    [Senate Hearing 119-177]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 119-177

                           CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL
                                    APPOINTMENTS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 21, 2025

                                   __________

                              Serial No. J-119-19

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

                     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            www.judiciary.senate.gov
                                www.govinfo.gov
                                   ______

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    61-819                    WASHINGTON : 2026

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                      CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Chairman

    LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois,
    JOHN CORNYN, Texas                       Ranking Member
    MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah                 SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
    JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri                CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
    THOM TILLIS, North Carolina          RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
    JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana              MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri               ALEX PADILLA, California
    KATIE BOYD BRITT, Alabama            PETER WELCH, Vermont
    ASHLEY MOODY, Florida                ADAM B. SCHIFF, California

                 Kolan Davis, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
             Joe Zogby, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page

    Grassley, Hon. Charles E.........................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................    48
    Durbin, Hon. Richard J...........................................     2
    Tillis, Hon. Thom................................................     5
    Moody, Hon. Ashley...............................................     6

                              VISITING INTRODUCERS

    Moreno, Hon. Bernie, U.S. Senator from Ohio......................     4

                                    NOMINEES

    Edlow, Joseph....................................................     7
        Questionnaire................................................    55
        Responses to written questions...............................    74
        Additional materials.........................................   126

    Gaiser, T. Elliot................................................     9
        Questionnaire................................................   129
        Responses to written questions...............................   184
        Additional materials.........................................   216

    Squires, John....................................................    10
        Questionnaire................................................   232
        Responses to written questions...............................   254
        Additional materials.........................................   281

    Woodward, Stanley Jr.,...........................................    12
        Questionnaire................................................   286
        Responses to written questions...............................   312
        Additional materials.........................................   345

                                    APPENDIX

    Items submitted for the record...................................   347

                           CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL
                                    APPOINTMENTS

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2025

                                  United States Senate,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:16 a.m., in
    Room 226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E.
    Grassley, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Grassley [presiding], Lee, Cruz, Hawley,
    Tillis, Kennedy, Schmitt, Britt, Moody, Durbin, Whitehouse,
    Coons, Hirono, Booker, Welch, and Schiff.
        Also present: Senator Moreno.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY,
                 A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

