Trump. [9:45] They get mad about everything he's done, regardless of whatever it is, [9:50] and whether prior Democratic presidents did the same thing. [9:53] But thwarting this nomination won't hurt the president. [9:59] It would hurt the American people who are now safer, thanks to Mr. Blanche's successful leadership. [10:06] Senator Durbin. [10:08] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [10:09] I want to welcome Senator Darlene Graham to the Senate Judiciary Committee. [10:14] We all miss your brother and our friend, Lindsey. [10:17] I can't tell you how many times we worked together, but it was always a joy. [10:22] I see you bring a little different flavor to the Graham family participation. [10:26] I don't see any cans of Coke Zero in front of you, [10:30] and I don't believe your brother would attend any session that didn't include him. [10:34] But thank you so much for being with us, and we want to work with you as we worked with your brother. [10:41] Every meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee has a necessary starting point, [10:46] and today was no exception. [10:48] Before we can talk about anything else, we've got to talk about Jack Smith. [10:52] Jack Smith is the political punching bag of the Senate Judiciary Committee. [10:57] Jack Smith, that special counsel who was looking for foreign influence on American elections, [11:02] whether there was any wrongdoing with classified documents. [11:04] Jack Smith, let's go get him. [11:06] Wouldn't it be interesting if we could just call him before this committee, [11:12] put him under oath, demand the answers? [11:15] Well, he's offered to come before this committee now, I think, for six months. [11:18] We wrote to the chairman and said, bring him in. [11:21] Instead of talking about him, bring him in. [11:23] Ask these questions under oath, and if he perjures himself, he'll be held responsible. [11:27] But he apparently thinks that he can handle himself and would like to come before the committee. [11:31] We can't do that because we've got to keep punching him. [11:34] And if you've got to punch him and he's already answered the question, it's tough. [11:37] So for some reason, this majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee would rather punch Jack Smith verbally before every session than actually get direct answers from him under oath. [11:51] He's still available, and he should be called on in that situation. [11:54] To call this agreement that was signed by Blanche when it came to the Trump family commonplace, that was a word the chairman used, commonplace. [12:08] Commonplace for the federal government to say to any individual, we will forever discharge you from any criminal liability involving the tax code and more. [12:17] And to do that and to say that that is commonplace, it is far from commonplace. [12:23] It is so unique that a federal judge in Florida has spelled out the fact that this was extraordinary treatment and raises serious ethical questions. [12:33] Let me also say about blanket pardons. [12:35] The president retired the trophy on blanket pardons, if you'll remember. [12:40] His first day in office, he pardoned everyone who assaulted the Capitol, the insurrectionists who came in here with the design to tear up this building, [12:50] to assault our police officers, and to stop the process of counting the votes in the 2020 election. [12:56] They did that. [12:57] He had to remove the vice president from the Senate chamber. [13:00] The Secret Service thought his future was in doubt if he stayed there under the circumstances. [13:07] So President Trump's first day in office in the second term gives a blanket pardons to every one of those insurrectionists for whatever they did, [13:16] assaulting police officers, beating him up, all the things that they did. [13:20] I don't think that that is easily explained or dismissed. [13:24] Whether Biden was right with his pardons, I'll leave it to you to make your own judgment. [13:28] But to say the president's pardon of these cop beaters is somehow excusable because of that is just not the same. [13:37] I want to take a moment to respond to the claim that Todd Blanche's confirmation hearing Democrats had never criticized the Biden Justice Department actions. [13:46] This is simply and provably false. [13:49] When I was chair of this committee, we held regular oversight hearings, a rarity now. [13:55] The hearings covered the Justice Department, the FBI, and other DOJ components. [14:01] And I frequently criticized the Justice Department and compelled Department of Justice officials, my own party, to answer for their actions. [14:10] Take a