LIVE: Senate Judiciary Meeting on Multiple Nominations

This is the anniversary of 9-11. I thought I'd remind my colleagues that maybe a word here. A couple things I remember about it. When I got in the radio studio, when we saw on television the first tower being hit, we didn't know anything about it at that time. I came back to the radio studio a half hour for another program that I've done every Tuesday in the last 30 years and still didn't know. When I walked out of the radio studio, and this was before the Visitor Center was set up, so it was in an entirely different location, somebody said, some lady that worked there said, Senator Grassley, you've got to be very careful. Something bad happened at the Pentagon. Then I went to my Capitol office, and within five minutes, a policeman knocked on the door and said, you've got to get out of here right away. So let me say good morning to everybody. And as I just said, before we begin, take a moment to reflect. Today's the 24th anniversary of September 11th, 2001, terrorist attack on our country. I think it's fitting before we engage in debate of our political disagreements of the day to remember the tragedy and recall how it united us as American people in our resolve against those who inflict violence against our political ends. Tragically, we have another reason to reflect on this same topic, because yesterday, Charlie Kirk was assassinated while speaking at Utah Valley University. I'm sure we're all praying for Charlie and his family, although we don't know all the details about the shooting, the motive, or that motive. It's a horrible reminder that acts of political terrorism and violence are something that we must resolve to oppose every day. On today's agenda, we have listed the nominations of Joshua Dunlap and Eric Tung to be circuit judges. William Mercer and Stephen Chad Meredith to be district judges, and the nominations of 18 individuals to be U.S. attorneys. We'll hold over the nomination of Scott Larry to be U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Mississippi, and we'll consider him at a later date. The nominees that we're considering today are well qualified for their roles, and I look forward to supporting them. I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Before we turn to the agenda, I'd like to address the ongoing obstruction of executive branch employees in the United States Senate. Historically, the consideration of U.S. attorneys has been a routine and bipartisan exercise, both in committee and on the Senate floor. These men and women have answered the call to public service and are needed to uphold the public safety in their communities. U.S. attorneys have nearly always been voted out of committee by voice vote and then confirmed by voice vote or unanimous consent. During the last administration, 94% of President Biden's U.S. attorney nominees were confirmed by voice vote on the Senate floor, but so far not a single U.S. attorney has been confirmed on the Senate floor by voice. In fact, the Democrats haven't allowed a single voice vote on the floor for any civilian nominee this Congress. The obstruction of U.S. attorneys hurts our public safety. As I've said many times, and I've said this on the Senate floor as well, 81% of the Americans think that crime in the large cities is a major concern. We have only to look at tragedies from the last few days to understand why Americans are concerned about crime in our cities. The murder of Charlie Kirk yesterday, the school shootings in Colorado yesterday, the recent mass shootings of little children at the Catholic Church in Minnesota, or the senseless murder of a young woman on a train in Charlotte. We, as elected leaders, have a responsibility to do something about this, and we can do something about it by installing federal law enforcement officers to keep people safe. Unfortunately, we're not allowed to do that in the United States Senate the way it's being obstructed today. Senate Democrats cannot accept that President Trump won the election, so they have chosen to light the Senate traditions on fire and campaign partisan outrage. For months, I've begged my colleagues to put the safety of American communities over partisan obstruction. I've warned of the lasting damage their strategy will cause in the Senate as an institution, and to our constitutional advice and consent role. I've gone to the Senate floor multiple times to implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to relent from this destructive path. My appeals have, of course, fallen on deaf ears. The obstruction of U.S. attorneys is just one piece of a broader strategy of the Democratic leadership to not have the Senate move forward on very important issues. This only hurts the American people. And now this unprecedented obstruction is impacting the operation of our Judiciary Committee for the last 75 years and probably much longer. The Senate Judiciary Committee has reported many of our nominees by voice vote. This is an efficient, cooperative way to process nominations as is generally appreciated by both the majority and minority caucuses. Under my chairmanship of this committee, we have only taken voice votes with the explicit consent of the ranking member and never when an