S.Hrg.119-177

1[Senate Hearing 119-177]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                                                        S. Hrg. 119-17756                       CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL7                                APPOINTMENTS89=======================================================================1011                                HEARING1213                               before the1415                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY16                          UNITED STATES SENATE1718                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS1920                             FIRST SESSION2122                               __________2324                              MAY 21, 20252526                               __________2728                          Serial No. J-119-192930                               __________3132         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary3334                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3536                        www.judiciary.senate.gov37                            www.govinfo.gov38                               ______3940                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE414261-819                    WASHINGTON : 20264344                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY4546                  CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Chairman4748LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois,49JOHN CORNYN, Texas                       Ranking Member50MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah                 SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island51TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota52JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri                CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware53THOM TILLIS, North Carolina          RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut54JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana              MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii55MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey56ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri               ALEX PADILLA, California57KATIE BOYD BRITT, Alabama            PETER WELCH, Vermont58ASHLEY MOODY, Florida                ADAM B. SCHIFF, California5960             Kolan Davis, Chief Counsel and Staff Director61         Joe Zogby, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director6263                            C O N T E N T S6465                              ----------6667                           OPENING STATEMENTS6869                                                                   Page7071Grassley, Hon. Charles E.........................................     172    Prepared statement...........................................    4873Durbin, Hon. Richard J...........................................     274Tillis, Hon. Thom................................................     575Moody, Hon. Ashley...............................................     67677                          VISITING INTRODUCERS7879Moreno, Hon. Bernie, U.S. Senator from Ohio......................     48081                                NOMINEES8283Edlow, Joseph....................................................     784    Questionnaire................................................    5585    Responses to written questions...............................    7486    Additional materials.........................................   1268788Gaiser, T. Elliot................................................     989    Questionnaire................................................   12990    Responses to written questions...............................   18491    Additional materials.........................................   2169293Squires, John....................................................    1094    Questionnaire................................................   23295    Responses to written questions...............................   25496    Additional materials.........................................   2819798Woodward, Stanley Jr.,...........................................    1299    Questionnaire................................................   286100    Responses to written questions...............................   312101    Additional materials.........................................   345102103                                APPENDIX104105Items submitted for the record...................................   347106107                       CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL108                                APPOINTMENTS109110                              ----------111112                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2025113114                              United States Senate,115                                Committee on the Judiciary,116                                                    Washington, DC.117    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:16 a.m., in118Room 226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E.119Grassley, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.120    Present: Senators Grassley [presiding], Lee, Cruz, Hawley,121Tillis, Kennedy, Schmitt, Britt, Moody, Durbin, Whitehouse,122Coons, Hirono, Booker, Welch, and Schiff.123    Also present: Senator Moreno.124125        OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY,126             A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA127128    Chairman Grassley. The meeting will come to order. Good129morning to everybody.130    We are considering the nomination of Stanley Woodward,131serving as Associate Attorney General; Elliot Gaiser, serving132as Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel; Joseph133Edlow to serve as Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration134Services; John Squires, Director of U.S. Patent and Trademark135Office.136    I would like to thank the families who are here and the137friends of the nominees. I am sure you are all very proud of138these nominees.139    Over the last several years, we've seen an unprecedented140flood of illegal immigrants into the countries. Millions have141poured in. Some were drawn by the promise of a better life.142Some fled various forms of economic and other hardships. Some143were hardened criminals and gang members. But all decided to144break our laws to come here.145    Rather than stop this, the previous Administration threw146open the doors, in doing so, openly flouted our immigration147laws. The humanitarian parole statute was brazenly violated.148Mandatory removal language and statutes became optional. Public149charge requirements were ignored. Sanctuary cities were praised150as heroic rather than criminal. And most tragically, actual151victims of violence by illegal immigrants were downplayed,152ignored, and forgotten. The courts contributed to this crisis153as well and often stood passively by, our immigration laws154being ignored.155    Now that Trump is in office, he is trying to enforce our156immigration laws, carry out his campaign promise to the157American people to reverse the flood of illegal immigrants.158Suddenly, the courts have decided to step in.159    Democrats encourage this lawless behavior. The Democratic160nominee for Vice President called ICE Trump's modern-day161Gestapo, practically inviting violence against them. According162to the Department of Homeland Security, ICE officers are now163facing a 413 percent increase in assaults. I suppose concerns164about threats of political violence only goes one way. I agree165with my Democratic colleagues that the rule of law is a166cornerstone of our republic, but some of our Nation's most167important laws are those that protect our borders.168    Several nominees before us today will have an important169role in faithfully executing these laws and the will of the170American people expressed in our most recent national171elections.172    Turning to nominees, I would like to start by introducing173Mr. Woodward to the Committee. Mr. Woodward received his174bachelor's and master's degree with honors from American175University and his law degree with honors at Catholic176University Columbus School of Law. After clerking for three177different judges in the District of Columbia, he joined Akin178Gump, where he practiced for 10 years. There, he handled a179variety of complex litigation matters and Government180investigations and was awarded his pro bono service. His181practice during this time involved many of the issues he182oversees.183    Go ahead.184185         OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,186           A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS187188    Senator Durbin. Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,189and congratulations to the nominees and their families.190    Given the challenges which this Administration is facing in191court, record-breaking numbers of challenges, we can certainly192understand why he wants a team on his side in the193Administration. Earlier this year, I asked Justice Department194nominees a simple question. May a public official defy a court195order? Shockingly, the nominees, including the future Solicitor196General, John Sauer, refused to give an unequivocal response.197Now, days ago, Mr. Sauer faced the same question, and he198repeated this legal dodge before the Supreme Court of the199United States.200    During arguments in a case challenging the President's201illegal birthright citizenship Executive order, Justice202Barrett, known as a Trump nominee, asked Mr. Sauer if the203Administration would follow circuit court rulings. Mr. Sauer204responded that the Governor's policy is to ``generally''--205generally--``respect circuit precedent, but not necessarily in206every case.''207    As our colleague Senator Kennedy said earlier this year,208``Don't ever, ever take the position that you are not going to209follow the order of a Federal court, ever.210    Mr. Gaiser has been nominated to lead the Office of Legal211Counsel, which provides legal advice to the President and all212executive branch agencies. I want to hear what he believes that213the policy of the Federal Government should be and whether he214can ignore court rulings that don't suit any President's whim.215    From day one, the Administration has had one goal, bringing216our immigration system to a breaking point. I will confess some217prejudice in this matter. I am the son of an immigrant who came218to the Chairmanship of this Committee. I am proud of it. If you219visit my office, you are going to find my mom's naturalization220certificate behind my desk, making it clear to all visitors221where I stand on the issue of immigration. I like to believe222that my family, and virtually all of the immigrant families,223have made this a stronger Nation.224    Beyond unlawfully attempting to end birthright citizenship,225which is enshrined in the Constitution, the Administration has226made it harder for legal immigrants to apply for citizenship227and naturalize. This Administration has made it harder for228Dreamers who want to do the right thing. Now, these were kids229brought to the United States by their parents. They didn't make230a conscious decision to get in the car and drive across the231border. Their parents did. They have grown up here in the232United States, shown up in the classrooms, and pledged233allegiance to the same flag we pledge allegiance to every day.234It wasn't until they were teenagers that they knew the reality235that they face. They want to do the right thing. They want to236apply for programs like DACA so that they can receive work237permits and continue to contribute to the American economy.238    I am disappointed to hear that Mr. Edlow, who came by my239office, nominated to lead USCIS, opposes DACA, when even240President Trump claims that he doesn't want to deport Dreamers.241Despite his personal opinions, I want to hear how Mr. Edlow242will ensure that USCIS will promptly process DACA applications243of eligible Dreamers.244    The Administration has also ended temporary protective245status for people who fled Afghanistan and Venezuela, falsely246claiming these countries are safe to return to. These actions247are cruel.248    In the name of carrying out Trump's mass deportation249agenda, Attorney General Bondi has made the Department of250Justice a shell of its former self. Thousands of Federal law251enforcement agents have been diverted from drug trafficking and252violent crime to deporting immigrants who pose no threat to our253safety.254    Mr. Woodward, nominated to be the number three official of255the Justice Department, will oversee Justice Department256grantmaking, the Civil Rights Division, and many other257components now under attack.258    The Justice Department, at the direction of DOGE, took259their chainsaw to hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal260grants to support public safety and our police. Programs261supporting violence reduction, victim services, child262protection, and substance use and mental health have been263gutted. Ask law enforcement in your favorite community how you264stop crime. They have an important job to do, and we know that.265When we dial 911, we want to make sure that the right person is266answering the call. But they will also tell you we cannot267arrest our way out of violent crime. We need to do more. I268believe that.269    For nearly 70 years, under Republican and Democratic270Administrations alike, the Civil Rights Division protected the271civil and constitutional rights of all Americans. Once known as272the crown jewel of the Justice Department, it has now been273reduced to litigating a narrow set of cases aligned with the274MAGA agenda. This is anathema to how this division has operated275historically.276    I want to hear from Mr. Woodward whether the Justice277Department will continue to capitulate, or will it help restore278the Justice Department's intended function, protecting the279safety and rights of all Americans.280    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.281    Chairman Grassley. Now, in this order, we will hear from282Senator Moreno, Tillis, and Moody to introduce the nominees.283Senator Moreno.284285               STATEMENT OF HON. BERNIE MORENO,286             A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO287288    Senator Moreno. Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Durbin289and Members of this Judiciary Committee, it is my absolute290honor to introduce to you T. Elliot Gaiser as President Trump's291nominee for the U.S. Assistant Attorney General for the Office292of Legal Counsel. Mr. Gaiser currently serves as Ohio's293Solicitor General, and of course, we all know Ohio is the294greatest State in the country. He has zealously advocated for295Ohio and its citizens. As the State's Solicitor General, he296represents Ohio and its agencies on the appeals in the United297States Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth298Circuit, the Ohio Supreme Court, and other State and Federal299courts. He has served the State remarkably, and I am so proud300that President Trump took well-deserved notice of Mr. Gaiser's301brilliant legal talents.302    Immediately prior to his appointment as Solicitor General,303Mr. Gaiser worked in the issues and appeals practice at a304global law firm. In private practice, he focused on appeals and305provided strategic counsel to clients in a range of industries306regarding litigation and regulatory matters. He has litigated307complex disputes all over the country.308    And in Ohio, Mr. Gaiser clerked for Associate Justice of309the Supreme Court Samuel A. Alito, for Judge Neomi Rao of the310U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and Judge Edith H.311Jones on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.312    Mr. Gaiser started his legal education at the national313championship Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law, and314earned his J.D. from the University of Chicago--see, Ranking315Member, we will give you some credit as well--College of Law in3162016. He received his undergraduate degree from Hillsdale317College, where he graduated magna cum laude. He is 35 years318old. This is all something he has accomplished in such a short319period of time.320    And on a personal note, to the Ranking Member's comments, I321appreciate that very much. And if you come to my office, you322will see my H-1B visa. You will see my naturalization323certificate. I was extraordinarily proud. One of the moments I324remember more than anything else in my life was the ability to325raise my right hand and pledge allegiance to the United States326of America and be welcomed to this country.327    I would ask you and all the members of this Committee to328understand that that moment is so important. And we have to329honor the people who followed the law to come here legally, who330patiently waited to become a U.S. citizen and be welcomed here331and to stop rewarding people who break our laws, skip in line332of those in front of us.333    And I can tell you that I have no doubt that Mr. Gaiser334will continue to make not only Ohio proud, but this Nation335proud, as he serves President Trump and Attorney General Bondi336as the United States Assistant Attorney General for the Office337of Legal Counsel. Thank you.338    Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator Moreno. And you may339go if you want to.340    Senator Tillis.341342            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOM TILLIS,343        A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA344345    Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chair.346    I am pleased to introduce John Squires, the President's347nominee for the Undersecretary of Commerce and Secretary of the348U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.349    When I first met John, I told him that the USPTO needed a350fierce advocate for strong IP rights. And after a review of his351record, I am convinced that he is the right person for the job.352    John and I trace back similar roots. He was at IBM before353becoming a lawyer. I was at IBM before I made the fateful354decision to go into politics. There are several things and355experience, though, that I think you will see in the356confirmation hearing today that make him very well suited to357lead the USPTO.358    John is a 9/11 survivor, and that has greatly shaped his359perspective on patent eligibility. And I am sure that we will360get into that during the hearing. Like me, he believes that361startups and emerging companies are critically important to our362innovation ecosystem. And I believe that he can bring expertise363to the office that will make sure that that segment of our364innovation economy is well represented.365    For example, small businesses, firms having less than 10366employees receive about 60 percent or more of the patents per367capita than corporations. And startups and small businesses368create almost half of all the U.S. jobs and growing. That is369why we absolutely have to get this right, so that the pyramid370of our innovation ecosystem stays