few examples. [14:12] I called Biden DOJ officials to testify on the misuse of FISA Section 702. [14:17] I called FBI Director Wray to testify about the FBI's mistreatment of Olympic gymnasts who were sexually abused. [14:27] We had multiple hearings on the implementation of the First Step Act signed into law by President Trump [14:32] and successfully pushed Attorney General Garland to bring new leadership to the Bureau of Prisons. [14:37] In fact, before this administration, it wasn't unusual for senators of both parties to criticize the Justice Department [14:45] and call for the Attorney General to maintain his independence from the president. [14:49] During his confirmation hearing, Republican members lectured Merrick Garland, and they said, [14:54] what we need from our next Attorney General, the Republicans said, more than anything else, independence. [15:01] And the Attorney General, quote, must be willing to stand up to the president, my Republican colleagues said, [15:06] and say no when the office demands it. [15:09] I agree with him, but I don't hear that tune when it comes to this administration. [15:14] Attorney General Garland bent over backwards to be apolitical. [15:18] He appointed a career prosecutor as independent special counsel to oversee the investigations of the former president, [15:24] and he delegated charging decisions of day-to-day supervision to the special counsel to avoid potential conflicts of interest. [15:31] Now we have a president who claims, and I quote him, absolute right to do what I want with the Justice Department, end of quote, [15:41] and is seeking, quote, retribution, his words, against the enemy within. [15:47] He tweets out orders to the Department of Justice to prosecute his political opponents, [15:52] and Republicans go radio silent and look at their shoes. [15:56] I'm old enough to remember when Republicans claimed a chance 30-minute meeting on the airport tarmac [16:02] between former President Clinton and Attorney General Lynch [16:06] was damning evidence of collusion between Obama White House and the Justice Department. [16:12] 30 minutes on the tarmac. [16:14] But Republicans express no concern that Vice President Vance is leading lengthy strategy sessions [16:19] with Todd Blanche and Kash Patel in the White House Situation Room [16:24] on how to protect Donald Trump from the Epstein-Files scandal. [16:30] Everything we heard from Todd Blanche at his hearing last week [16:32] and his response to written questions, which my colleague will address, [16:37] indicates that if confirmed as Attorney General, [16:40] Blanche will continue to serve the interests of Donald Trump, not the American people. [16:44] He defended his decision to collude with Trump's private lawyers [16:48] to establish a $2 billion trust slush fund for January 6 cop beaters [16:55] and give Trump, his family, and his businesses immunity from criminal tax laws. [17:02] He continues to claim that the slush fund is, quote, dead, [17:05] but refuses to commit any tangible step to ensure that it cannot be revived. [17:11] As one committee member, Senator Cornyn, pointed out, [17:14] the text of the settlement agreement says only parties to the agreement can modify its terms [17:19] and Trump and his family could sue to enforce the agreement. [17:22] This is Contracts 101, as one of the witnesses in the outside panel yesterday said. [17:28] Blanche also failed to address the inconsistency between his claims about IRS immunity [17:33] and the deal's actual language. [17:36] He claimed the deal applies only to Trump. [17:38] That's what Blanche told us, his sons, and the Trump organization. [17:42] But the senator from Texas also noted the language of the agreement also covers, quote, [17:47] related or affiliated individuals, close quote, including, quote, related companies, affiliates, [17:54] and subsidiaries. [17:55] It goes way beyond what Blanche told us. [17:58] Blanche also claimed at the hearing that the immunity order binds only the IRS and, [18:02] by extension, the Treasury. [18:04] But the language of the order covers other agencies or departments. [18:08] And, of course, if corruption is coming up to bat, the crypto boys are surely in the lineup. [18:14] Blanche also failed to explain why he gutted DOJ's crypto crime enforcement [18:20] while he personally held investments in crypto assets of more than $150,000, [18:26] allowing the president to rake in $1.4 billion in a crypto windfall in the last year, [18:34] even as Americans reported billions of dollars in crypto fraud losses. [18:39] I will have more to say about this deeply troubling nomination next week. [18:43] I