objection has been raised when we didn't understand fully what all the minority members of this committee wanted to do. So when I recently heard that some of our non-controversial U.S. attorneys who were reported by voice vote might be challenged, I made a simple request. I went to the floor and asked my colleagues to honor the validity of our voice votes and our longstanding bipartisan practice. I was sincerely disappointed when Senator Schumer objected to my request and ruined this longstanding tradition. This was nothing more than an act of destructive partisanship. Because of his decision, like so many of his other decisions since 2003, another Senate norm has been broken and today we're forced to vote again on 10 U.S. attorneys that we've already voted on. This pattern of unrelenting partisan obstruction needs to end. We tried to end it by negotiations, but now we must end it by rule change. The American people deserve a functioning executive branch. They deserve a Senate confirmed law enforcement officers. They deserve a functioning Senate. If Leader Schumer and the Democrats won't agree to give that to the American people, then we must take decisive action, and we will. As a final note, I have to say about my friend Senator Durbin, the ranking member, he and I have good relationships. Even despite our political differences of views on legislative issues, I appreciate that we try to work together where we can, and that we respectfully disagree when we can't work together. I'm disappointed that our cooperation in the management of this committee and as chairman and ranking member wasn't respected by Senator Schumer. Senator Durbin. Thank you, Chairman Grassley. Let me personally thank you for your closing remarks. In terms of our relationship, I would repeat them to a word. I want to continue to have that relationship. It's based on many years of working together, and let's do our best to try to restore it as quickly as we can. Two things I want to mention. One is 9-11, and of course this 24th anniversary brings to mind that fateful morning where I was in the Capitol building and we were meeting with Senator Daschle, and we looked out the window down the mall and saw black smoke billowing from the Pentagon and realized something terrible had happened beyond what we'd seen on television in New York. It was just minutes until someone knocked on the door and said, vacate the building. We think we're under attack. And of course there was another plane that we knew was in the sky over Pennsylvania that we thought might threaten the Capitol building or the White House, we weren't sure. But we literally believed our lives were at risk at that moment. Everybody vacated the Capitol building, stood out on the lawn and didn't know which way to turn. Tourists came up to me because I had a tie on and said, do you work here? Where are we supposed to go? There was no place to go. Thankfully today, 24 years later, there's a much different attitude towards security and safety on Capitol Hill. But even more important, as far as I'm concerned, was what happened that night when members of the Senate and House, Democrats and Republicans, spontaneously gathered together on the steps of the Capitol and sang God Bless America. It was a moment I'll never forget because it really reflected an effort to bring this nation together at a time when there was no other way to really solve this problem. I think we were at our best and I want to salute President George W. Bush, Republican, who stated, I think importantly, within a day or two of the attack, that this was not a war against people and the Muslim faith. It was a faith of peace, as he said, and the people who would corrupt it, as they did on 9-11, should not be allowed to define that religion. That was an important, historic statement. I wish we had that same kind of leadership in both political parties if we ever face another terrible tragedy like that day. Let me say a word about this whole question of U.S. attorneys. I do disagree, Mr. Chairman, with your phrase, unprecedented obstruction. That's what you've characterized the current situation on the calendar. Unprecedented, of course, speaks for itself, that it's never happened before. Let me call to mind that in April 2021, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, then a member of this committee, announced that he would block U.S. attorney nominees on the floor from any state represented by a Democrat on this committee. He held these nominees for eight months. Senator Cotton finally lifted his hold in December of 2021, only to block U.S. attorneys on the floor again for months beginning in February of 2022. But the one that most of us remember was much more current, and that was when then-Senator Vance, now vice president, announced that he was going to grind the Department of Justice to a halt by requiring long roll calls on every U.S. attorney nominee of Joseph Biden. At that point, we had approved 68 of the 93 U.S. attorney positions in the Biden administration, and that was the end of it. Over an 18-month period of time, Senator Vance held to that position that he would not allow a U.S. attorney to be considered by voice vote or a unanimous vote on the floor. Keep in mind that when