strong.371    John is also a consensus builder. He has gotten great372reviews from prior directors of both political parties. That is373important for the work that we are doing here. I have said374multiple times in the IP Subcommittee, I love the Subcommittee375because it is an island of calm in a sea of chaos at the main376Committee. We work on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, and I377think John is going to be a great asset in that role.378    America innovation needs a champion dedicated to ensuring379that this country maintains strong, reliable, and predictable380patent rights. We, the United States of America, must remain381the innovation leader in the world. And I believe that John382Squires will bring the leadership to the USPTO to make sure383that we accomplish that end. I strongly support his nomination,384and I look forward to asking him a number of questions.385    And by the way, to the little baby, I will tell you all386what I have said to others. As a grandfather and a father of387two kids, nothing is more beautiful than the sound of someone388else's baby crying.389    [Laughter.]390    Senator Tillis. I fully support Mr. Squires' nomination.391    Chairman Grassley. Senator Tillis, thank you.392    Now, Senator Moody.393394            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ASHLEY MOODY,395            A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA396397    Senator Moody. Thank you. As one of two Senators who are398moms of kids in school, I think it is also a good distraction399tactic for mothers because all I wanted to do was run over400there. So my Democrat colleagues, be on notice if you ever want401to distract us, pack the room with babies.402    Good morning. It is my honor to be here today to introduce403President Trump's nominee to be the next Director of the United404States Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS, Joseph405Edlow. Mr. Edlow's nomination comes in an extremely critical406time in our Nation's history. As Florida's attorney general, I407sat aghast as one of the first actions of Biden and his408Administration was to tell our local and State officers to409stop, that there will be no more detainers, and that they were410to just release everyone here committing crimes back into our411communities. They then, at one point, started taking people412that were finishing Federal prison sentences, and instead of413deporting them back home, as had always been traditionally414done, pushing them back into our communities.415    And as the borders were open and mass quotas were installed416in terms of pushing people into our interior that were barely417vetted, and as new programs were developed to fly people418straight here, barely vetted, it became abundantly clear, as we419saw the aftermath and consequences of that, that a strong420vetting system, indeed a strong USCIS, and someone at the helm,421what is critically important to this Nation's security, and422indeed our families' securities.423    We have experienced over the last 4 years watching424millions, some say upwards to 20, but at least 11 million425people flood this country. We don't know who they are. We don't426know, in many cases, their criminal backgrounds, although we427are figuring that out now, and now we see why it is so428important that it wasn't that we just needed to seize429operational control of the border, and I am so grateful for430President Trump for doing that. It is now so important that our431legal immigration system function as it was meant to, and that432is screen and vet and guarantee that the safeguards and laws we433have put in place to make sure those that are coming here are434coming because they want to add and contribute to this country,435and they do so legally. It is so important we have someone at436the helm to make sure that happens.437    The Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services438is responsible for leading the charge to screen and vet those439coming to our country legally, and I know Joseph Edlow is the440right man for the job. In fact, he has already done the job. He441graduated law school and began his legal career as an associate442attorney. Mr. Edlow joined U.S. Immigration and Customs443Enforcement, or ICE, and in 2008, as Assistant Chief Counsel in444Baltimore Office of Chief Counsel, he litigated removal matters445and handled every type of immigration case within the446jurisdiction of that court.447    In 2015, Mr. Edlow then worked in the House of448Representatives, first as counsel, focusing on immigration, and449then for the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on450Immigration and Border Security. As counsel, he worked on451legislative and policy matters related to immigration452enforcement and criminal immigration law.453    In 2018, he joined the Department of Justice as a deputy454assistant attorney general, where he was responsible for DOJ's455regulatory agenda for all immigration matters, and in 2019, he456became Chief Counsel for USCIS, later serving as Deputy457Director for Policy, and then as Acting Director. I cannot458think of anyone more qualified to take on this job, and in459fact, putting people in these roles who did not have that type460of experience or expertise would be dangerous for the country461at this moment in time.462    And given his extensive experience, I have no doubt that he463will do an excellent job as the next Director of USCIS, and464after my conversation and my meeting with him, I am even more465convinced that he will hit the ground running on day one and do466what we have to do right now, working with President Trump to467clean up the mess of the last Administration, and indeed,468deliver an immigration system that is meant to work as the469people intended.470    He has my full support. I hope my colleagues will feel the471same, and it is my honor to introduce Mr. Joseph Edlow.472    Chairman Grassley. Yes. Thank you, Senator Moody.473    Will the nominees please come to the table and don't sit474down because I want to offer oath.475    [Witnesses are sworn in.]476    Chairman Grassley. I saw everybody say yes. Please be477seated.478    We will start with Mr. Edlow, but for all of you, it is our479tradition that if you want to introduce family and friends480before you give your opening statement, that is okay. Now, you481may proceed, Mr. Edlow.482483STATEMENT OF JOSEPH EDLOW, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS DIRECTOR OF U.S.484 CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND485                            SECURITY486487    Mr. Edlow. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much.488    Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, and distinguished489Members of this Committee, thank you for the opportunity to490present testimony today regarding my pending nomination to491serve as the next Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration492Services. It is an honor to appear before this esteemed493Committee, and given the very productive conversations that I494had with many of you prior to today, I am looking forward to495discussing my vision for USCIS and the legal immigration system496of this great Nation, should I be confirmed.497    I want to first thank President Donald J. Trump for this498great honor and for the trust that he has placed in me through499the nomination. I would also like to thank Secretary Kristi500Noem for her outstanding leadership of the Department of501Homeland Security and her commitment to immigration502enforcement, border security, and the rule of law. It would be503a privilege to serve as the next Director of USCIS in such a504vibrant and stalwart Administration.505    I also want to take this time to acknowledge my family, as506well as professional and personal colleagues and friends,507several of whom are in this room, who have provided endless508support during the confirmation process, as well as throughout509my personal and professional development. First and foremost,510thank you to my wife, who has stood steadfastly beside me, and511still laments that she can cite the Immigration and Nationality512Act verbatim after years of endless conversations; my two513children, who are the lights of my life and my primary514motivation for my calling back to public service; and my515parents, who have provided me with the foundation that has516ultimately led me to this moment.517    I would be remiss if I didn't mention my two legislative518mentors, Raul Labrador and Bob Goodlatte, as well as my519colleagues at the House Judiciary Committee, Immigration520Subcommittee, who serve as my immigration compass and a never-521ending source of friendship and professional camaraderie.522    The United States sits at a critical crossroads on the523issue of immigration policy. As I have written and testified524repeatedly over the past 4 years, the Biden-Harris525Administration waged a war against the immigration system, with526the results speaking for themselves. The immediate impacts of527unchecked illegal migration and border incursions since 2021528had tremendous impacts on the ability of USCIS to carry out its529core functions. The misplaced priorities and reassignments of530resources to support unlawful border activity has left the531agency with backlogs that are unprecedented and beyond anything532that was ever previously contemplated.533    While the situation is dire, the immediate and decisive534actions taken by President Trump, Secretary Noem, and others535within the executive branch have stemmed the tide, and we are536now enjoying some of the lowest daily, weekly, and monthly537border numbers in American history. With CBP's success at the538border and the tremendous work being done by ICE in interior539enforcement, the time for decisive action within our legal540immigration system is now.541    If confirmed, my vision for USCIS is simple. I will restore542integrity within the legal immigration system. While the whole543Department of Homeland Security is working hard to make America544safe again, USCIS must play as critical a role in that mission545as any other immigration enforcement agency. At its core, USCIS546must be an immigration enforcement agency, an agency that is547dedicated to ever-evolving and innovative techniques for548screening and vetting its applicant pool; an agency that must549be vigorous in its efforts to detect, deter, and disrupt550immigration fraud, threats to our national security, and to the551safety of the American public; and to ensure that only those552aliens deserving of the honor to become citizens of this great553Nation are able to exercise the sacred right to vote. These554core missions will make America safe, while also aiding us in555more rapidly and more confidently adjudicating cases, will lead556to a significant reduction of the agency's backlog, and will557put American interests first.558    For the last 4 years, USCIS was referred to as a welcoming559agency. While we should absolutely be a welcoming agency for560eligible aliens into this country, make no mistake, my oath561will always be to the Constitution, as I will act to faithfully562enforce the laws as Congress has prescribed them, and will563always put the interests of the American people before all564else. Under my leadership, we will not only safeguard our565Nation's immigration system, but also serve our integral role566as an agency committed to protecting the homeland and567safeguarding our Nation. I look forward to working with the568very dedicated workforce at USCIS to accomplish these goals.569    I thank this esteemed Committee again for its attention to570this confirmation process, and I welcome your questions. Thank571you, Mr. Chairman.572    Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Edlow.573    Now, Mr. Gaiser.574575                STATEMENT OF T. ELLIOT GAISER,576      NOMINEE TO SERVE AS U.S. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL577578    Mr. Gaiser. Thank you very much, Chairman Grassley, Ranking579Member Durbin, Members of the Committee. Thank you also for the580kind introduction, Senator Moreno.581    Before I go any further, I would like to recognize a few582people who are here with me and those who couldn't be here.583First and foremost, my beautiful wife, Alexandra, who is the584most intelligent woman in any room; my 3-year-old son, Elijah,585and 11-month-old daughter, Allegra. I think you have all met586her. My father-in-law and mother-in-law, Alan and Stephanie587Harrison, who are celebrating their 37th wedding anniversary588today. Thank you so much for being here.589    And my mom and dad, Linda and Brian Gaiser, I wouldn't be590here without you. You raised me and my siblings, Jeff and Ari,591who are also watching from home, to love this great country and592thank God for our freedoms. Who could have imagined raising us593in that little brick house on West 138th Street in Cleveland,594that someday your son would have the honor to testify before595this esteemed Committee.596    I would not be the lawyer I am today without the incredible597jurists I have the honor of serving as a law clerk, Judge Edith598Jones, Judge Neomi Rao, and Justice Samuel Alito. Your kindness599and concern for the ordinary American is matched only by your600brilliance and strength of character, and I hope to live up to601your examples.602    Thank you also to Attorney General Dave Yost of Ohio, who603has entrusted me the role of his Solicitor General to represent604Ohio before the Supreme Court and beyond, and to assist with605his statutorily authorized power to issue formal advisory606opinions on Ohio law.607    And though I believe they are now in a better place, I wish608to remember Ted Olson, who did his best to impart some of his609kindness and wisdom to me when I was a young lawyer, and610Ambassador Boyden Gray, whose mentorship to me when I was just611one of four lawyers at the law firm he founded will leave, I612hope, a generational legacy.613    Most important, I am grateful to President Trump for614nominating me. It would be the honor of a lifetime to execute615the duties of assistant attorney general for the Office of616Legal Counsel.617    The functions of OLC date to the Judiciary Act of 1789, and618it has served to uphold the rule of law and the separation of619powers into the modern era by issuing opinions and answering620legal questions according to the best reading of the law. In621that sense, OLC reinforces a critical piece of American622exceptionalism. One past head of OLC, Justice Antonin Scalia,623often remarked that many despotic nations had eloquent bills of624rights, but those parchment lists were worth less than the625paper they were printed on.626    Why? Those nations did not enjoy the structure of the627American Government, the separation of powers and federalism,628without which flowery lists of individual rights meant so629little. Thomas Hobbes described the Government as a leviathan.630That is a Hebrew etymological word which means ``that which631gathers itself up in folds,'' and indeed for most of human632history, government matched that description.633    But in 1776, with a reliance on the protection of God's634providence, our forebearers revolted against the encroaching635folds of empire. The Constitution they established runs with636the warp and woof of human nature, where ambition counteracts637ambition, where the atom of sovereignty is split between the638States and the Federal Government, and where representative639democracy ensures public service is always a public trust.640    The separation of powers in federalism ensures American641Government is more than smothering folds, but rather responsive642to the whole people, including the forgotten men and women who643desire only safety in their communities, security on our644borders, growing not tightening family budgets, and laws not645weaponized against political enemies, but even-handedly applied646to all.647    I am proud to have fought in court to defend these648principles, first as a litigator in private practice, and now649as the Solicitor General of my home State. And should I be650confirmed, I will devote every day to providing my best advice651and counsel on the best reading of the law at the Department of652Justice. Thank you very much.653    Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Gaiser.654    Now, Mr. Squires.655656   STATEMENT OF JOHN SQUIRES, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS U.S. UNDER657SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF658              THE U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE659660    Mr. Squires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.661    Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, and662Members of the Committee. I would like to thank the Chairman663for the opportunity to introduce my family before my opening664statement. I would like to introduce my lovely wife, my665beautiful wife, Mary Lou, of 33 years, my lovely daughter,666Elizabeth, my handsome son, Will, both of whom are proud alums667of Camp Invention, and my friends and colleagues who have668supported me over the years, including Professor John Duffy,669who is with us today.670    It is my honor to be here today, and I am, of course,671grateful to President Trump, to whom I was introduced to by an672inventor, and Commerce Secretary Lutnick, the department's very673own ``New Age Edison,'' with over 400 patents. I appreciate674their trust and confidence in nominating me for the675Undersecretary of Commerce and Director of the United States676Patent and Trademark Office.677    My intellectual property awakening began, as Senator Tillis678mentioned, not with my chemistry degree, but rather with IBM679and marketing. Back then, it was IBM versus Japan, Inc., and680IBM won because of patents. With my new patent and law license681in 1993, the robust frontier of IP opened up.682    As to patents, I started out in the traditional realms of683chem and bio pharma, materials and manufacturing. Then it was684on to the internet, building fintech and regtech disruptors.685Most recently, it has been the leading edge of AI, crypto, and686quantum computing.687    With the onrush of technology, it is always on to the new688and the next. As to trademarks, from scholarship on free speech689to NFTs to standing athwart the name, image, and likeness690earthquake, it has been equally remarkable.691    Since 2000, in bringing my practice to Wall Street, I have692sought to better our system. And as a survivor of 9/11, in me693you will find no fiercer defender of national security, tougher694enforcer of good faith and fair dealing, or eager proponent of695free market solutions.696    In the wake of 9/11, Secretary Lutnick, as you know,697courageously rebuilt his company with patents. For me, patents698became the tip of our private sector's spear in America's soft699power war against terrorist financing, with our partners in the700CIA, FBI, and Treasury. We humbly received an FBI Director's701Award almost a decade later.702    Armed with our inventions to combat terrorism, we barged703into the patent eligibility debate and were ultimately704successful as Supreme Court amici. I have humbly chaired705industry subcommittees, taught at UPenn, testified to the FTC,706and