yield. [18:44] We don't have a quorum yet, so I'm going to call on Senator Whitehouse. [18:48] Yeah, thanks very much, Chairman. [18:52] This is in the nature of a point of personal privilege, [18:55] because in my exchange with Mr. Blanche last week, [19:00] well, let me say what I said, [19:04] and let me tell the committee what his response was. [19:07] Here's what I said. [19:09] You've refused to exclude January 6 rioters from your anti-weaponization fund. [19:14] You've refused to put in writing that the slush fund is dead. [19:18] Indeed, you've signaled to allies that payouts are still on track. [19:21] You've vacated seditious conspiracy convictions against members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. [19:27] You hired January 6 rioter Jared Wise, who'd urged the mob to kill police officers. [19:33] You scrubbed press releases about January 6 prosecutions and called the releases partisan propaganda. [19:39] You denied that Trump encouraged any violence on January 6. [19:42] You cleaned house of every attorney who worked on a case related to Trump, [19:46] and you've bragged that bringing justice to violent rioters meant that, [19:49] quote, every one of them was either pardoned or had their sentence commuted, end quote. [19:54] So that's what I said. [19:56] Here was how Blanche began his response. [20:00] Almost everything the senator just said, and he's protected, he's allowed to lie, [20:06] but almost everything he just said was absolutely false. [20:10] And he ended by saying, [20:11] so the narrative that the senator just suggested and put on me as something I believe is absolutely not true. [20:17] We concluded that exchange by saying, well, let's look at the QFRs. [20:21] When you're under oath, we can go through them one by one. [20:24] Well, we have the QFRs back. [20:26] As to the question of whether he refused to exclude January 6 rioters from the Anti-Weaponization Fund, [20:32] here's the question. [20:33] Yes or no? [20:34] When you testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 19, 2026, [20:39] in response to the question whether individuals who assaulted Capitol Hill police officers [20:43] are eligible to apply for payments under the Anti-Weaponization Fund, [20:47] did you say, and I quote, [20:49] anybody in this country is eligible to apply if they believe they were a victim of weaponization, end quote. [20:55] Response? [20:57] Yes. [20:58] So there's one. [21:00] To the allegation that he refused to put in writing that the slush fund is dead. [21:04] Question. [21:05] Yes or no? [21:05] When you testified before the House Appropriations Committee on June 2, 2026, [21:10] in response to the question whether you are going to issue a new memo in writing [21:13] rescinding that May 18 memo establishing the Anti-Weaponization Fund, [21:17] did you say, I'm not committing to putting anything in writing, [21:21] and okay, I'm not committing to doing anything in writing? [21:25] Answer again? [21:27] Yes. [21:29] Signal to allies that payouts are still on track. [21:31] Here's the question. [21:32] Yes or no? [21:33] Now, on June 2, 2026, after you said the Anti-Weaponization Fund would not move forward, [21:39] did Stanley Woodward, your subordinate, [21:41] and the DOJ representative who signed the purported settlement agreement [21:44] establishing the, quote, Anti-Weaponization Fund tweet, [21:47] were on it in response to a tweet suggesting that there should be [21:51] a weaponization fund that will be available to the victims of the weaponized Biden Justice Department [21:56] who can prove their claims against the federal government through the Federal Tort Claims Act? [22:00] Again, he said, as I testified at my confirmation hearing, [22:05] the fund can only operate through action by the department, [22:08] namely the appointment of commissioners, the creation of a claims process, [22:11] the transfer of funds and payments. [22:12] At my direction, the department will not take these steps, [22:16] but the point was about the Federal Tort Claims Act, [22:18] which he again failed to deny, failed to show any falsehood or lie on my part. [22:24] He vacated seditious conspiracy convictions against members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. [22:31] Question, on April 14, 2026, did DOJ move to vacate the seditious conspiracy convictions [22:37] of members of the Proud Boys? [22:39] Response, on April 14, 2026, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia [22:43] filed a motion to vacate the convictions of multiple individuals [22:46] that I believe are the subject of this question. [22:50] Same question with respect to