President Trump went through his first term in office, every one of his U.S. attorney positions was filled by a voice vote, every one of them, under Biden, 68 out of 93, and then the Vance approach, which stopped his cold. So to say that holding U.S. attorneys on the calendar is unprecedented, it was done twice by members that we know personally, and that's what we're dealing with now. I don't blame you for that at all. You and I have talked about that, and I think I can safely relay our conversation. We knew that this was going to create a terrible situation sometime in the future, and it has. The good news is, I hope, the conversation I had this morning with one of my colleagues, there is a conversation underway to try to find a bipartisan way out of this mess. That is the best outcome we can hope for, if we can come together in both political parties and agree on moving forward. To have this imposed by a nuclear option, I don't believe is the best way to go, and I've been through that several times. It always comes back to haunt the party that moved it, and that would happen in this situation, I'm afraid, too. So I haven't given up. I hope we can find some bipartisan approach to this, and I hope that we can return to the comedy which used to characterize this committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I'd entertain other speakers while we're waiting for people to get here so we can process these nominees. Senator Brett. So, Mr. Chairman, I have a question. So you're saying the agreement that you two came to, to actually allow these to go by voice vote on the floor, that Senator Durbin still stands by that, but Senator Schumer is the one that won't allow that to happen? I can't speak for Senator Durbin, but there... Can we get clarification on that? Well, let me finish. Yes, sir. I just say he and I set out, from my point of view, what was reasonable at least for six of our people that voted out of committee, and we went to the Senate floor with that in mind. Now I'll have to let you speak to the rest of her question. We were talking about agreeing to voice vote in the committee, and... No, sir, on the floor. On the floor, Senator Grassley... She's referring to our discussion. Our discussion on several of them was that I would approve those. I am not going to object to them. I can't stop any other colleagues from raising that question or that issue on the floor, but in terms of Senator Grassley, on at least three of these nominees, I agree that I would not object. So then the objection is coming from Senator Schumer? I think it's... Let me answer that question. Yeah, it came from Senator Schumer. Well, it did, but let me also say that we were at a point where the nuclear option had been announced, and... Well, we've been... No, actually, I mean, we've been doing this for eight now, nine months, so... Yeah, I think my impression, having been around here for a few months, is that it takes a looming deadline for people to finally get the spring into action. Let's hope that happens this morning. Okay. We can't move forward until we get more members here, and particularly on our side. Do we know about our membership? Our membership is on the way. Mr. Chairman, it might be convenient to the committee if I were to speak for a few minutes with respect to a nominee, Joshua Dunlap, who we will be considering today. He's a nominee to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Rhode Island. We've had a good record, particularly working with Senator Graham when he was in your chair, sir, of working effectively on First Circuit nominees. In this case, this is a nominee who is only supported by one of Maine's two senators. Senator King has not supported this nominee, and that puts us back in the position we've been in for some time, which relates to the Republican side of this committee's decision to blow up the blue slip for circuit court nominees. When that happened, I over and over again, as I think you'll recall, Senator Grassley, expressed my warning that this was going to be bad for the committee and bad for the Senate, and that when the shoe was on the other foot and we applied the same new rule that Republicans had created, there would be anger and frustration on the Republican side. Indeed, we have seen that anger and frustration on the Republican side when the rule that Republicans created, that the blue slip would no longer matter for circuit court appointees, was then applied against those who broke the rule in the first place. That is one aspect of why I'll be opposing Mr. Dunlap. The other reason to oppose Mr. Dunlap is that this individual is virulently anti-choice to the point of having supported a wrongful death cause of action for a death of an unborn child, presenting the prospect of actually criminalizing abortion procedures. I won't go on at length, but he has a considerable record that puts him as an ideologically anti-choice individual, which is fine under the First Amendment, but it raises questions about whether he'll be fair as a judge. His views are so virulent that they likely extend towards pushing the Dobbs analysis that undid Roe v. Wade towards opposition to gay marriage. He is as hostile to gay marriage as he is to women's reproductive choice. Indeed, as