co-authored a Federal trial judge bench book on complex707patent damages.708    But most notably, it is truly a special honor for me to be709here today for a second time, proudly now as a nominee, having710testified almost 20 years earlier to then-Chairman Leahy.711    Finally, for the last 8 years, I have helped startups use712their IP to attract investment, commercialize their products,713and create jobs. I couldn't be more excited to join the714Commerce Department, as I believe the breadth of my experience715will help lead our remarkable unitary systems efficiently into716the future.717    To succeed, though, we will need to have a commercially718compelling answer to the question, why come here? To answer719that, we must ask what we want from innovation. We want it to720be better, cheaper, faster, more sustainable, to get us to721market more quickly with quality and confidence.722    At present, unfortunately, our system is going in the other723direction. But with born-strong patents and robust quality724marks, we can reclaim America's primacy, revitalize industry725and growth, proudly export our culture, boost national726security, and improve our lives. We well know the issues,727namely pendency, patent quality, and uncertainty.728    And while the solutions are at hand, there is a danger too.729AI tools are being amassed that could easily overwhelm the730system. However, if harnessed, these tools can deliver our731finest hour. By leaning into AI, the burgeoning asymmetry can732disappear. We can equip our world-class examining corps to733grant patents tested by those same fires, expeditiously issued,734and of provable quality. And we will use these very same tools735to learn from, reduce, and remedy mistakes that manifest later.736    I believe I am uniquely prepared for this role. It is said737that every patent begins its life as a trade secret. We want738inventors from every conceivable walk to bring their inventive739raw materials to our American patent factory where we will help740them hone and hew new, strong proprietary rights that are the741building blocks of dreams, where they are rewarded and society742advances just as the Constitution intended.743    As you can tell, I am very bullish on the chapter ahead and744for a very bipartisan reason. Patents aren't red. Patents745aren't blue. Upon Government grant, they are red, white, and746blue. They are the best of us, extol our wares, and foretell a747future of American ingenuity unleashed for all the world to748see. Brilliant computer scientist Alan Kay once said, ``if you749want to change the future, invent it.''750    We need to get to work. Today, I humbly ask for every751member's consideration and support for my nomination. Thank752you, and I look forward to answering your questions.753    Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Squires.754    Mr. Woodward, I want to apologize to you. When I got done755introducing you, I wasn't done. I only said half of it, so I756realize now I will put the other half in the record so you get757fully introduced to the Committee. Please forgive me.758    [The prepared statement of Chairman Grassley appears as a759submission for the record.]760761 STATEMENT OF STANLEY WOODWARD, JR., NOMINEE TO SERVE AS U.S.762                   ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL763764    Mr. Woodward. Mr. Chairman, no apology necessary. Thank you765for that very kind introduction.766    Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, I appreciate this767opportunity to address the Committee. Thank you to the768Committee Members and staff who took the time to meet with me769and to discuss the thoughts and concerns about the challenges770facing our Nation. If confirmed, I look forward to working771together with you, the leadership of the Department of Justice,772and the leadership of the Trump Administration, to address773these challenges.774    To quote another, I stand before you on the shoulders of775giants. I would not be here but for so many who have taken the776time to serve as mentors throughout my personal and777professional development. To my family, mere thanks is wholly778insufficient. You have endured a great deal on this journey and779never asked for any of it.780    Senators, sometimes actions speak louder than words, and781today I am privileged to be joined by nearly every senior782attorney at the Department of Justice to be appointed by the783attorney general. It has been an honor to work by your side in784the trenches these last few weeks.785    Senators, I have long believed that, as attorneys, we have786a duty of service to our community. To so many, the law is787beyond understanding, and so with the ability to learn the law788comes the responsibility to use that gift for a greater good.789Nowhere is this belief more poignant than at the Department of790Justice. If confirmed, I pledge to seek justice for all.791    I submit that my professional journey serves as evidence of792my commitment to this pledge. Beginning in law school, I felt793this calling. Classmates and I traveled to Biloxi, Mississippi,794to volunteer in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. This trip795profoundly changed my view of the role of the law. Door to796door, we went meeting with families living in trailers,797advising them of the Federal assistance available to help them798rebuild. My colleagues would visit 10 or 12 homes a day. I799often managed only to visit one or two. As I sat on makeshift800porches, sipping iced tea, looking at pictures of what was801lost, I came to realize that, if given the opportunity, I would802do good with my ability to learn the law for these people did803not understand, did not know, that they could apply for Federal804assistance. They did not know.805    It was in part this desire to serve my community that806motivated me to found and lead the housing law practice at the807firm where I practiced. There, I led teams of attorneys in808defending tenants with housing code violations facing eviction.809That experience was equally enlightening because they did not810know that they could not be evicted where there were housing811code evictions. This simple concept was foreign to them because812the law was foreign to them.813    I say in part because I also pursued that work to find814opportunities to appear in court. Senators, I went to law815school to be in court. And so when I founded my own law firm at816the height of the pandemic, it was natural for me to seek out817additional opportunities to appear in court. I applied and was818appointed to the Federal Criminal Justice Act panel here in the819District of Columbia where I would be appointed by the court to820represent criminal defendants.821    At that time, the Department of Justice was in the midst of822its largest ever investigation, prosecuting thousands for their823involvement in the events of January 6. I was surprised to see824that so many were unwilling to represent these defendants. I825was reminded of John Adams' famous observation in his defense826of British soldiers. ``Facts are stubborn things.''827    I would also be remiss were I not to observe that while the828media may have been focused on the weaponization evidenced in829the case I am perhaps now best known for, the defense of Walt830Nauta in the so-called Florida documents prosecution, the831tactics that were employed there were present in many of the832cases I had with lesser national import. Across my practice, I833saw firsthand how the power of government can be abused.834Senators, there is no place for weaponization in our835Government.836    Although I know the journey may be fraught, I am inspired837by those who have led us to this point. To President Trump,838thank you for your nomination to this post. Your trust in me839will not be taken for granted. As I sat at counsel's table with840you, the former President, a defendant in a courtroom, I841watched as you persevered when many would have faltered.842    Our journey here today calls to mind President Teddy843Roosevelt's now famous colloquy. ``It is not the critic who844counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles845or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The846credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose847face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives848valiantly, who errs, who comes short again and again because849there is no effort without error and shortcoming, but who does850actually strive to do the deeds, who knows the great851enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a852worthy cause, and who at best knows in the end the triumph of853high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least854fails while daring greatly.''855    Senators, if confirmed, I pledge to dare greatly. I look856forward to your questions.857    Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Woodward.858    We have 5-minute rounds. I will start with Mr. Edlow.859    H-1B abuse has been a priority and significant concern of860this Committee. Senator Durbin and I have bipartisan bills that861would crack down on H-1B abuse that we are working on to862reintroduce very soon. Recently, many Americans took to social863media to express their outrage over H-1B abuse. They even864shared personal stories about being laid off by Big Tech, even865as their employers continued to hire H-1B workers. So how would866you fight fraud and abuse in the H-1B program when you become867director?868    Mr. Edlow. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question.869    In terms of fraud and abuse in the H-1B program, it is870absolutely pervasive, and it is something that in the first871Administration we attempted to handle via regulation.872Unfortunately, that regulation was vacated. If confirmed, I873look forward to moving forward with additional regulations and874sub-regulatory actions.875    But also, I do have to commend you and Ranking Member876Durbin for introducing legislation to bring attention to this877critical issue, and I want to be a partner, if confirmed, with878both of you to fight this however we can.879    And it is more than just the H-1B system. Frankly, we need880to be focused on the fraud, waste, and abuse that we have found881in every nonimmigrant and immigrant program that needs to be882addressed at this point.883    Chairman Grassley. We have to take care of that fraud in884order to get some increase in numbers that people desire.885    Mr. Squires, I am troubled about the growing industry886whereby financial institutions engage in third-party litigation887funding, including IP litigation funding. While you were in888private practice, you helped create Fortress Investment Group889IP funding arm. I understand that Fortress Investment Group890commits billions of dollars each year to fund IP litigation.891Please explain the role you played in the creation of Fortress892and your professional and financial involvement with that group893since its creation. And have you supported or represented other894IP litigation funders?895    Mr. Squires. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.896    In reverse order, I have not represented Fortress since897about 2016, 2017 or so and have never represented litigation898funders in any capacity. I have no arrangements with them899financial or otherwise since my legal representation of them.900    This is certainly a question in litigation financing. It is901a bit of a misnomer insofar as issues of which there has been902much ado about with my work. My work for Fortress at the time903was before they were acquired. It was a group that came to me904around 2012 regarding legal papers and theories I had developed905about patents as derivatives and patents as assets per se to be906valued on their own fundamentals in economics. In fact, I have907been rather tough on trolls in some of my writings. Because908troll practices are exploitive of inventors, they generally are909not based upon the fundamentals and are arbitrage play, whereas910our patent theories with them as assets per se allow companies911to monetize their patents.912    So they came to me with an issue, wanting to solve a913problem of how a company could monetize its patents without914selling them, without suing, and without licensing them. We915developed effectively a patent mortgage where the company could916borrow against its patents as collateral and use the proceeds917to fund working capital. Those were several companies who were918their clients initially that staved off bankruptcy as a result919of this.920    And I was pleased to see in 2021 one of the deans of the921patent bar, Marshall Phelps, wrote an article where companies922used this construct to survive COVID.923    Chairman Grassley. Mr. Gaiser, I have got 35 seconds left.924District court judges have been issuing an unprecedented number925of universal injunctions to try to block President Trump's926immigration policies. I think you spoke to the separation of927powers, but let me ask you anyway, in our constitutional928system, who has the primary authority for protecting the929borders and setting immigration policy? And what is the proper930role of district courts in resolving immigration disputes?931    Mr. Gaiser. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.932    Congress makes the laws, and the President executes those933laws to secure our border. District courts have authority under934Article III to adjudicate cases and controversies.935    Chairman Grassley. Okay. Senator Durbin.936    Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.937    I believe, and many of us do, that we are on the cusp of a938constitutional crisis, an historic moment. The Justice939Department is currently defending the Trump Administration in a940number of lawsuits challenging executive actions taken by the941President and officials of his Administration.942    Federal judges, both Republicans and Democrat appointees,943have enjoined some of these actions, holding that they are944illegal or unconstitutional. Alarmingly, President Trump and945his allies, even some nominees before this Committee, have946responded by questioning whether the executive branch must947follow court orders. If confirmed, you will hold key positions948in the executive branch, and you will take an oath to uphold949and defend the Constitution.950    So my question I ask of each of you is this. If, after951exhausting all rights of appeal, do you believe a litigant,952including officials in the executive branch, can lawfully defy953a court order? Mr. Woodward.954    Mr. Woodward. Thank you. Thank you for the question. I do955take issue with the premise of the question insofar as district956court judges are not holding that President Trump's orders are957illegal or unconstitutional. The only ask of district court958judges at that time is whether there is a likelihood of success959on the merits.960    Senator Durbin. If you would stick to my hypothetical, it961is an approach that is very clear. I don't want to argue a962different issue. I would like to argue this issue.963    Mr. Woodward. To your question, Senator, the President has964made clear that he will follow any order of the Supreme Court.965    Senator Durbin. Do you believe that officials in the966executive branch can lawfully defy a court order, yes or no?967    Mr. Woodward. Senator, the President has been very clear968that he will follow any order of the Supreme Court.969    Senator Durbin. No response. Mr. Squires?970    Mr. Squires. Thank you, Senator. In my world, which is971generally governed by Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, the972Patent Office is an ex parte body. And generally, there are973appeals from executive actions taken by the Director, and there974is a lone court of appeals, unlike the circuit system for the975Federal circuit, and then up to the Supreme Court. So patent976issues tend to be adjudicated for issues that are in dispute up977to the Supreme Court, and obviously, the Supreme Court978precedent governs, and that would be followed.979    Senator Durbin. So you believe a litigant, including980officials in the executive branch, must follow a court order,981cannot lawfully defy a court order?982    Mr. Squires. Thank you, Senator. I believe that the Supreme983Court orders will be followed by the executive branch, yes.984    Senator Durbin. Mr. Gaiser?985    Mr. Gaiser. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Durbin. The986President has been very clear he will follow all court orders987of the Supreme Court.988    Senator Durbin. Do you believe that any executive official989can lawfully defy a court order?990    Mr. Gaiser. No.991    Senator Durbin. Mr. Edlow?992    Mr. Edlow. Thank you, Senator. If confirmed, I will always993follow advice of counsel when addressing these matters and how994to handle such cases as you have raised them.995    Senator Durbin. So can an executive official lawfully defy996a court order?997    Mr. Edlow. I would defer to counsel as that I am not here998in an attorney's role right now. I am here as a Director or as999the nominee for Director.1000    Senator Durbin. I don't believe you need a law degree to1001answer this question. Can an executive official lawfully defy a1002court order?1003    Mr. Edlow. Again, given the speculative nature of the1004question, my answer remains the same. I will always follow the1005advice of counsel.1006    Senator Durbin. No response. This is what troubles me1007greatly. If we cannot agree on this as the basic premise of our1008rule of law, where in the world are we headed as a Nation? It1009should be a clear answer, lawfully defy a court order, no.1010Senator Kennedy said as much when he came back to this1011Committee after a hearing in which I asked a question, and the1012present Solicitor General equivocated on the answer. There1013should be no equivocation by Democrat or Republican, in or out1014of power, and yet you hear what I run into, the evasion that I1015face.1016    Mr. Squires, have you ever engaged in dishonest and1017dangerous activity at a law firm?1018    Mr. Squires. No, Senator.1019    Senator Durbin. Do you know what has happened to your1020former firm, Perkins Coie?1021    Mr. Squires. Yes, Senator, I have seen the Executive order.1022    Senator Durbin. Did you read the President's, or at least1023the Administration's, position on your former law firm? The1024Executive order claimed that the firm's ``dishonest and1025dangerous activity has affected this country for decades.'' The1026order further alleged that the firm is ``undermining democratic1027elections, the integrity of our courts, and honest law1028enforcement.'' Did you see any evidence of that activity when1029you were a member of this firm?1030    Mr. Squires. Thank you for the question, Senator. My role1031at Perkins Coie was to establish the first New York Patent1032Office presence. I dealt only with patent issues and1033intellectual property issues, and I had really no line of sight1034into any of the practice areas.1035    Senator Durbin. So you saw no evidence? I want to complete1036the question. Did you see any evidence of this wrongdoing that1037the President alleges in his Executive order?1038    Mr. Squires. Sir, in my areas of responsibility, I saw no1039wrongdoing with respects to intellectual property.1040    Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1041    Chairman Grassley. Senator Tillis.1042    Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1043    Mr. Squires, thank you for being here. Actually, I wanted1044to go back. I think you answered the question from Senator1045Durbin exactly right within the lane that you would be1046operating for the USPTO. Would you just describe that again1047about how most cases move through the courts and up to the1048Supreme Court?1049    Mr. Squires. Thank you for the question, Senator, and thank1050you also for the opportunity to meet and the kind introduction.1051    Yes, the patent system is a little bit unique insofar as1052other agencies. It is an ex parte. It is not adversarial. So1053there are appeals that move--taken from an executive branch1054decision that move up through the court system in a very1055prescribed fashion, and that is the Federal Circuit Court of1056Appeals and up to the Supreme Court.1057    Senator Tillis. Yes, my point is I felt like your answer1058was characterized as a non-answer. It was a concise answer in1059the context of the role that you are being considered for.1060    Patent eligibility, PERA or PREVAIL, what do you think1061about them?1062    Mr. Squires. Thank you for the question. I am very1063gratified to see work being done in this area. Some of the1064issues across those bills are costing American competitiveness,1065particularly on the area of patent eligibility.1066    I would note, especially from the IP Subcommittee hearing1067last Wednesday, the Chinese national patent system has a more1068expansive subject matter area than the United States does, and1069that is troubling to me. It should be troubling to all1070Americans.1071    Senator Tillis. Should it be troubling to all Americans1072that you can file for a patent in China anonymously?1073    Mr. Squires. I viewed that session, sir, and I was shocked1074by that, and also equally shocked by the--written into the1075laws, the requirement that the disclosure be made to the1076Chinese embassies. This is before a----1077    Senator Tillis. What risk do we have if we don't move1078forward with some of these bills that are improved certainty1079that the intellectual property just flows elsewhere and we lose1080the advantage that we have today and that gap is closing with1081China?1082    Mr. Squires. Thank you. I think that is a big risk. As I1083mentioned in my opening remarks, we want people to come to the1084American patent factory first and have a compelling reason to1085come here, so we are in danger of losing competitiveness,1086especially in subject matter areas that other countries have no1087problem with. I believe there are tools in our system to avoid1088these issues, and I believe the bills also take care of those1089issues, so thank you for those efforts.1090    Senator Tillis. Well, thank you.1091    Mr. Woodward, just a real quick question for you. I intend1092to support your confirmation, but I did have a question. I know1093you defended some of the January 6 defendants. After your1094defense, did you actively advocate, go on stage, have1095interviews? Beyond your role as a defense attorney, in the1096space that they were being prosecuted, have you had any public1097statements or any presence that would go beyond just doing the1098defense work but being an advocate for them after the fact?1099    Mr. Woodward. Senator, thank you for the question. No, sir.1100I make my arguments in court.1101    Senator Tillis. Thank you. That is the right answer.1102    Mr. Gaiser, I believe in this concept of political physics.1103For every partisan action, there is an equal and opposite1104reaction. Under previous Administrations, the OLC at times1105shifted from issuing authoritative determinations on legality1106of executive branch actions to instead essentially advocating1107for the legality of these actions. Neither the Administration1108nor the OLC were well served by this shift. In other words, can1109I count on you to returning to the intended purpose and mission1110of the OLC?1111    Mr. Gaiser. Thank you so much, Senator Tillis. Yes, sir,1112you can. The----1113    Senator Tillis. I expected that based on your concise1114answer to Senator Durbin's question.1115    Look, we have got to be the adults in the room and stop1116having this back-and-forth or we are no better than the people1117we are criticizing when they do the same thing.1118    Let me see. Mr. Woodward, I think I am good with that1119answer. I look forward to supporting you all's nomination.1120    Mr. Squires, I am especially looking forward to getting1121with you and having your commitment to come and work--not in1122hearings. I hate hearings. They have to be done--but1123participating in workgroups and letting us continue to do the1124good work of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee.1125    And I also want to publicly thank the Members of the1126Intellectual Property Subcommittee because we have great1127attendance there, which is one of the reasons why we get so1128much good work done.1129    I want you to be a partner that goes out of the formal1130setting and into the get-the-work-done setting. I got your1131commitment on that?1132    Mr. Squires. Thank you, Senator. Yes, you have my1133commitment to do my level best. And if I am done the honor of1134being confirmed, as I said in my opening statement, we need to1135get to work.1136    Senator Tillis. Thank you. I look forward to supporting all1137your confirmations.1138    Chairman Grassley. Senator Whitehouse.1139    Senator Whitehouse. Thanks very much, Chairman.1140    Let me followup on Senator Tillis' questions, Mr. Gaiser.1141On this Committee, I lived through the OLC torture opinions,1142which were so bad that the Administration that wrote them had1143to withdraw them; the warrantless wiretapping opinions, which1144were so bad that they created a mutiny within the Department of1145Justice; and with the walk-back of OLC from enforcing the so-1146called Reagan memo, which posits that the department and OLC in1147particular will be a somewhat neutral arbiter in conflicts1148between the Executive and the legislative branch over1149oversight. In all of those matters, the OLC became, as Senator1150Tillis said, the active partisan for the Administration and not1151a neutral decider.1152    If I look at your record, first, how long have you been a1153lawyer?1154    Mr. Gaiser. Thank you very much, Senator Whitehouse. I have1155been a lawyer for 10 years.1156    Senator Whitehouse. And how many of those were you a law1157clerk?1158    Mr. Gaiser. I was a law clerk for three different jurists,1159about a total of 28 months.1160    Senator Whitehouse. And how many of those years were spent1161in private practice?1162    Mr. Gaiser. I was in private practice, Senator, for about 41163years.1164    Senator Whitehouse. At the associate level?1165    Mr. Gaiser. I was an associate, yes, sir.1166    Senator Whitehouse. How long have you served as Ohio1167Solicitor General?1168    Mr. Gaiser. I have served since November 2023 and currently1169serve as Ohio Solicitor General.1170    Senator Whitehouse. Have you ever tried a case to a final1171judgment?1172    Mr. Gaiser. Thank you very much for that question, Senator.1173I have worked on trial litigation teams. I have not myself been1174personally the counsel of record in a trial case. I am1175primarily an appellate lawyer and an advisor and counselor.1176    Senator Whitehouse. Have you ever personally appeared in1177trial court?1178    Mr. Gaiser. Yes, Senator.1179    Senator Whitehouse. Now, some time ago, you had pretty1180strong views about President Trump. You said that ``His1181political positions are a lot like his hair, pasted on for1182effect and flopping whichever way the wind blows'' that ``He1183has an astonishing weakness for flattery, falling for Vladimir1184Putin after a few coquettish bats of the eyelashes from the1185Russian thug,'' and that ``He is a short-fingered, vulgarian1186candidate.'' Since then, have you had a role in Donald Trump's1187litigation that tried to overturn the results of the 20201188election?1189    Mr. Gaiser. Well, thank you for that question, Senator.1190Like millions of Americans, I have seen the courage and the1191results that President Trump has delivered. I watched in that1192field in Pennsylvania as he stood after the assassin's bullet.1193And I hope my children look up to and live up to that kind of1194courage in their life.1195    Senator Whitehouse. So, while in private practice, did you1196have a role in Donald Trump's litigation that tried to overturn1197the results of the 2020 election?1198    Mr. Gaiser. Well, thank you for that question, Senator. I1199was retained by Donald J. Trump for President Incorporated in1200the 2020 campaign to provide legal advice, which I did.1201    Senator Whitehouse. The former White House Press Secretary1202testified that you were one of her go-to people to advance the1203argument that Vice President Pence could overturn the 20201204election. Is that true?1205    Mr. Gaiser. Well, Senator, as you know, ethical obligations1206of confidentiality attach to any client matter. And as a former1207attorney for a former client, I am not going to divulge the1208confidential communications that I made to that client.1209    Senator Whitehouse. You know, just if I look at this, you1210don't seem to have the legal experience that most OLC chiefs1211have. You seem to have done a very abrupt pivot politically1212into the Trump camp and into election denialism. On what basis1213should I have any confidence that you will exert any1214independence or judgment within OLC if the Trump Administration1215comes knocking on your door for an opinion and won't go down1216the road of, we will give you your free torture opinion, we1217will give you your free warrantless wiretap opinion, and we1218won't bother to enforce the Reagan memo any longer? What will1219keep you from going down those bad roads that we have seen OLC1220go down?1221    Mr. Gaiser. Well, thank you, Senator Whitehouse. The first1222role of any lawyer is to be able to state the law as it is. And1223the Office of Legal Counsel serves an important role in our1224Administration by providing a neutral opinion objectively of1225what the law is.1226    Senator Whitehouse. You would do that?1227    Mr. Gaiser. Yes, Senator.1228    Senator Whitehouse. Okay, Mr. Woodward, last question. I1229will re-ask Ranking Member Durbin's question a slightly1230different way. Under what circumstances would you recommend1231that the Trump Administration defy a lower court order?1232    Mr. Woodward. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired. May1233I answer the question?1234    Chairman Grassley. Please, you should answer, yes.1235    Mr. Woodward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1236    Senator Whitehouse, I can't imagine a circumstance in which1237I would be called upon to advise the defiance of a court order.1238I have had the great privilege of working with President Trump1239now for many years, and I just don't ever imagine a1240circumstance in which I would be called upon to give advice of1241that nature.1242    Senator Whitehouse. Even for lower courts?1243    Mr. Woodward. Well, Senator, at the risk of giving a legal1244answer, it depends.1245    Senator Whitehouse. On what?1246    Mr. Woodward. On the nature and circumstances of the case1247before us.1248    Senator Whitehouse. So there are certain circumstances that1249would cause you to recommend to the Administration that it defy1250a lower court order?1251    Mr. Woodward. Well, Senator, for example, in some1252circumstances, in order for a court order to be challenged, an1253official must be held in contempt. And so, yes, it is possible1254that we could get there. However, I would be remiss were we to1255go down the path of talking about hypotheticals because, as I1256say, I can never imagine a situation in which I would be asked1257to give that advice.1258    Senator Whitehouse. Chairman, thank you for your generosity1259with my time. I appreciate it. Thank you all.1260    Chairman Grassley. Senator Kennedy.1261    Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1262    Gentlemen, I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, but1263I also don't want to debate how many lawyers can dance on the1264head of a pin. I think you understand where a lot of these1265questions are coming from.1266    Mr. Gaiser, would you ever advise a client to ignore a1267Federal district court opinion?1268    Mr. Gaiser. Thank you very much, Senator Kennedy. I would1269advise----1270    Senator Kennedy. You can thank me by answering it.1271    Mr. Gaiser [continuing]. I would advise a client on how1272best to comply with all lawful court orders.1273    Senator Kennedy. Is that a yes or a no?1274    Mr. Gaiser. Yes, sir.1275    Senator Kennedy. You would advise a client not to follow a1276Federal district court opinion?1277    Mr. Gaiser. I would advise a client to follow court orders.1278    Senator Kennedy. Would you ever advise a client not to1279follow a Federal court of appeals decision?1280    Mr. Gaiser. I had the privilege of clerking on two Federal1281courts of appeals.1282    Senator Kennedy. Is that a yes or a no?1283    Mr. Gaiser. Yes. I would advise them to follow the orders1284of courts of appeals.1285    Senator Kennedy. How about a Supreme Court opinion?1286    Mr. Gaiser. Yes, Senator, I would advise them to follow the1287Supreme Court's orders, as President Trump has been very clear1288that those orders are to be followed.1289    Senator Kennedy. Mr. Woodward, let me ask you the same1290question. Would you ever advise a client not to follow a1291district court opinion?1292    Mr. Woodward. No, Senator.1293    Senator Kennedy. Would you ever advise a client not to1294abide by an opinion of the Federal court of appeals?1295    Mr. Woodward. No, Senator. Again, it is difficult to answer1296in the hypothetical, but----1297    Senator Kennedy. Would you ever advise a client not to1298follow an opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court?1299    Mr. Woodward. No, Senator. As the President has been clear,1300he will follow all orders of the U.S. Supreme Court.1301    Senator Kennedy. Tell me what I would need to do under the1302APA, the Administrative Procedures Act, if I want to change a1303current rule.1304    Mr. Woodward. Well, Senator, as a Senator, you would pass a1305law that would change the----1306    Senator Kennedy. No, no, no, no. I don't want to play games1307here, Counsel. What would one have to do? What would the head1308of an agency have to do to overturn a current rule and1309regulation?1310    Mr. Woodward. Well, Senator, I apologize. I know that there1311are many ways to do that, and I don't want to play games1312either. I want to----1313    Senator Kennedy. No, okay.1314    Mr. Woodward [continuing]. Answer the question.1315    Senator Kennedy. That is fair.1316    Mr. Woodward. There are many ways in which an agency can1317overturn a rule.1318    Senator Kennedy. Well, you have to give notice, right?1319    Mr. Woodward. As a general matter, yes, Senator.1320    Senator Kennedy. And you have to invite input, right?1321    Mr. Woodward. As a general matter, yes, Senator.1322    Senator Kennedy. Okay. And sometimes you have to hold a1323hearing, right?1324    Mr. Woodward. Sometimes you do, Senator.1325    Senator Kennedy. Yes. Are there any exceptions to that1326under the Administrative Procedures Act?1327    Mr. Woodward. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, I am1328not aware of any exceptions, but there are exceptions under the1329law.1330    Senator Kennedy. Okay. Are you familiar with the good-cause1331exception to the Administrative Procedures Act?1332    Mr. Woodward. Senator, I am vaguely familiar with that1333exception.1334    Senator Kennedy. Okay. Do you know what it says?1335    Mr. Woodward. No, Senator, I do not.1336    Senator Kennedy. I understand. Here is what I am driving1337at. Are you familiar with the Supreme Court's case called Loper1338Bright?1339    Mr. Woodward. Senator, I am vaguely familiar with the1340Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright.1341    Senator Kennedy. The overturned Chevron doctrine, right?1342    Mr. Woodward. The Chevron deference doctrine, yes, Senator.1343    Senator Kennedy. Okay. If there is a rule promulgated by a1344prior Administration or even by a current Administration that1345is in clear violation of the U.S. Supreme Court's pronouncement1346under Loper Bright ruling unconstitutional the Chevron1347doctrine, would it be possible--strike that--would it be1348prudent for the Justice Department to exercise authority under1349the good-cause exception to the APA in the public interest and1350forgo the notice and comment?1351    Mr. Woodward. Senator, thank you. I think I now understand1352your question. I was alluding to the non-APA process. I mean,1353if a rule has been promulgated that is plainly1354unconstitutional, it absolutely would be appropriate for the1355Department of Justice to look at that rule and make a1356determination.1357    Senator Kennedy. My point is you don't have to ignore the1358APA to do that, do you?1359    Mr. Woodward. I would say it depends, but I take your1360point.1361    Senator Kennedy. I mean the APA provides an exception.1362    Mr. Woodward. Yes, Senator.1363    Senator Kennedy. It is Section 553. It is right there, as1364big as Dallas. Am I done?1365    Chairman Grassley. Yes.1366    Senator Kennedy. I thought that was maybe a mouse or1367something.1368    Chairman Grassley. Senator Coons.1369    Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member1370Durbin. Congratulations to your families and to you for your1371nominations. Thank you for your service.1372    Mr. Squires, I will turn to you first, and I have a series1373of fairly quick questions about patent policy. I am encouraged1374that you are willing to serve at this pivotal moment in global1375IP policy and appreciate your taking the time to meet with me.1376    Earlier this month, Senators Tillis, Durbin, Hirono, and I1377reintroduced the PREVAIL Act. It includes common-sense reforms1378to the Patent, Trial, and Appeal Board and will help make it1379more the fair and efficient forum I believe Congress intended1380in the America Invents Act. Do you think the PTAB needs to be1381reformed? If so, in what ways? And do you think PREVAIL could1382contribute to those reforms?1383    Mr. Squires. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for your1384question, and thank you also for the opportunity to meet in1385your office.1386    I do think there is a need of reform. I think we have1387almost 15 years of data since the America Invents Act to see1388the distribution, if you will, between post-grant review and1389IPRs, and the data seems to be skewed in favor of one versus1390the other, so reform may help flatten out that curve.1391    Senator Coons. There is a significant pendency problem,1392about 800,000 unexamined patent applications. Dealing with that1393will require streamlining and improving the workforce. The PTO1394reducing this backlog will require resources. One of the1395provisions of the PREVAIL Act would permanently end the1396practice of fee diversion. The PTO is entirely fee-funded by1397the substantial fees paid by those who seek patents. Would you1398oppose fee diversion at the PTO?1399    Mr. Squires. Thank you, Senator. We have a Commerce1400Secretary also who is very savvy with patents and has lived the1401patent life in the private sector. Fee diversion, I had1402testified years ago, almost 18 years ago, should end. The1403Patent Office should be able to keep its fees and run its1404system like a business. I think the fee diversion ending would1405be a positive thing for the Patent Office.1406    Senator Coons. In eBay, the Supreme Court dramatically cut1407back on the availability of injunctive relief after finding a1408patent infringement. My RESTORE Act with Senator Cotton would1409return patent law to what was literally centuries of tradition1410by restoring a rebuttable presumption that a patent owner can1411get an injunction. What is injunctive relief? What does it mean1412to small inventors, and why is it significant?1413    Mr. Squires. Thank you for the question, Senator.1414Injunctive relief is basically a cease-and-desist order for1415operations, sales, manufacturing, any commercialization of a1416product. It is important to individual inventors because they1417are coming to the office with their issued patents to get an1418exclusive right. A right to exclude is a property right, and1419property right enforcement usually involves kicking out the1420trespassers. So that is why the individual vetters look to that1421provision.1422    It also gives them the exclusive right, as conferred by the1423monopoly granted by the Government, to practice--not the right1424to do anything themselves but to exclude others. That is what1425the patent grant means.1426    Senator Coons. In the Section 101 area, the jurisprudence1427about what is patentable, I think, in fact, the Federal circuit1428thinks that the Supreme Court's jurisprudence has ended up1429getting into a box canyon that is hard to get out of. What has1430the impact been of critical decisions like Myriad and Alice on1431cutting-edge technologies like AI and blockchain?1432    Mr. Squires. It's created uncertainty throughout the entire1433process. When a patent is granted, even if they are overcome in1434the office those particular eligibility objections, they are1435litigated and not respected rights once they are in the1436marketplace, and they are often, you know, vehicles for1437litigation outside of the merits of infringement, whether the1438claims read on an accused product.1439    Senator Coons. And has this hurt our competitiveness1440globally in terms of where cutting-edge technology patents are1441being filed and advanced?1442    Mr. Squires. Thank you, Senator. I believe it has. As I1443mentioned in my response to Senator Tillis, we have seen other1444nations have success with more expansive subject matter. We1445shouldn't be so constrained.1446    Senator Coons. Thank you. Thank you for your answers across1447a range of patent issues.1448    Mr. Edlow, if I might, between 2020 and 2021, over 80,0001449employment-based green cards for legal employment here in the1450United States went to waste because the then-USCIS leadership1451didn't adjudicate them, resolve them on time, and that sparked1452bipartisan concern. Do you agree that wasting green cards that1453have been authorized by Congress is unfortunate, and these1454opportunities for legal employment shouldn't be missed? And as1455Director, will you prioritize reducing unnecessary paperwork1456and improving processes to improve legal employment here in1457this country?1458    Mr. Edlow. Senator, thank you so much for the question. You1459know, in the last 4 years, I have had the privilege of serving1460in the private sector, and I have seen the need to modernize1461forms in a way that I never really understood before. If1462confirmed, I plan on making major gains to modernize our1463systems, both for vetting and screening purposes, but also to1464allow attorneys to better send in forms, as opposed to still1465using paper forms, to be able to scan them and then that1466information be taken in through a PDF process, so absolutely.1467    Senator Coons. Thank you. Last question, if I might, Mr.1468Chairman. I have been gravely concerned about recent decisions1469to abruptly end TPS provisions for folks who came to this1470country under these legal programs from Haiti, from Venezuela,1471in particular from Afghanistan, and that are leading to1472hundreds of thousands of people losing their current legal work1473authorizations at the same time.1474    Businesses in my State and around the country are facing1475significant labor shortages, and families that are here1476legally, working legally, are facing return to countries that1477are not demonstrably any more stable than they were when they1478left. As Director, would you work to prioritize getting those1479who are eligible for other pathways to remain here and to work1480here legally the opportunity to do that, to limit the damage to1481their lives and to their communities?1482    Mr. Edlow. Well, Senator, let me start with commending the1483work of the Administration right now in terms of following the1484law with how TPS is supposed to be. The Secretary is required1485to make determinations at certain intervals, and if the1486conditions that led to the initial TPS decision are no longer1487met, then they need to be terminated. Regardless of that, when1488someone is here with TPS or another temporary pathway, those1489are temporary pathways, and if they have----1490    Senator Coons. I am familiar with the process, sir, and I1491am also familiar with the ongoing circumstances in both Haiti1492and in Afghanistan and disagree with the determination that we1493should force back to Afghanistan anyone who came here legally.1494    Mr. Edlow. Mr. Chairman, if I may.1495    Chairman Grassley. Senator Britt.1496    Senator Britt. Yes, why don't you go ahead, Mr. Edlow, and1497respond.1498    Mr. Edlow. Thank you, Senator.1499    Senator, all I would say to that is I understand that--I am1500not going to comment--I think it would be inappropriate for me1501to comment on any case that is pending right now with Federal1502litigation. That said, certainly, as temporary programs exist,1503there are permanent programs such as seeking asylum or other1504humanitarian protections, and I would suggest that someone who1505came in on a temporary program who feels that they cannot go1506back because of a reason that would lead them to need1507protection should apply for those protections.1508    Senator Coons. Thank you.1509    Mr. Edlow. Senator, thank you so much.1510    Senator Britt. Got it.1511    We will go ahead and continue with you. Thank you so much1512for taking time to meet with me. I am obviously very impressed1513by the different roles that you have served and the department1514in which you seek to run. Knowing that, knowing your previous1515work, what do you see as your vision? What are your big1516priorities, you know, if you are confirmed?1517    Mr. Edlow. No, thank you, Senator. I think the big priority1518has to be the reduction of the backlog.1519    Senator Britt. Okay.1520    Mr. Edlow. You know, that backlog has grown to1521insurmountable levels over the last 4 years. When I left as the1522Deputy Director of Policy in January 2021, there were about1523450,000 affirmative asylum cases pending around the country.1524That number has grown. There is over 1.5 million now.1525    Now, what does that mean? That means that all these extra1526people have been now--have gotten into the pipeline, and that1527is only for asylum. We also have green card backlogs and, as1528the Senator alluded to, other employment-based green cards that1529we need to look at, too.1530    However, the real problem that I see is I don't know who is1531in the backlog. For me, backlogs are more than just a1532bipartisan talking point about, you know, how we have got to1533get the agency in order. I think it is, of course, important to1534get someone's benefits to them as quickly as possible so that1535they have the certainty, and if they are able to begin a life1536in the United States and assimilate, that is fantastic. If not,1537they need to know that certainty and to move forward.1538    However, the real problem with the backlog is that we don't1539know who is in the backlog because of the lack of screening----1540    Senator Britt. How do you propose we find that out?1541    Mr. Edlow. Well, again, utilizing existing and emerging1542technologies, more reassignment of individuals, moving the1543Fraud Detection and National Security----1544    Senator Britt. Okay.1545    Mr. Edlow [continuing]. Division within USCIS out of the1546shadows to actually do its job because at the end of the day,1547the backlog presents----1548    Senator Britt. Absolutely.1549    Mr. Edlow [continuing]. A national security and public1550safety risk.1551    Senator Britt. Let's adjudicate and let's get these things1552moving.1553    On that, look, over the last 4 years, I believe I have seen1554what was just a terrible misuse of the Presidential parole1555authority. When I am looking at what the Biden Administration1556did, giving blanket parole, things like the CHNV program where1557it is intended to give on a case-by-case basis, and looking at1558the actual ramifications of that, you know, it gives me real1559concern.1560    My question to you is what do you plan on putting in place1561or how do you plan on, you know, I guess, addressing this, and1562how do you plan on approaching it if and when confirmed?1563    Mr. Edlow. Thank you, Senator. If confirmed, we will take1564what steps are necessary at USCIS to assist with the other1565departmental partners in terminating parole programs,1566terminating parole, reviewing on a case-by-case the people who1567got parole, to look for the fraud in the sponsor petitions that1568we know now exist. There is a lot that needs to be done, but,1569you know, I find it interesting. We have been talking about,1570you know, following the law. The law on parole is very, very1571clear----1572    Senator Britt. Clear.1573    Mr. Edlow [continuing]. In my opinion. And the parole1574program, the use of categorical parole programs is illegal, and1575we have got to get back to that. Parole is fine on a case-by-1576case basis. It has been in the law since the 1960's or the15771950's. But the legislative intent for it was always severe1578humanitarian needs or significant public interest. And that was1579a one-off, not necessarily supposed to be mass programs used to1580obfuscate the numbers at the border.1581    Senator Britt. And do you think this is something where1582Congress likely may need to act on this issue?1583    Mr. Edlow. Senator, there have been bills previously1584introduced that I think would certainly handle this on parole1585reform, and I would love to see another.1586    Senator Britt. Absolutely. Thank you. Just in my remaining1587minute, my question is for Mr. Woodward. As serving as1588associate attorney general, you will have direct oversight over1589the Civil Rights Division. This is something that I think is1590critically important. We want to make sure that everyone has1591the right to vote, and they also have the security and peace of1592mind of knowing that their vote counts.1593    When you are looking at that, one of the reasons I actually1594introduced the Citizen Ballot Protection Act last Congress--and1595I will reintroduce it this year, and I have a number of1596colleagues that have different pieces of legislation that1597address the same thing--is amending Federal law to explicitly1598allow States to put in place a proof-of-citizenship requirement1599both on Federal mail-in voter registration forms and State mail1600voter registration forms that might be developed. I think that1601is a commonsense way to ensure integrity of the vote, that1602American citizens are the ones voting in these elections.1603    And my question for you is, if confirmed, what plans do you1604have to ensure that DOJ and the Civil Rights Division will work1605to enhance the integrity and security of our elections and make1606sure that the voters, the American citizens, aren't diluted?1607    Mr. Woodward. Well, Senator, thank you for the question. I1608couldn't agree more. It is of critical importance to ensure1609that our Nation's civil rights laws are enforced.1610    If confirmed, I look forward to working with AAG Dhillon1611and ensuring that voting rights are as respected as every other1612right. And so I am confident that we will find a way to1613accomplish this, but also welcome additional legislation. Of1614course, the office does not itself promote policy. It enforces1615the law. And so if your legislation is passed, we would pursue1616that as aggressively as possible.1617    Senator Britt. Thank you very much. I look forward to1618working with you both.1619    Senator Tillis [presiding]. On behalf of the Chair, Senator1620Welch.1621    Senator Welch. Thank you very much. I am not making this1622up. I have been recognized.1623    Senator Tillis. On behalf of the Chair, I recognized you.1624    Senator Welch. All right.1625    Mr. Woodward. I apologize for----1626    Senator Welch. I was looking over----1627    Mr. Woodward. I apologize for distracting the Senator,1628gentlemen.1629    Senator Welch. Thank you. Mr. Edlow, a couple of questions.1630Number one, immigration is a mess here, and a lot of the1631responsibility is Congress' because there are areas where we1632should legislate. I agree with that. And that includes on1633parole. But one of the areas I am really concerned about is ag1634workers. We have had some of our dairy workers picked up. And I1635am fully in support of hopefully bipartisan legislation that1636allows for our farmers to get the labor they need in Vermont.1637If we don't have immigrant labor, our cows don't get milked. It1638is just that simple. Do you have a view on a position that1639would reform the immigration laws that would allow for ag1640workers in Tennessee and Kentucky and Vermont and Iowa?1641    Mr. Edlow. Yes, thank you, Senator. I'm, you know, well1642aware of this issue, having worked for a Congressman from1643Idaho.1644    Senator Welch. Right.1645    Mr. Edlow. I have spoken to many people within the dairy1646industry and understand what they face.1647    Senator Welch. So what do you think we should do?1648    Mr. Edlow. Well, I think we do need to talk. And if1649confirmed, I am happy to work with you and your staff on a1650bipartisan basis to figure out.1651    Senator Welch. I assume that. What should we do? We have to1652have an ag worker policy that allows for the ease for vetted1653folks who want to work on a farm to be able to do it. Do you1654agree?1655    Mr. Edlow. Respectfully, sir, I do agree in that we do need1656to look closely at both the H-2A and H-2B visas as they exist1657right now to see whether and how they need to be updated to1658address the needs of these industries.1659    Senator Welch. Okay, thank you.1660    Mr. Woodward, thank you for our visit yesterday in the1661office. I appreciated that.1662    The one thing that I wanted to talk to you a little bit1663about today is you had two clients in the Mar-a-Lago case. You1664had Mr. Nauta and you had Mr. Taveras, right?1665    Mr. Woodward. Senator, thank you for the question. I did1666represent Mr. Nauta, and for a time I did represent Mr.1667Taveras.1668    Senator Welch. Right. And this is where I just wanted to1669get an explanation of what happened. My understanding is Mr.1670Taveras testified in the grand jury. The judge informed him1671that there may be a conflict because of the situation he faced1672and your other client, Mr. Nauta. And at that point, he got a1673new lawyer. Is that right? I think a Federal defender.1674    Mr. Woodward. Senator, it is a little bit more complicated1675than that, and I also want to be mindful of not divulging1676confidences involving my former clients, but that generally1677tracks.1678    Senator Welch. Yes, so this is public record, and of course1679I am not going to ask you to divulge any confidences, so I am1680with you there. But what I understand happened is that Mr.