Oath Keepers. [22:52] His answer, please see my response to the previous question. [22:55] Hire January 6th rioter Jared Wise, who'd urged the mob to kill police officers. [23:00] Question, did Mr. Wise work for DOJ during your tenure as Deputy Attorney General? [23:05] Mr. Wise worked at DOJ during my tenure, although I did not hire him. [23:10] It would otherwise be inappropriate for me to comment on personnel matters [23:13] within the Department of Justice. [23:15] The facts, including emails that we have, [23:17] show that Wise worked at DOJ from at least May 2025 through April 2026. [23:23] Mr. Blanche was confirmed as the Deputy Attorney General in March 2025. [23:29] The hiring of Mr. Wise happened under the tenure of Todd Blanche. [23:35] It's hard to imagine that you can say, I did not hire him. [23:38] Of course, the Deputy Attorney General doesn't hire people personally, [23:42] but that evidently was the point he was trying to make. [23:45] Moreover, during that time, did Mr. Wise at any point have the title of senior advisor [23:50] in the office of the Deputy Attorney General? [23:52] Response, yes. [23:54] During that time, did Mr. Wise at any point have an email address associated [23:57] with the office of the Deputy Attorney General? [24:00] Response, yes. [24:02] To the scrubbing of press releases and calling them partisan propaganda. [24:07] Question, did DOJ during your tenure as Deputy Attorney General or Acting Attorney General [24:11] remove from its website press releases on prosecutions related to the January 6th, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol? [24:18] Response, during my tenure, the Department of Justice has worked to reverse the Biden administration's weaponization [24:23] of the department. [24:24] This includes stripping the department's website of partisan propaganda, [24:27] like the press releases mentioned, confirming the truth of my statement. [24:33] Denied that Trump encouraged any violence on January 6th. [24:37] On November 15th, 2023, in the case of United States v. Trump, I asked, [24:41] did you and other attorneys representing President Trump submit a filing saying, [24:45] quote, [24:45] Not a shred of evidence suggests President Trump called for any violence [24:48] or asked anyone to enter the Capitol unlawfully on January 6th? [24:53] Response, yes. [24:54] That is one quote from a substantive court filing. [24:58] Question whether he cleaned house of every attorney who worked on a case related to Trump. [25:02] QFR. [25:03] On March 26th, 26th at CPAC with respect to the prosecutions against President Trump, [25:07] did you say there is not a single man or woman at the Department of Justice [25:11] who had anything to do with those prosecutions? [25:14] Yes, that is an excerpt of my remarks. [25:17] On the same day, in response to the question of how many of those investigators have been canned, [25:21] did you say over 200? [25:23] Over 200 either left before we came in because they knew it was coming [25:27] or were fired or took early retirement. [25:29] They are no longer employed by this department. [25:32] Response, please see my response to the previous question, which was, [25:35] yes, this is an excerpt of my remarks. [25:37] On the same day, did you say, and when it comes to the FBI, [25:41] Director Patel has cleaned house there too. [25:44] There isn't a single man or woman with a gun. [25:46] Federal agents still in that organization that had anything to do with the prosecution of federal Trump. [25:51] He agrees. [25:52] He fills in the ellipsis in my QFR, adding, [25:56] which takes a lot of criticism, especially because of what happened over the past several years. [26:01] But he agrees with my accurate quotation with the ellipsis. [26:04] And lastly, bragged that bringing justice to violent rioters meant that every one of them [26:10] was either pardoned or had their sentence commuted. [26:14] My question involved his March 26, 2026 presentation at CPAC, where he said, and I'm quoting here, [26:20] if you look at what happened to the men and women convicted because of January 6, [26:24] by 5 p.m. on January 20th, every one of them was either pardoned or had their sentence commuted. [26:30] Response, please see my response to question 11a. [26:33] It is inaccurate to say I bragged. [26:39] Well, it seems to me that it's a pretty heavy load to come into this committee under oath [26:44] and accuse a senator of absolutely false claims and lying because I'm protected by the committee. [26:53] So I wanted to make a record of the fact that when we went through the statement [26:57] that he said was a lie and all