a law student, an adult, he chose to intern for a group that had filed a brief in support of criminalizing criminalizing homosexuality. So because of the extremism of his views against women's rights and his views regarding gay marriage and because of the opposition of Senator King and the once again Republican choice to overrule a blue slip, I will be opposing his nomination. We'll now turn to the nomination of Joshua Dunlap to serve as First Circuit. Clerk will call the roll. Aye. No. No by proxy. Aye. The nomination will be favorably reported. Now we go to... Mr. Chairman. Senator from California. Thank you. If I may, just a brief remarks before the vote on Mr. Tung. I want to strongly register my opposition to Mr. Tung's nomination to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and seeing that he's from California, my home state, I'd urge my colleagues to give this consideration and join me in opposition. Mr. Tung is not here because of his experience. He's here simply because of his extreme ideologies. Mr. Tung believes in an extreme conception of the Constitution that rejects equality and liberty. He wants to turn back the clock to exclude much of the American public from equal justice. A little over a month ago at the confirmation hearing, I gave Mr. Tung an opportunity to clear the record by recanting his past history of both sexist and anti-labor comments. Instead of doing so, he chose to dodge and deflect, offering no real explanation or evolved thinking that could absolve his behavior and record. Equally troubling, as his past remarks, is his lack of experience. As I pointed out during his confirmation hearing, Mr. Tung has never served as a sole or lead counsel in a case that's been tried to verdict or to judgment from the bench. Yet the Trump administration now hopes to catapult Mr. Tung to an appellate court position, not even a district court position first. I would be happy to work with the administration to find someone suitable for such a critically important position. In fact, both Senator Schiff and I have worked to do just that. We have informed the White House that Mr. Tung would be an unacceptable nominee. And we did put forward other candidates, Republican candidates, including some who had been previously nominated by President Trump for district court judgeships. We took this matter and our responsibility seriously. And we worked hard to put forward nominees who were qualified that we hoped the White House would consider. But instead, the White House chose not to respect that genuine outreach and effort and consultation with us on this particular vacancy. And so, we've seen it time and again. Unfortunately, President Trump's picks have staffed the Department of Justice, the FBI, the U.S. Attorney's offices, and now, the federal bench. And I simply cannot support this nomination and urge you to oppose it as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to briefly join my colleague, Senator Padilla, and express my opposition to the nomination for much the same reasons as my colleague expressed. I would add that in our discussion during the confirmation hearing of his views of the Dobbs decision and the potential impacts on a whole range of other due process issues that are likely to face the courts, I found his views well outside the mainstream and to be very extreme. And it's not something that I could support. And for that reason, among others, I would urge a no vote on this nomination. Neither Senator Padilla nor I are willing to return blue slips on this nominee. And I join my colleagues who have expressed concerns about the practice in the committee now of going forward with nominees when both home state senators object to the nomination of a court appeals judge. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Senator Durbin. I want to go on the record joining my California colleagues. I asked Mr. Tong a few questions. He calls himself an originalist. What is that? At a Federalist Society event earlier this year, he made it clear what he means by originalism. Saying that includes whether there's a constitutional right to abortion, same-sex marriage and other things. The answer for the originalist is simply no. He's made it clear where he is. And I think what I've heard from my California colleagues reinforced that position. Mr. Tong is suggesting turning back the clock to a time when the government could criminally prosecute consenting adults for what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. Is that the position of members of this committee? It's not mine and I won't be supporting it. On the question of reporting the nomination, the clerk will call the roll. Aye. The nomination will be favorably reported. Now we go to the nomination of William Mercer for the District of Montana, go ahead. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this nomination. He has demonstrated he is unable to be a neutral arbiter on the federal bench. While serving as a member of the Montana House of Representatives, Mr. Mercer opposed a bill designed to end Montana's three-year statute of limitations for civil lawsuits by sexual abuse victims. He said that eliminating the statute of limitations was a very bad idea. Victims disagree. Calling changes to the bill, he proposed a, quote, total sellout in favor of child molesters and insurance companies. While serving as U.S. Attorney for the District of Montana, Mr. Mercer was scolded by a federal judge for, quote, pursuing statistics rather than justice. On this nomination, the clerk will call the roll. Aye. No. by proxy. No by proxy. No. No by proxy. No by proxy. No. No by proxy. Aye. The nomination will be favorably reported. Now the nomination of Stephen Meredith, Eastern District of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman? Yes. I'll be opposing this nomination. Mr. Meredith has insulted women everywhere when he argued in court that doctors should be required to provide certain information to female patients because these women, quote, don't understand, close quote, their own medical needs. I'll vote no. Clerk will call the roll. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. to have a a reported. Now we go to Arch Capita, U.S. Attorney, Southern District of West Virginia. The clerk will call the roll. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to speak on him for just a moment. And I do want to remind my colleagues on the other side of the dais that they tossed away the advice and consent responsibility, and not once, not twice, but three times. The Biden administration overrode Senator Hagerty and I, and you all sat there and never said a word. Senator Tillis had the same situation. On Mr. Donovan's nomination, he is an experienced prosecutor. He knows the job. He has previously served in this position, and he was confirmed unanimously by the Senate in 2017. Under his leadership, violent crime decreased in Memphis 13 percent. And during his tenure, he increased the number of federal firearms cases filed in the district by 58 percent. He led the Project Safe Neighborhoods Task Force in Memphis. And we all know the FBI and DOJ have worked with us to address the crime issues in Memphis. I urge a yes vote on his nomination. Clerk will call the roll. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. No. Aye. No. No by proxy. No by proxy. No by proxy. Aye. The nomination will be favorably reported. Now, Matthew Harvey, Northern District, West Virginia. The clerk will call the roll. Aye. Aye by proxy. Aye. The nomination will be favorably reported. Now we go to John Eakin for the Northern District of Florida. Clerk will call the roll. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. No. District of Iowa. Clerk will call the roll. Aye. Aye. No. No. No. Aye. Aye. Aye. No. Aye. No. Proxy. No, by Proxi. Aye. The nomination will be favorably reported. Now, Adam Sleeper, U.S. Attorney in the District of the Virgin Islands. Clerk will call the roll. Mr. Graham. Aye. Mr. Cornett. Aye. Mr. Mead. Aye. Mr. Coop. Aye. Mr. Hawley. Aye. Mr. Phillips. Aye. Mr. Kennedy. Aye. Mr. Blackburn. Aye. Mr. Smith. Aye. Mr. Graves. Aye. Mr. Coop. Aye. Mr. Durbin. Aye. Mr. Whitehouse. No. Mr. Whitehouse. Aye. Mr. Coop. Aye. Mr. Grimndahl. No. Mr. Grimmdahl. Aye by proxy. No by proxy. Mr. Medea. No by proxy. Mr. Wells. No, aye by proxy. Mr. Grimdahl. Aye. Mr. Levy. No by proxy. The nomination will be favorably reported. Now David Topper, U.S. Attorney in Northern District of Ohio, clerk will call the roll. by proxy? No by proxy? Aye by proxy? Aye. This nomination will be favorably reported. Now I understand we can have the on block roll call vote on these nominees. Kurt Almey, Montana, Nicholas Chase, District North Dakota, Bart Davis, District Idaho, David Metcalf, Eastern District Pennsylvania, Leslie Murphy, U.S. Attorney District Nebraska, Ronald Parsons, District South Dakota, Kurt Wall, Middle District Louisiana, on a favorably reporting these seven nominations on block. The clerk will call the roll. Aye by proxy? Aye. These nominations will be favorably reported. Did Senator Coons call for speaking? Okay. Did you hear that? Okay. Now we turn to the nomination of David Waterman to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa. I want to speak to this one that this person was also nominated for the same position by Senator Biden, but it went back to the White House at the end of the last Congress. So it has ought to have bipartisan support. Clerk will call the roll. Aye. Aye by proxy? No by proxy? Aye by proxy? Aye. Senator Padilla changes his vote. Aye. Thank you, Senator Padilla. Waterman is favorably reported. Now we go to David Rosen. Clerk will call the roll. Aye. Aye by proxy? No by proxy? Aye by proxy? Aye. The nomination will be favorably reported. Now we go to Eric Siebert, Eastern District, Virginia. Clerk will call the roll. Aye. Aye by proxy? No by proxy? Aye by proxy? Aye. The nomination will be favorably reported. Chairman Grassley? Yes. I'd like to state for the record, Senator Welch has asked that he show on the record that he would have voted no on David Metcalfe, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, if it had been an individual roll call vote. Without objection, so ordered. Now I ask, I think Senator Blackburn and Senator Brett asked to speak. Before you speak, I want to thank everybody for their cooperation on moving this many nominations by roll call vote. Senator Blackburn? Okay. Senator Brett? Okay. Meeting adjourned.