--and1681this is the public record--that Mr. Taveras changed his1682testimony from what he had said in the grand jury, where1683basically he was saying he didn't recall anything, to testimony1684where he said the boss wanted those tapes to be ``lost.'' So1685how did it happen that you went from--and you were being paid1686by a Trump PAC, as I understand it, or by a Political Action1687Committee. Is that correct, for your representation on behalf1688of both of these individuals?1689    Mr. Woodward. Senator, I have received compensation by the1690State of America PAC, yes. That is public record.1691    Senator Welch. Yes, that is right. Thank you. So what1692happened that the testimony Mr. Taveras had given suddenly1693became different testimony after he got a new lawyer?1694    Mr. Woodward. Senator, with respect, the public record1695speaks for itself, and I would be remiss were I to engage in a1696discussion about advice that I provided any former client.1697    Senator Welch. All right. But I am correct that in the1698public record, Mr. Taveras gave testimony that he recanted once1699he got a new lawyer.1700    Mr. Woodward. Again, Senator, with the utmost respect, I1701think the public record says a great deal about this, and I1702will let it speak for itself.1703    Senator Welch. Okay. I have no more questions. I yield1704back, Mr. Chairman.1705    Senator Tillis. On behalf of the Chair, Senator Moody.1706    Senator Moody. Thank you, Mr. Chair.1707    I appreciate all of you being here. It is never an easy1708thing to sit and stand for questions among all of my esteemed1709colleagues. Thank you very much, and thank you to your1710families. I often find these are harder on our families than it1711is on the folks taking the incoming questions. So thank you1712very much.1713    Each of you comes with a unique background and, indeed,1714experience and expertise in the jobs that President Trump and1715our Nation is asking you to take on. I know you could probably1716make a lot more money in the private sector, and I am always1717inspired by people who are willing to take a timeout of their1718private practices or other endeavors that may bring them more1719pecuniary gain to serve this Nation, and I appreciate that.1720Thank you so much.1721    And we are at a time where we have an incoming1722Administration that is having to marshal resources to deal with1723a mess and a dangerous situation like we have never seen, maybe1724outside wars. We are having to--not only human resources, but1725the financing to deal with one of the largest influxes of folks1726surging into this Nation, some say 11 million, some say up to172720 million. If you take the more conservative number, that is1728more than the population in 42 of our States.1729    Most of those were barely vetted. Many of them, we don't1730know what their backgrounds are. Many have proven to be really1731dangerous criminals, leading to rapes, murders, robberies,1732aggravated assaults. I could go on and on and on. I saw it1733firsthand as Florida's attorney general and fought very hard to1734stop what was happening.1735    But it became very clear that there was an intentional1736destruction of any semblance of security at our border. We saw1737this because we saw known people on the terrorist watchlist and1738other criminals that we later found, and it was a cover-up. We1739had both Administration, our President, a Secretary in charge1740of DHS say our border was secure the whole time.1741    So now you come in at a time where you are going to have to1742use the law to help remedy what we are faced with. And I am1743grateful for a President that came in and has tried as fast as1744possible to remedy the situation that we as America find1745ourselves in, but you are going to have to deal with what is1746left by somebody who is supposed to be a commander-in-chief1747protecting this Nation.1748    This morning, I introduced an Expedited Removal of Criminal1749Aliens Act. This has been getting a lot of attention because1750you have an Administration trying to use what law is available1751to them, some as far back as the Alien Enemies Act, but you1752have to use--I think that was in the 1700's, and people are1753criticizing them for that, but we are in historic unprecedented1754time, so you have to use the tools that are available to you to1755protect this Nation and its people.1756    As the courts are trying to figure out what that looks1757like, many are frustrated because it appears so many of these1758district courts are trying to stymie this President and indeed1759what you will be charged with, of delivering a remedy, a1760recovery, and the protection of our people, but in the1761meantime, we need to start moving here in Congress to ensure an1762expedited process to get these dangerous people out of here.1763    I am going to start with you. The person that I had the1764privilege of introducing, Mr. Edlow, is an act like this1765needed, and can it be useful to this Administration?1766    Mr. Edlow. Senator, first of all, thank you so much for the1767kind introduction. I greatly appreciate it.1768    I am aware of your legislation. I look forward to, if1769confirmed, working with you and with our departmental partners1770to see it move forward. I think it is absolutely necessary.1771    Senator Moody. And as a result of all of the litigation1772around the Nation, it is often said by some of my colleagues on1773the other side of the aisle, and they point out, that this1774Administration has had more orders against them. As we are1775trying to show, this is probably because these nationwide1776injunctions and other decisions are certain courts trying to1777stymie this Administration and being ineffective in delivering1778on promises to the American people to secure this Nation again.1779One might say, this shouldn't be surprising because you have an1780Administration that is doing their job and using the law on the1781books in a way we haven't had to use them before because of the1782unprecedented, dangerous, reckless, irresponsible, some would1783say criminal actions of the last Administration. Would you1784agree, Mr. Woodward?1785    Mr. Woodward. Senator, thank you for taking the opportunity1786to meet with me. And as you and I discussed, I do agree. I am1787very passionate about that. There is a tremendous amount of1788litigation in the courts right now because President Trump is1789doing a tremendous amount. He is being challenged, but he is1790also asserting his Article II powers in a way that no President1791has ever done before.1792    Senator Moody. Or had to do.1793    Mr. Woodward. Or had to do. And so, if confirmed, I look1794forward to assisting the President in professionally litigating1795and defending his exercise of those Article II powers as often1796as is needed.1797    Senator Tillis. On behalf of the Chair, Senator Schiff.1798    Senator Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1799    I want to followup on Senator Kennedy's line of questioning1800and ask a similar line of yes or no questions just to put a1801finer point and make sure that your answers are as definitive1802as they sounded.1803    So let me start with you, Mr. Edlow. Yes or no, would you1804ever advise the Administration that it could ignore, disregard1805an applicable district court order because you believe the1806Supreme Court will ultimately overturn it?1807    Mr. Edlow. Senator, as I said before----1808    Senator Welch. Just a yes or no question like Senator----1809    Mr. Edlow [continuing]. I don't believe I will ever be in1810that position but----1811    Senator Schiff. You may not, but just like you answered1812Senator Kennedy, we want to make sure that you are not1813misleading anyone. So let me ask the question again. Would you1814ever advise the Administration that it could disregard an1815applicable district court opinion or order because you believe1816the Supreme Court will ultimately overturn it, yes or no?1817    Mr. Edlow. I don't want to speculate, but I can't see a1818situation where I would advise to not follow the court order.1819    Senator Schiff. So your answer is, no, you would never1820advise them to disregard a district court order even if you1821thought the Supreme Court would overturn it?1822    Mr. Edlow. Again, I don't want to speak in----1823    Senator Schiff. I just want you to be precise and answer1824yes or no.1825    Mr. Edlow. I can't see a time where I would do that, no.1826    Senator Schiff. Okay. Mr. Gaiser, yes or no?1827    Mr. Gaiser. Thank you very much, Senator Schiff. I would1828advise clients to follow court orders.1829    Senator Schiff. Even if you believe the Supreme Court would1830ultimately overturn the district court?1831    Mr. Gaiser. Well, Senator, as far as----1832    Senator Schiff. Yes or no?1833    Mr. Gaiser. The answer is the same. The President has said1834he would follow court orders.1835    Senator Schiff. Well, the same answer. Yes or no?1836    Mr. Gaiser. Senator, the President has said he would1837follow----1838    Senator Schiff. You were able to answer Senator Kennedy,1839but I want to make sure that you were not misleading Senator1840Kennedy. Yes or no, would you ever advise the Administration it1841could ignore a district court order because you believed the1842Supreme Court would ultimately rule otherwise? Yes or no? Would1843you ever advise them that?1844    Mr. Gaiser. Senator, applicable court orders should be1845followed.1846    Senator Schiff. That is not my question. Yes or no?1847    Mr. Gaiser. Senator, you asked me----1848    Senator Schiff. Yes or no, Mr. Gaiser? It is a simple1849question.1850    Mr. Gaiser. Senator----1851    Senator Schiff. Mr. Gaiser, you were able to answer Senator1852Kennedy. Are you raising a doubt now about your answers to1853Senator Kennedy because you can't answer this question?1854    Mr. Gaiser. Senator, I would advise clients to follow1855applicable court orders.1856    Senator Schiff. Is that a yes or no?1857    Mr. Gaiser. I would advise clients to follow applicable1858court orders.1859    Senator Schiff. Is that a yes or no? Let me repeat the1860question so there is no ambiguity about it. Would you ever1861advise the Administration--you are going to be--if you are1862confirmed heading the Office of Legal Counsel that helps1863determine whether actions are lawless or lawful, would you ever1864advise the Administration that it could ignore an applicable1865district court opinion or order because you believed the1866Supreme Court would ultimately overturn the order? Yes or no?1867    Mr. Gaiser. Senator, if I am confirmed to lead the Office1868of Legal Counsel, I would----1869    Senator Schiff. All right. You are not answering the1870question, so I guess the answer is to Senator Kennedy, you just1871might advise the Administration to ignore a district court1872order.1873    How about you, Counsel?1874    Mr. Squires. Thank you, Senator Schiff. In my role as1875Director, I am not----1876    Senator Schiff. I am just asking a yes or no.1877    Mr. Squires. Well, thank you. I wish to clarify I am not--1878if confirmed a Director, I am not acting in a legal capacity at1879all. I am part of the executive agency branch and therefore1880would not be advising clients on any aspects of that.1881    Senator Schiff. Well, would it be appropriate in your view1882for anyone else among legal counsel to do so?1883    Mr. Squires. In general, court orders should be followed1884and respected. There are situations which I recall back from1885law school between branches----1886    Senator Schiff. I guess you are not able to answer the1887question either.1888    Counsel, how about you?1889    Mr. Woodward. Senator Schiff, thank you. I mean, I agree. I1890don't believe it is appropriate to address this hypothetical.1891At the Department of Justice----1892    Senator Schiff. Okay. So you want to revise your answer to1893Senator Kennedy then? That is, there may be circumstances where1894you advise the Administration to disregard a district court of1895opinion because you believe the Supreme Court might rule1896otherwise? Is that your opinion?1897    Mr. Woodward. As a lawyer, the answer is it depends.1898    Senator Schiff. Okay.1899    Mr. Woodward. What I can----1900    Senator Schiff. Thank you. Then we will make sure Senator1901Kennedy is aware that you just might, it depends, advise the1902Administration to ignore court orders.1903    Let me ask another question. Mr. Gaiser, would you agree1904that it would be unlawful for the President to accept a gift1905from a foreign State without the consent of Congress? Would you1906agree that is unlawful?1907    Mr. Gaiser. Well, thank you for that question, Senator.1908    Senator Schiff. Yes or no?1909    Mr. Gaiser. Whether something is lawful or not, I would1910always want to look----1911    Senator Schiff. I am just asking you a simple question. Is1912it unlawful for the President to accept a gift from a foreign1913State without the consent of Congress? Very simple question.1914    Mr. Gaiser. Senator, as a lawyer, I would always give my--1915--1916    Senator Schiff. I am not asking you for a preamble, just1917yes or no.1918    Mr. Gaiser. Well, Senator Schiff, it depends on the fact--1919--1920    Senator Schiff. Well, Mr. Gaiser, where is the depends on1921the facts of Article I, Section 9, Clause 8, which says, ``No1922person holding any office shall, without consent of Congress,1923accept any present from any foreign State?'' That is the1924Constitution. It doesn't say, well, it depends, or it might, or1925maybe. It says no person shall do so. Do you find that1926ambiguous?1927    Mr. Gaiser. Senator----1928    Senator Schiff. I thought you were supposed to be the1929strict constructionist. This is what the Constitution says. Is1930there an exception for $400 million planes from Gulf Emirs?1931    Mr. Gaiser. Senator----1932    Senator Schiff. Is there an exception for that?1933    Senator Tillis. On behalf of the Chair, Senator Schmitt.1934    Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Mr. Chair.1935    I do wonder, though, whether or not we should set up a1936chair for a strawman for these hearings because these are all1937ridiculous strawman arguments. First of all, the President of1938the United States has said he would abide by court orders, and1939this Administration has abided by every single court order. So1940this contraption that Democrats continue to try to create, to1941create some faux constitutional crisis that doesn't exist or,1942as it was during the campaign, some threat to democracy to1943scare people, they ought to be ashamed of themselves because it1944hasn't happened. It hasn't happened.1945    And I want to give, Mr. Woodward, you an opportunity to1946respond when the Senator from California didn't give you the1947chance to respond with your answer before I go into my1948questions with a limited amount of time.1949    Mr. Woodward. Thank you, Senator. I will be brief. And I1950will reiterate that I don't believe I would ever be asked to1951advise my client to defy a court order. It is not happening.1952And so the answer, it depends, matters because there is1953litigation all across this country right now, and so we have to1954look at each and every case very carefully. We advise the1955client, and then the client acts. That is the role of the1956Department of Justice.1957    Senator Schmitt. Mr. Edlow, I do want to ask. I have been1958raising the alarm on this temporary protected status, or TPS,1959for quite some time now. And the Supreme Court has just weighed1960in and ruled essentially that Joe Biden had really been abusing1961his authority, especially at the end, just sort of waving a1962magic wand and really abusing this process. And so there are1963350,000 Venezuelans now that will not receive this temporary1964protected status because they shouldn't have got it in the1965first place. I want to ask, how will the USCIS stop automatic1966renewals and kick out folks whose countries do not qualify1967anymore?1968    Mr. Edlow. Well, thank you for the question, Senator. As I1969stated earlier, the decision on whether to continue any TPS1970program rests with the Secretary. And USCIS would act1971accordingly. So depending on the country, depending on when1972the----1973    Senator Schmitt. Well, let's use these Venezuelans.1974    Mr. Edlow. Senator, I would hesitate to comment on anything1975that is under active litigation at this point.1976    Senator Schmitt. Okay. Let's say there is another--because,1977I mean, let's say Haitians, which also fell into that. I want1978to know what tools--and I am not asking you to opine on that. I1979want to know what tools are going to be used to enforce a1980lawful court order----1981    Mr. Edlow. I understand.1982    Senator Schmitt [continuing]. To kick people out of here.1983    Mr. Edlow. So certainly, Senator, the employment1984authorization cards, which are essentially the evidence of the1985status, are going to set to expire. The systems at USCIS, when1986appropriate, are turned off so that renewals are either kicked1987out or rejected. And then at that point, it becomes the1988responsibility of our sister agency, ICE, to work on the next1989step, which would be the apprehension and removal of any1990individual that remained after that period of time.1991    Senator Schmitt. So USCIS decides who qualifies for TPS?1992    Mr. Edlow. Well, after a TPS designation is made, USCIS1993would determine eligibility----1994    Senator Schmitt. Correct.1995    Mr. Edlow [continuing]. Based on the law.1996    Senator Schmitt. So they need to prove they have been here1997since the designation date and meet other rules. But the Biden1998Administration made it with a rubberstamp, right? It totally,1999completely obliterated the process that was put in place. Is2000that your understanding?2001    Mr. Edlow. Senator, my understanding is everything the2002Biden Administration did with regard to USCIS was with a2003rubberstamp. So, yes, TPS, the way in which parole was2004utilized, the way in which anything was utilized was a2005rubberstamp, while not caring about the long lines of people2006within the backlog that just kept growing because they weren't2007taking that seriously. They were reassigning resources to just2008handle the unlawful border activity.2009    Senator Schmitt. Right. So what could be introduced as far2010as new vetting rules to make sure this isn't just being handed2011out like candy? What could be done?2012    Mr. Edlow. Well, certainly, you know, if confirmed, I am2013happy to work with Congress to figure out if there are2014additional authorities that we need in order to move in that2015direction. But I really do think that, once confirmed, we can2016take a look at things internally, turn some processes on, act2017both regulatorily and sub-regulatorily to take a real bite out2018of some of this and to actually, for the first time, feel2019confident in the vetting that is being done by the agency.2020    Senator Schmitt. Thank you.2021    Mr. Squires, I do want to ask you, switching gears. China2022has been ripping us off for a very long time as it relates to2023our IP. And I know there is a lot of concern with some of the2024breakthroughs they have gotten from DeepSeek. I mean, there is2025no IP acknowledged, really, if it is not being ripped off. It2026just isn't part of what they are and how they how they handle2027these things.2028    What concerns do you have or what can be done to combat2029Chinese IP theft? But then as we get into these large language2030models moving forward, how do you view generally accepted IP2031laws to be--how does it work into large language models moving2032forward? Because you have heard some people talk about just2033abandoning IP altogether.2034    Mr. Squires. Thank you, Senator. It is quite a complicated2035question.2036    Senator Tillis. Mr. Squires, I know that it is. Could you2037submit that for the record? Because I am very interested in the2038detailed response.2039    Mr. Squires. I would be happy to, Senator.2040    Senator Tillis. On behalf of the Chair, Senator Lee.2041    Senator Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.2042    And thanks to all of you for being here and especially for2043your willingness to serve.2044    Mr. Edlow, let's start with you. The Biden Administration2045turned a lot of things on their heads. One of the many things2046they turned on their heads involves the optional practical2047training program. And they turned it into the single largest2048guest worker program, bypassing the traditional limitations,2049traditional rules that would otherwise apply by operation of2050law on other visas like H-1B in the United States. What changes2051would you plan, if confirmed, to make in order to fix that2052issue?2053    Mr. Edlow. Thank you, Senator. I think the way in which OPT2054has been handled over the past 4 years, with the help of2055certain decisions coming out of the D.C. Circuit Court, have2056been a real problem in terms of misapplication of the law. What2057I want to see would be essentially a regulatory and sub-2058regulatory program that would allow us to remove the ability2059for employment authorizations for F-1 students beyond the time2060that they are in school.2061    Senator Lee. Great. Thank you.2062    Mr. Gaiser, I would like to turn to you next. You are an2063issues and appeals guy. You have clerked for two Federal court2064of appeals judges, Judges Rao and Edith Jones, two of the very2065best judges we have ever had in the U.S. Courts of Appeals, and2066also for Justice Alito. At Jones Day, I take it you worked in2067the issues and appeals section, and that is what you do. That2068is exactly what we need inside the Office of Legal Counsel, in2069my view.2070    Trial work is important. It is fundamental. It is essential2071to our system. And it is very, very different than doing2072appeals, so I just wanted to note that. One of my colleagues2073made an observation about that. To me, that matters next to2074nothing, how much time you have spent in a trial courtroom or2075in front of juries. That is not the work