falsehoods, [27:00] he agreed to every single element of that statement one by one in his QFRs except minor details like [27:10] filling in an ellipsis or saying that he bragged. [27:14] None of that amounts to lying. [27:16] None of that makes the statements the least bit false. [27:19] I stand by what I said, and I wish this committee held our witnesses to a higher standard of conduct. [27:25] Thank you, Chairman. [27:29] We either, we need one more person to ratify the appointment of Senator Graham to the subcommittees. [27:40] And we can't do the nominations until we get all of the members on my side of the aisle here. [27:47] So does anybody want to speak while we wait? [27:51] And if nobody wants to speak, I was going to ask Senator Graham after we approved her [27:56] appointments to the subcommittees, did you have anything you wanted to say to the committee? [28:02] And if you did, now would be a good time to say it. [28:10] Thank you. [28:10] Thank you, Chairman Grassley. [28:12] And thank you to Ranking Member Durbin as well. [28:15] First, I just want to say that many of you have reached out with your first... [28:19] Can I ask you if you can get a little closer to the microphone? [28:22] Can you hear me? [28:23] Yeah. [28:24] I just... [28:24] First, I want to say that many of you have reached out with personal stories [28:29] that you've shared about Lindsey and just how much that has meant to me. [28:35] This has been an incredibly tough week for me, as y'all can imagine. [28:40] So the stories and just how he personally touched everyone has meant so very much to me, [28:47] and I greatly appreciate it. [28:50] I've watched my brother over the years serve on this committee, [28:54] and I know how important he took his role as a member, ranking member, and chairman. [29:01] I can assure you that I will serve with this committee with the same level of commitment as he did. [29:09] For nearly 30 years, I've served the people of South Carolina, [29:12] so I know how the work of this committee impacts the lives of South Carolinians [29:17] and Americans across the country. [29:19] What we do in this room impacts the safety and prosperity of every American. [29:27] I understand the weight of this responsibility, [29:30] and I intend to meet it with the same seriousness, integrity, and care [29:34] that I've brought to every day of my career in South Carolina, [29:38] to the people of South Carolina. [29:39] I'm honored to be joining the Senate Judiciary Committee, [29:43] and I look forward to serving alongside each one of you. [29:48] We welcome you, and thank you. [29:50] Mr. Chairman, [29:57] please go ahead. [29:58] If we can't do the business of the committee [30:00] because members are in another committee, [30:02] and it's unpredictable when they'll leave that committee and come to this one, [30:05] can I suggest that we have Senator Graham's issue raised off the floor [30:11] after the first vote this morning when we're all going to be there [30:14] and hold over the other business of the committee until the next meeting? [30:17] I can't do that because we will not be able to have the time with the two weeks left after this week [30:26] for the Senate to be in session before the August recess to get the new nominee confirmed as Attorney General. [30:36] So what are we going to do? [30:37] Can we have the consent? [30:42] I don't know. [30:44] It's been 35 minutes into this session. [30:47] I think it's the same way we could. [30:52] Maybe I better talk to our parliamentarian. [30:55] I think what we'll do is I'll make this follow-up on your suggestion this way [31:23] because it is kind of rude of people not to be able to be here. [31:27] Let's wait 10 minutes, and if we don't, we'll see what we can do off the floor. [31:32] 10 minutes from right now. [31:37] We'll stand at ease until 10 minutes or people get here. [32:15] These staffs to get their members here. [32:19] If you want to get an attorney general approved, we've got to have members get here [32:28] to delay this for the one week when it would delay, [32:32] and we're going to have to have a quorum to do that. [35:37] It seems it's impossible because of other committees meeting [35:40] and some of them having longer meetings than what they plan to [35:46] that we're going to have to recess and meet off the floor [35:55] at the vote of the United States Senate. [36:00] And you know how this place is on Thursday when everything shuts down around 2 o'clock. [36:06] That means the first vote that we have, which I guess is about 11.45 or noon [36:13] or something like that, we're going to recess until that point off the floor of the Senate.