        Chairman Grassley. The meeting will come to order. Good
    morning to everybody.
        We are considering the nomination of Stanley Woodward,
    serving as Associate Attorney General; Elliot Gaiser, serving
    as Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel; Joseph
    Edlow to serve as Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
    Services; John Squires, Director of U.S. Patent and Trademark
    Office.
        I would like to thank the families who are here and the
    friends of the nominees. I am sure you are all very proud of
    these nominees.
        Over the last several years, we've seen an unprecedented
    flood of illegal immigrants into the countries. Millions have
    poured in. Some were drawn by the promise of a better life.
    Some fled various forms of economic and other hardships. Some
    were hardened criminals and gang members. But all decided to
    break our laws to come here.
        Rather than stop this, the previous Administration threw
    open the doors, in doing so, openly flouted our immigration
    laws. The humanitarian parole statute was brazenly violated.
    Mandatory removal language and statutes became optional. Public
    charge requirements were ignored. Sanctuary cities were praised
    as heroic rather than criminal. And most tragically, actual
    victims of violence by illegal immigrants were downplayed,
    ignored, and forgotten. The courts contributed to this crisis
    as well and often stood passively by, our immigration laws
    being ignored.
        Now that Trump is in office, he is trying to enforce our
    immigration laws, carry out his campaign promise to the
    American people to reverse the flood of illegal immigrants.
    Suddenly, the courts have decided to step in.
        Democrats encourage this lawless behavior. The Democratic
    nominee for Vice President called ICE Trump's modern-day
    Gestapo, practically inviting violence against them. According
    to the Department of Homeland Security, ICE officers are now
    facing a 413 percent increase in assaults. I suppose concerns
    about threats of political violence only goes one way. I agree
    with my Democratic colleagues that the rule of law is a
    cornerstone of our republic, but some of our Nation's most
    important laws are those that protect our borders.
        Several nominees before us today will have an important
    role in faithfully executing these laws and the will of the
    American people expressed in our most recent national
    elections.
        Turning to nominees, I would like to start by introducing
    Mr. Woodward to the Committee. Mr. Woodward received his
    bachelor's and master's degree with honors from American
    University and his law degree with honors at Catholic
    University Columbus School of Law. After clerking for three
    different judges in the District of Columbia, he joined Akin
    Gump, where he practiced for 10 years. There, he handled a
    variety of complex litigation matters and Government
    investigations and was awarded his pro bono service. His
    practice during this time involved many of the issues he
    oversees.
        Go ahead.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
               A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Senator Durbin. Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
    and congratulations to the nominees and their families.
        Given the challenges which this Administration is facing in
    court, record-breaking numbers of challenges, we can certainly
    understand why he wants a team on his side in the
    Administration. Earlier this year, I asked Justice Department
    nominees a simple question. May a public official defy a court
    order? Shockingly, the nominees, including the future Solicitor
    General, John Sauer, refused to give an unequivocal response.
    Now, days ago, Mr. Sauer faced the same question, and he
    repeated this legal dodge before the Supreme Court of the
    United States.
        During arguments in a case challenging the President's
    illegal birthright citizenship Executive order, Justice
    Barrett, known as a Trump nominee, asked Mr. Sauer if the
    Administration would follow circuit court rulings. Mr. Sauer
    responded that the Governor's policy is to ``generally''--
    generally--``respect circuit precedent, but not necessarily in
    every case.''
        As our colleague Senator Kennedy said earlier this year,
    ``Don't ever, ever take the position that you are not going to
    follow the order of a Federal court, ever.
        Mr. Gaiser has been nominated to lead the Office of Legal
    Counsel, which provides legal advice to the President and all
    executive branch agencies. I want to hear what he believes that
    the policy of the Federal Government should be and whether he
    can ignore court rulings that don't suit any President's whim.
        From day one, the Administration has had one goal, bringing
    our immigration system to a breaking point. I will confess some
    prejudice in this matter. I am the son of an immigrant who came
    to the Chairmanship of this Committee. I am proud of it. If you
    visit my office, you are going to find my mom's naturalization
    certificate behind my desk, making it clear to all visitors
    where I stand on the issue of immigration. I like to believe
    that my family, and virtually all of the immigrant families,
    have made this a stronger Nation.
        Beyond unlawfully attempting to end birthright citizenship,
    which is enshrined in the Constitution, the Administration has
    made it harder for legal immigrants to apply for citizenship
    and naturalize. This Administration has made it harder for
    Dreamers who want to do the right thing. Now, these were kids
    brought to the United States by their parents. They didn't make
    a conscious decision to get in the car and drive across the
    border. Their parents did. They have grown up here in the
    United States, shown up in the classrooms, and pledged
    allegiance to the same flag we pledge allegiance to every day.
    It wasn't until they were teenagers that they knew the reality
    that they face. They want to do the right thing. They want to
    apply for programs like DACA so that they can receive work
    permits and continue to contribute to the American economy.
        I am disappointed to hear that Mr. Edlow, who came by my
    office, nominated to lead USCIS, opposes DACA, when even
    President Trump claims that he doesn't want to deport Dreamers.
    Despite his personal opinions, I want to hear how Mr. Edlow
    will ensure that USCIS will promptly process DACA applications
    of eligible Dreamers.
        The Administration has also ended temporary protective
    status for people who fled Afghanistan and Venezuela, falsely
    claiming these countries are safe to return to. These actions
    are cruel.
        In the name of carrying out Trump's mass deportation
    agenda, Attorney General Bondi has made the Department of
    Justice a shell of its former self. Thousands of Federal law
    enforcement agents have been diverted from drug trafficking and
    violent crime to deporting immigrants who pose no threat to our
    safety.
        Mr. Woodward, nominated to be the number three official of
    the Justice Department, will oversee Justice Department
    grantmaking, the Civil Rights Division, and many other
    components now under attack.
        The Justice Department, at the direction of DOGE, took
    their chainsaw to hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal
    grants to support public safety and our police. Programs
    supporting violence reduction, victim services, child
    protection, and substance use and mental health have been
    gutted. Ask law enforcement in your favorite community how you
    stop crime. They have an important job to do, and we know that.
    When we dial 911, we want to make sure that the right person is
    answering the call. But they will also tell you we cannot
    arrest our way out of violent crime. We need to do more. I
    believe that.
        For nearly 70 years, under Republican and Democratic
    Administrations alike, the Civil Rights Division protected the
    civil and constitutional rights of all Americans. Once known as
    the crown jewel of the Justice Department, it has now been
    reduced to litigating a narrow set of cases aligned with the
    MAGA agenda. This is anathema to how this division has operated
    historically.
        I want to hear from Mr. Woodward whether the Justice
    Department will continue to capitulate, or will it help restore
    the Justice Department's intended function, protecting the
    safety and rights of all Americans.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. Now, in this order, we will hear from
    Senator Moreno, Tillis, and Moody to introduce the nominees.
    Senator Moreno.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. BERNIE MORENO,
                 A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