of the Office of Legal2076Counsel, which has historically been staffed quite2077appropriately, in my view, by people with stellar, blue-2078ribboned, usually good appellate court experience, appellate2079court clerkships, and U.S. Supreme Court experience, so for2080whatever that is worth.2081    Now, you are currently serving as the Solicitor General of2082the State of Ohio, further advancing your expertise, your2083knowledge, your familiarity with the appellate courtroom. As I2084understand it, the Solicitor General of the State of Ohio2085operates a little bit differently than many of the others do,2086and in ways that almost certainly will prepare you2087exceptionally well to head the Office of Legal Counsel. Tell us2088about that.2089    Mr. Gaiser. Thank you very much, Senator Lee. In my2090capacity as Ohio Solicitor General, I not only am the chief2091appellate lawyer for the State of Ohio, I am also in charge of2092the attorney general's Opinions Unit, where the attorney2093general of Ohio is authorized to opine definitively on Ohio law2094to certain authorized requesters. I understand that role is2095very similar to the Office of Legal Counsel's historic role of2096opining on Federal questions.2097    Senator Lee. Stunningly similar, in fact. The U.S.2098Department of Justice operates as something of a full-service2099law firm, the biggest in the country, and the office that you2100will be heading, should you be confirmed, is that office, that2101office that provides people with advice. That necessarily2102requires you to have extensive appellate experience and a good2103ability to read how appellate courts, including and especially2104the Supreme Court, will respond.2105    Mr. Woodward, if confirmed as the associate attorney2106general, in addition to being the number three person at the2107Department of Justice, you will be the man. You will be, in2108Spanish we would say ``el mero mero,'' the law, when it comes2109to all of the oversight of all civil litigation and a number of2110other matters as well. Tell me how, in that position, if2111confirmed, you could help the Department of Justice rein in the2112burdensome, excessive regulation and the excessive delegation2113of lawmaking power to our executive branch agencies through the2114non-delegation or otherwise.2115    Mr. Woodward. Senator, thank you for the question and thank2116you for taking the opportunity to meet with us in advance of2117the hearing.2118    As the associate attorney general, there would be a number2119of opportunities for us to challenge the burdensome regulations2120that have been imposed on our Nation, on our businesses, on our2121people. Affirmative litigation is a critical aspect of what the2122associate's office oversees. What we see in the papers today is2123the defense of Executive orders. What is talked less about is2124all of the affirmative cases that are being brought by the2125Civil Division, the Civil Rights Division, the Tax Division,2126the Antitrust Division. And so challenging unconstitutional2127regulations, as I alluded with your colleague earlier, would be2128a key piece of what I expect the Department of Justice to do.2129    Senator Lee. Thank you for sharing that, and I want to2130followup on that just briefly. When some people hear the word2131unconstitutional, they might think, understandably, that what2132you mean is unconstitutional in a way that has been recognized2133by the Supreme Court, in a way that is directly traceable as2134unconstitutional to a particular court ruling, especially a2135Supreme Court ruling. But more broadly speaking, that is not2136necessarily the appropriate way to view it, is it? In other2137words, there are certain features of the Constitution that2138don't always get tested. If they are tested, they are not2139always directly addressed by the Supreme Court. Constitutional2140avoidance, for example, is a means by which the court will2141often try to decide a case or controversy on a different ground2142if the constitutional question can be avoided.2143    And so, the non-delegation doctrine itself has been2144acknowledged by the Supreme Court, tends not to be enforced by2145the Supreme Court, and I would imagine that that is where2146Department of Justice that understands the implications of2147Article I, Section 7, the fact that in order to make, modify,2148alter, create, or repeal a Federal law, one has to follow the2149two-pronged formula of Article I, Section 7, which includes2150bicameralism and presentment. Is that something that, in your2151view, a good associate attorney general ought to examine?2152    Mr. Woodward. Yes, Senator, absolutely.2153    Senator Lee. Thank you very much, and I see my time has2154expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your characteristic2155generosity in letting me exceed that.2156    Senator Hawley [presiding]. I love giving away time that is2157not mine, Senator Lee.2158    [Laughter.]2159    Senator Lee. Especially when we are talking about the non-2160delegation----2161    Senator Hawley. Exactly, it doesn't get more exciting than2162that.2163    Senator Lee. In Provo, we speak of little else.2164    Senator Hawley. Senator Hirono.2165    Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.2166    I ask the following two initial questions of every nominee2167before any of my Committees to get at the fitness to serve. So2168we will start with Mr. Edlow, and we will just go right down2169the line. Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made2170unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or2171physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?2172    Mr. Edlow. No, Senator.2173    Mr. Gaiser. No, Senator.2174    Mr. Squires. Never, Senator.2175    Mr. Woodward. No, Senator.2176    Senator Hirono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered2177into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?2178    Mr. Edlow. No, Senator.2179    Mr. Gaiser. No, Senator.2180    Mr. Squires. No, Senator.2181    Mr. Woodward. No, Senator.2182    Senator Hirono. I think that both Mr. Gaiser and Woodrow2183testified that you would advise the Administration to follow2184all court orders, correct?2185    Mr. Woodward. Well, Senator, as I've said, it depends, and2186I realize that that is frustrating----2187    Senator Hirono. Oh, it depends on what the court order is?2188Okay. Let me ask you another question then. In the Abrego2189Garcia case, the Supreme Court said that the Administration had2190to ``facilitate his return from the El Salvador prison.'' He is2191still there. Is the Administration complying with the Supreme2192Court's court order? We will start with Mr. Gaiser and then go2193to Mr. Woodward.2194    Mr. Gaiser. Well, Senator, thank you very much for that2195question. As Ohio Solicitor General, I am not now at the2196Department, and the Department of Justice speaks through its2197briefs on matters that are in active litigation, and so it2198would be inappropriate----2199    Senator Hirono. Well, in your option----2200    Mr. Gaiser [continuing]. For me to comment.2201    Senator Hirono. You are about to become the person who is2202going to be advising the Department formerly known as Justice,2203as far as I am concerned. So what do you think? The fact that2204Mr. Garcia is still in prison, is the Administration following2205the Supreme Court's order to facilitate his release?2206    Mr. Gaiser. Well, Senator----2207    Senator Hirono. You don't know?2208    Mr. Gaiser. As I said, I am the Solicitor General of Ohio2209now. I am not now at the department, and it would be2210inappropriate for me to comment on actively litigated matters2211because the department speaks through its filings and its2212briefs.2213    Senator Hirono. So when you actually become the person at2214the OLC, would you advise the Administration to facilitate the2215release of Mr. Garcia?2216    Mr. Gaiser. Well, thank you, Senator. If I am----2217    Senator Hirono. That is what the court is telling him.2218    Moving on, Mr. Woodrow, what do you think?2219    Mr. Woodward. Well, Senator, I appreciate you giving me the2220opportunity to respond.2221    It does depend. If we are going to discuss hypotheticals,2222what about a hypothetical----2223    Senator Hirono. It is not a hypothetical. This is the2224Supreme Court's order to the Administration. They are2225confronted with this order right at the moment. Mr. Garcia has2226not been released.2227    Mr. Woodward. The question about following court orders is,2228of course, a hypothetical, and the hypothetical can be2229complicated. What if a district court----2230    Senator Hirono. That is why, Mr. Woodrow, I asked a2231specific question relating to a specific situation. And since2232you also don't want to respond, there you have it. And, you2233know, both of you are going to be in a position to be advising2234this Administration, so I think your responses are telling.2235    For Mr. Edlow, President Trump suspended the U.S. Refugee2236Settlement Program indefinitely on his first day in office.2237However, on February 7, he signed an Executive order requiring2238all agencies to promote the resettlement of white Afrikaners2239into the United States. And less than 3 months later, these2240Afrikaners are entering the United States, having completed a2241process that normally takes years.2242    What changes has USCIS made to the refugee resettlement2243process to expedite the arrival of Afrikaners? And if you are2244not there yet, you don't know, you can just say you don't know.2245    Mr. Edlow. Well, Senator, I am there as a senior advisor--2246--2247    Senator Hirono. Oh.2248    Mr. Edlow [continuing]. But I do not know. And I can tell2249you, as far as I have seen, the process is the same as any2250other refugee resettlement process for USCIS' purposes.2251    Senator Hirono. Why is it that Afrikaners are being2252expedited in terms of their being able to resettle in the2253United States?2254    Mr. Edlow. Senator----2255    Senator Hirono. Why are they being given what looks like2256highly preferential treatment?2257    Mr. Edlow. Senator, the President has the authority through2258executive action and under the law----2259    Senator Hirono. Okay. That is because the President feels--2260--2261    Mr. Edlow [continuing]. To determine----2262    Senator Hirono [continuing]. Like doing that. Okay. That is2263the answer.2264    And are these Afrikaners going to be vetted individually so2265that nobody is coming in who, for example, shows any2266antisemitic sentiment? Are they being vetted individually?2267    Mr. Edlow. Senator, again, I can't speak to specifics with2268regard to any of the individuals coming in, but my2269understanding is that they are being vetted for----2270    Senator Hirono. Individually. I hope so, because, for2271example, there was one who was quoted as saying that Jewish2272people are untrustworthy and they are a dangerous group. I2273would say that maybe that person shows antisemitic views. And2274so your testimony is that they are being vetted individually?2275    Mr. Edlow. Senator, again, I am not currently leading the2276agency. I do not have a view into how they are being vetted. My2277understanding is they are being vetted as refugees have been2278vetted in the past.2279    Senator Hirono. There are serious concerns about why this2280is happening. And, for example----2281    Senator Hawley. Thank you, Senator.2282    Senator Hirono [continuing]. The people who are Afghani are2283not getting this kind of highly preferential treatment. Thank2284you.2285    Senator Hawley. Thank you, Senator.2286    Congratulations to the nominees. Thank you for being here.2287    Mr. Woodward, let me start with you. You and I had a nice2288chat the other day. I appreciated the visit. When we were2289talking about the Civil Division, you referenced some2290tightening up that you believe needed to happen. And you2291brought up in that context the Mifepristone case. So I just2292want to drill down on this for a second.2293    Two weeks ago or so, the Department of Justice entered and2294filed a motion in the Mifepristone case in the Northern2295District of Texas. This is a Missouri case where the State of2296Missouri and some others are seeking to put back in place the2297safety protocols for the abortion drug that existed before Joe2298Biden removed them. The Department of Justice attorneys from2299the Civil Division filed a motion in that case seeking to have2300the case dismissed. Is it your understanding that that was a2301mistake? What is your view of this? I mean, you raised this2302case to me.2303    Mr. Woodward. Senator, thank you for the question. As you2304can appreciate, it is longstanding policy of the Department of2305Justice not to comment on pending cases. Those briefs do speak2306for themselves.2307    The reason I raised that case with you is because we were2308having a, I thought, very helpful discussion about the fact2309that litigation should be holistic. And that as the Department2310of Justice continues to litigate on behalf of the President,2311there is an obligation, a duty even, for us to communicate with2312those with whom we are litigating against. We should be2313personal in our litigation, we should speak to those with whom2314we are litigating, and we should try to come to an agreement.2315We don't always have to resolve our disputes in court.2316    Senator Hawley. Which did not happen in this case. Is that2317the thrust of it?2318    Mr. Woodward. That is correct, Senator.2319    Senator Hawley. In other words, the Department of Justice2320did not work with the State of Missouri. I have to tell you,2321though, I am surprised and concerned by the department's2322decision on the merits in this case. And I have said as much to2323your soon-to-be boss, the attorney general. I frankly don't2324understand it. And I am sure this case isn't going away. I2325mean, the Department of Justice said that they did not think2326venue was appropriate.2327    So let me just ask you, if the States refile in another2328venue, is the department going to oppose the States on the2329merits? I mean, is the department actually going to defend Joe2330Biden's pro-abortion regulations?2331    Mr. Woodward. Senator, thank you for the question. I have2332had discussions with the attorney general about this case in my2333role as counselor to her presently. Of course, it would be2334inappropriate for me to comment on those discussions.2335    What I can tell you, Senator, is that, if confirmed, we2336would look very specifically at every case to have been filed2337by the Biden Justice Department and ensure that those cases are2338appropriate and also ensure that we are taking the right track2339in those cases. And so I am happy to talk with you and your2340colleagues about that case and any other case, if confirmed.2341    Senator Hawley. As you, I hope, know, before President2342Biden, mifepristone, the abortion drug, had long had a series2343of safety protocols attached to it ever since it was first2344offered in the United States over 20 years ago, including2345requirements that a physician be the one to dispense the drug,2346that a physician screen for ectopic pregnancies, that a2347physician be present to provide emergency care if necessary.2348President Biden removed all of these, and now the drug is2349available. You don't have to be a physician to prescribe it. It2350can be sent through the mail. Telehealth providers from foreign2351countries are now providing this drug.2352    And it doesn't matter as a consequence what any State or2353voters in any State decide, the voters of my State, for2354example. Any limits on the drug imposed by voters of the State2355consistent with the Dobbs decision is automatically overridden2356by what Joe Biden's FDA decided to do. So this is a matter of2357extreme importance. And I just point out 70 percent of2358abortions now in the United States occur because of this drug,2359which can now be administered totally unsupervised.2360    Let me just ask you. Are you familiar with the Ethics and2361Public Policy Center's recent survey of mifepristone2362prescriptions, 865,000 mifepristone prescriptions over a 5-year2363period. Have you seen that study, Mr. Woodward?2364    Mr. Squires. Senator, I apologize. I have not seen that2365study.2366    Senator Hawley. Well, let me just bring you up to speed.2367What the study shows is that over 10 percent of women who are2368prescribed this drug, again, without physician help or aid,2369over 10 percent of these women experience a serious adverse2370health event. That means an infection, hemorrhaging, a life-2371threatening event, sepsis that leads them to go to an emergency2372room. That is 22 times higher than what the FDA label currently2373admits is the risk of a serious adverse health event. This is2374the largest study of mifepristone done, I think, ever, 865,0002375separate prescriptions were studied.2376    So my point is this. The safety needs are extremely real.2377They are pressing. The rights of the States to protect their2378citizenry, I think, is extremely well-founded and well-2379developed, by the way. I mean, they are seeking the right2380relief in the right courts. And I just hope that the Department2381of Justice will do--as you were saying a moment ago, I hope the2382Department of Justice will work with these States and will also2383vindicate the rights of voters to decide these issues and the2384rights of States to protect their citizens. I just can't2385imagine why the department would want to defend the abortion2386regulations of Joe Biden, who was the most rabidly pro-abortion2387President in American history, very different than our current2388President, who has been the most pro-life President in American2389history.2390    Mr. Woodward. Senator, I appreciate the question. In the2391wake of Dobbs, I agree the law is quite clear, and I am going2392to sound like a broken record, but the President of the United2393States has said time and again he will follow the orders that2394come down from the Supreme Court.2395    Senator Hawley. Let me ask you here about one other2396religious liberty issue. Are you familiar with Mark Houck? Does2397that name ring a bell? Do you know about this case, Mr.2398Woodward?2399    Mr. Squires. I am sorry, Senator, I am not familiar.2400    [Photograph is displayed.]2401    Senator Hawley. Well, that is all right. I think we have2402got a picture of Mark. Mark Houck is a pro-life demonstrator,2403peaceful demonstrator, a Pennsylvania man. Here he is with his2404family, his kids. They are at mass there. He is a faithful2405Catholic. Mark Houck took one of his boys, pictured here, to an2406abortion center to go and walk on the streets, pray, and offer2407any counsel to any women who might voluntarily want to receive2408it, pray with them, et cetera.2409    For this, he was arrested by the United States Department2410of Justice. They sent a SWAT team to his home in the early2411hours of the morning in rural Pennsylvania. They detained his2412children. They used the full SWAT regalia, including2413semiautomatic weapons, rifles, and so forth, to take him into2414custody. He was taken into custody. He was charged like a2415criminal under the FACE Act. He was acquitted by the jury,2416which is truly remarkable.2417    I want to emphasize the State of Pennsylvania had the2418opportunity to charge Houck. They didn't do it because they2419didn't think--liberals in Pennsylvania didn't charge him2420because they knew there wasn't a case. The Biden DOJ charged2421him anyway, treated him like a terrorist, and a jury acquitted2422him, thank the Lord. Now, Mr. Houck is suing the Department of2423Justice for what they did under the Biden Administration. So2424far, DOJ is opposing his suit. Doesn't this seem like something2425to you that should be settled? I mean, shouldn't this man have2426his name cleared? I want to emphasize the jury acquitted him.2427But shouldn't this man have his name cleared and have DOJ admit2428that what the Biden Administration did to him was just dead2429wrong?2430    Mr. Woodward. Senator, in my practice over the last 42431years, I saw firsthand how the Biden Administration weaponized2432the Department of Justice, and there is no place for2433weaponization at the Department of Justice. I can assure you2434that we will look at every single case, every single case, to2435ensure that there is no weaponization at the Department of2436Justice. I look forward, if confirmed, to working with Deputy2437Attorney General Todd Blanche, with Attorney General Pam Bondi.2438We will find those cases, and we will resolve them.2439    Senator Hawley. Good. I am glad to hear that. I think Mr.2440Houck deserves to have his name cleared. I think he deserves2441more than an apology for what Joe Biden did to him. He deserves2442recompense. He deserves restitution. And he deserves to get2443what you have gotten for your clients, which is an2444acknowledgement that what the Government did to them is wrong.2445What the Government did to him is wrong. It was flat-out2446religious persecution, nothing but that, Joe Biden trying to2447send a signal to every religious believer and every pro-life2448believer in this country, don't you dare exercise your beliefs2449in public, or we might come with a SWAT team and haul you off2450to prison. It is a disgusting abuse of the First Amendment.2451Thank goodness a jury acquitted him. Now he deserves to be made2452whole, and I hope that you will be part of that.2453    I see nobody else here. Are we going to let it go?2454    Well, they tell me that Senator Cruz is on his way, which2455means that I can just keep right on questioning. So what do you2456think, Mr. Woodward? I am sure you are really enjoying this2457line of questioning.2458    Let me ask you something different. Let me ask you about2459President Trump's Executive order on Title IX and men and2460women's sports. Something you and I talked about is the need to2461see that the President's Executive orders are enforced, that2462States are complying with them, that they are complying with2463Federal law. Talk to us about the importance of his order2464protecting women, getting biological men out of women's sports.2465What does the department need to do there? What do you think is2466the priority? And tell us why this is so significant.2467    Mr. Woodward. Thank you for the question, Senator. You2468know, this is a deeply personal issue to me. I have a 2-year-2469old daughter who has three older brothers. She can hold her2470own, but it is a problem. It is an issue that has to be2471addressed. The President has taken this head-on as an important2472issue in his Administration.2473    The Executive orders speak for themselves. And although I2474can't comment on pending litigation that has been brought by2475the Department of Justice, we have seen that the Department of2476Justice is enforcing the President's Executive orders. To quote2477the President, ``We will see you in court.'' Don't follow the2478President's Executive order? We will see you in court.2479    Senator Hawley. And you would send that message to2480universities that are currently failing to comply, that are2481violating Title IX. To be clear, Title IX protects women's2482sports. Title IX creates the right of women to play in sports2483that have integrity, where they are protected from danger,2484where they are given the same opportunities as male athletes.2485These universities that are putting biological men into women's2486sports and women's locker rooms are flagrantly violating Title2487IX. So your message to those universities is, if you don't2488amend your ways, you can expect to face off against the Justice2489Department in a court of law.2490    Mr. Woodward. Senator, absolutely. I mean, it is a2491complicated issue. It is often attempted to make this out as an2492easy issue, but it is a complicated issue. There are sports for2493which it is advantageous, right? Men should not be competing in2494women's gymnastics, for example. And so this is not an issue2495that is easy to summarize or to make soundbites over. It is2496complicated, which is why it is important that the Department2497of Justice is paying careful attention to what the law is and2498applying the facts to the law.2499    Senator Hawley. Mr. Gaiser, let me just ask you about2500nationwide injunctions for a moment and about the proliferation2501of nationwide injunctions. We have seen them explode. They were2502first used in the 1960's. Then they are almost never used. Of2503course, a nationwide injunction is when you have one individual2504district court that purports to bind not just the parties2505before the court, but purports to impose its policy, its2506ruling, its order on the entire country, including parties not2507before the court at all, parties well outside the court's2508geographic jurisdiction or otherwise.2509    Tell us about the importance of reigning in the district2510courts to their proper constitutional role, which does not2511allow any individual district court to sit in the place of the2512Supreme Court and make policy for the Nation. Tell us about the2513importance of this.2514    Mr. Gaiser. Well, thank you very much, Senator Hawley. And2515as you are aware, district courts are charged with adjudicating2516cases and controversies. And the Supreme Court of the United2517States has said that that task looks to the relief sought by2518the parties, and its equitable authority extends to the amount2519of relief necessary to redress those particular injuries.2520    And as you are also aware, the Supreme Court is currently2521now considering some litigation involving that, so it would be2522inappropriate for me to comment on the specifics of that. But I2523agree with you that Article III imposes genuine limits and2524authorities for district courts, and it is in the text on the2525judicial power.2526    Senator Hawley. Setting aside the litigation currently2527before the Supreme Court, do you think that it is appropriate2528and maybe necessary for Congress to use our Article I authority2529to make clear that an individual district court does not have2530the constitutional authority to bind parties that are not2531before it or otherwise not within its jurisdiction? I mean, is2532that something that we in Congress ought to consider doing?2533    Mr. Gaiser. Senator, I agree that Congress has an important2534role in setting the jurisdiction of the inferior courts that2535Congress creates. Those are the creature of this and the2536House's work. And so I think this body has an important role to2537play and could make a significant contribution to justice being2538done as opposed to what I think millions of Americans are2539alarmed to see, which is the weaponization of the entire2540justice system to oppose the agenda that they enacted by voting2541for elected representatives like President Trump.2542    Senator Hawley. Well, I think we are looking at something2543that is very much a constitutional crisis. It is a growing2544crisis, and it is a crisis of district court judges that are2545way outside the bounds of the Constitution, that are seizing2546power that absolutely does not belong to them. And you are2547right, Article I, it does give us the authority to establish2548those courts in the first instance, to govern those courts. And2549in this case, I think it is time for this body to take action2550to ensure that those courts stay within their proper2551constitutional bounds.2552    Senator Cruz, I could go on for another 15 minutes, but if2553you would like to ask questions, I am happy to recognize you.2554They are really enjoying my lengthy, lengthy questions. They2555have been praying you would arrive.2556    The Chair recognizes Senator Cruz.2557    Senator Cruz. I appreciate the always loquacious Senator2558from Missouri, and I hope you did not have to resort to your2559own personal poetry to fill the time.2560    Senator Hawley. That was going to be next.2561    Senator Cruz. Well, then I apologize for depriving you of2562that particular joy.2563    Let me start by welcoming today's nominees. Mr. Squires,2564Mr. Edlow, Mr. Gaiser, Mr. Woodward, I am grateful that the2565President has nominated each of you to step into these critical2566roles at such a pivotal time for the Trump Administration.2567    Over the past several months, President Trump has governed2568with clarity, purpose, and boldness. He has issued Executive2569orders to do what the American people demanded at the ballot2570box, eliminate crime in our streets, secure the southern2571border, and put the Federal Government firmly back on the side2572of law-abiding citizens.2573    Under his leadership, the Department of Justice is no2574longer targeting political opponents. It is targeting violent2575criminals and criminal cartels. It is restoring order to a2576system that for years was being used to punish dissent and to2577reward lawlessness. Attorney General Pam Bondi is advancing2578that mission with energy and resolve.2579    But make no mistake, the far-left resistance is organized,2580lawless, and aggressive. Far-left activist groups are flooding2581the courts in D.C., Boston, and San Francisco with lawsuits2582designed not to win on the law, but to block the President's2583agenda through judicial activism. And too many judges are going2584along with it. In just the last 4 months, more nationwide2585injunctions have been issued by lone district judges than in2586the entire 20th century.2587    Let me repeat that. In 4 months, we have seen more2588nationwide injunctions than America had seen in the entire 20th2589century. That is not oversight. That is obstruction. That is2590activism. One plaintiff in one courtroom is now able to freeze2591Federal policy for 340 million Americans. This is not justice.2592It is political sabotage from the bench. And it is happening2593because the left can't win at the ballot box. It turns out2594releasing murderers, rapists, and child molesters, releasing2595gang members, is not a popular policy with the voters. But with2596left-wing radical judges, that's a different story.2597    That is why your nominations matter. The Administration2598needs serious, principled leaders, men and women who know the2599law, who have the backbone to carry it out in the face of2600political pressure. And the American people deserve a DOJ, a2601USCIS, and a USPTO that defends their rights, secures their2602communities, and follows the Constitution, not simply the edict2603of activist judges. Each of you has a critical role to play in2604that.2605    Mr. Woodward, you've defended clients in some of the most2606politically charged cases in the country. If confirmed, how2607will you ensure that the DOJ's Civil Division resists political2608pressure, not just from the outside but from within, and2609returns to equal enforcement of the law?2610    Mr. Woodward. Senator, thank you for the question. Thank2611you also for the opportunity to meet in advance of this2612hearing. It is an important question, and I don't want my2613answer to be taken lightly, but I am not at all intimidated by2614political pressure. As I have demonstrated through my career,2615people have taken issue with lots of the work that I have done.2616And for me, what is important is ensuring that the law is2617upheld, that the Constitution is respected. And I can assure2618you, Senator, that if confirmed, I will make sure that the2619Department of Justice does just that, that we root out the2620weaponization that has been so long embedded therein. We will2621find it. We will eliminate it. It will cease to exist.2622    Senator Cruz. You have seen firsthand how prosecutions can2623be weaponized. What safeguards do you intend to implement to2624prevent civil enforcement from becoming a political tool?2625    Mr. Woodward. Senator, I appreciate that question. As2626counselor to the Attorney General, I am already working with2627the Attorney General to build those safeguards in. There are2628hundreds and hundreds of cases that are litigated by the2629Department of Justice. We need to know what they are. We need2630to identify them. We need to be prepared to understand what the2631arguments are. I will work very closely with the deputies that2632have been confirmed by the Senate and that are acting in that2633capacity. We will find those cases. We will organize.2634    One of the reasons I would be so blessed to come to the2635department is to help organize that litigation. It is something2636that I have done in the past at my law firm and at the law firm2637that I worked before that. I am confident that I can do it if2638you give me the chance.2639    Senator Cruz. The associate attorney general oversees the2640Civil Division, Civil Rights, Antitrust, and other major2641components. What is your top priority for restoring public2642trust in those divisions?2643    Mr. Woodward. Senator, again, I hope I am not making light2644of the question because the answer is easy. Follow the law.2645    Senator Cruz. Mr. Gaiser, you clerked for three of the most2646respected constitutionalists in the Federal judiciary, Judge2647Edith Jones, Judge Neomi Rao, and Justice Samuel Alito. All2648three are friends of mine. All three I respect deeply. How did2649those experiences shape your legal philosophy, particularly2650regarding the role of the executive branch in faithfully2651executing the law?2652    Mr. Gaiser. Thank you so much for that question, Senator2653Cruz. When you are a law clerk, your first task is to do your2654best to state the law in a way that the judge can use your2655work. And you are not the decider. You are there to do2656research, to provide your independent, candid, and honest view2657of the law. And should I be so fortunate to be confirmed as the2658assistant attorney general of the Office of Legal Counsel, that2659would be my primary aim, to always provide the best reading of2660the law and the best legal advice that I can give based on the2661questions that the Office of Legal Counsel receives.2662    Senator Cruz. Thank you. And, Mr. Squires, the PTAB was2663created to improve patent quality and to provide a faster,2664cost-effective alternative to litigation. But in recent years,2665many small inventors and startups have expressed concern that2666it disproportionately favors large challengers and undermines2667the value of their patents, that it is effectively an arm of2668big tech. What is your assessment of those concerns, and do you2669believe the system is functioning as Congress intended?2670    Mr. Squires. Thank you for the question, Senator. I think2671if you look at the data, the concerns are in plain sight. The2672IPRs themselves have a 68 percent defect rate, if you will. If2673the American patent system is a factory, 68 percent of the2674products we put out are found effective in a later proceeding.2675    So the way to address it is to have patents, if I can2676harken back to my opening statement, born strong. We need to be2677able to incentivize getting the prior art in at the examination2678stage or closely thereafter, and having the improved quality, I2679think, will alleviate many concerns.2680    There is also a concern I have with IPRs that if, in fact,2681there is this prior art out there and validating patents at2682these great rates, is it or is it not getting back into the2683system and the examination on the front end so it can be2684applied when the applicants are asking for rights?2685    Senator Cruz. Okay. And a final question to Mr. Gaiser and2686Mr. Woodward. I talked about the avalanche of nationwide2687injunctions we are seeing from individual district judges. How2688concerned are you about these nationwide injunctions, and what2689can be done to ensure that judges stay in their proper lane2690rather than trying to subvert the authority of the President2691and the will of the people who elected him?2692    Mr. Gaiser, we will start with you.2693    Mr. Gaiser. Well, thank you, Senator Cruz. As Solicitor2694General of Ohio, I have the privilege of defending Ohio's laws2695against statewide injunctions that are sometimes sought. And I2696always make the same argument, that courts are empowered to2697offer relief no broader than necessary or burdensome than2698necessary to redress the injury of those who are properly2699parties before the court. I think courts should follow that2700guidance, which the U.S. Supreme Court has long established,2701and dates back all the way to the Anglo-American legal2702tradition in equity.2703    Senator Cruz. Mr. Woodward?2704    Mr. Woodward. Senator, I am very, very concerned. It should2705not be the case that a President duly elected then has to2706convince 600 individual judges to enforce the policy2707prerogatives of that Administration. This is a bipartisan2708problem. This is a problem that has persisted, as you observe,2709for some time now. It is a problem before the Supreme Court,2710and, of course, it is the policy of the Department of Justice2711not to comment on ongoing litigation. But, candidly, it is a2712problem I am not sure the Supreme Court will solve. You know,2713as I look in the Constitution, Article III doesn't seem to have2714any discussion of nationwide injunctions in it, and so it is a2715dubious one to be sure.2716    Let me be clear, however, is that it is not a problem I am2717unafraid to face. If confirmed, we will take on all of the2718litigation in these courts. We will defend the President's2719prerogatives, and, as a criminal defense attorney, I can tell2720you that I am used to losing in the district court. We make our2721record, and that is why God invented the court of appeals.2722    Senator Cruz. Amen.2723    Let me thank each of the nominees. Thank you for being here2724today.2725    Written questions to the nominees may be submitted for the2726record until May 28 at 5 p.m. And with that, this hearing is2727adjourned.2728    [Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]2729    [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]27302731 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]27322733                            A P P E N D I X27342735The following submissions are available at:27362737  https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-119shrg61819/pdf/CHRG-119shrg2738    61819-add1.pdf27392740Submitted by Ranking Member Durbin:27412742 Reproductive Rights Organizations Opposition to Gaiser, statement     227432744                                 [all]