        Senator Moreno. Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Durbin
    and Members of this Judiciary Committee, it is my absolute
    honor to introduce to you T. Elliot Gaiser as President Trump's
    nominee for the U.S. Assistant Attorney General for the Office
    of Legal Counsel. Mr. Gaiser currently serves as Ohio's
    Solicitor General, and of course, we all know Ohio is the
    greatest State in the country. He has zealously advocated for
    Ohio and its citizens. As the State's Solicitor General, he
    represents Ohio and its agencies on the appeals in the United
    States Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
    Circuit, the Ohio Supreme Court, and other State and Federal
    courts. He has served the State remarkably, and I am so proud
    that President Trump took well-deserved notice of Mr. Gaiser's
    brilliant legal talents.
        Immediately prior to his appointment as Solicitor General,
    Mr. Gaiser worked in the issues and appeals practice at a
    global law firm. In private practice, he focused on appeals and
    provided strategic counsel to clients in a range of industries
    regarding litigation and regulatory matters. He has litigated
    complex disputes all over the country.
        And in Ohio, Mr. Gaiser clerked for Associate Justice of
    the Supreme Court Samuel A. Alito, for Judge Neomi Rao of the
    U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and Judge Edith H.
    Jones on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
        Mr. Gaiser started his legal education at the national
    championship Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law, and
    earned his J.D. from the University of Chicago--see, Ranking
    Member, we will give you some credit as well--College of Law in
    2016. He received his undergraduate degree from Hillsdale
    College, where he graduated magna cum laude. He is 35 years
    old. This is all something he has accomplished in such a short
    period of time.
        And on a personal note, to the Ranking Member's comments, I
    appreciate that very much. And if you come to my office, you
    will see my H-1B visa. You will see my naturalization
    certificate. I was extraordinarily proud. One of the moments I
    remember more than anything else in my life was the ability to
    raise my right hand and pledge allegiance to the United States
    of America and be welcomed to this country.
        I would ask you and all the members of this Committee to
    understand that that moment is so important. And we have to
    honor the people who followed the law to come here legally, who
    patiently waited to become a U.S. citizen and be welcomed here
    and to stop rewarding people who break our laws, skip in line
    of those in front of us.
        And I can tell you that I have no doubt that Mr. Gaiser
    will continue to make not only Ohio proud, but this Nation
    proud, as he serves President Trump and Attorney General Bondi
    as the United States Assistant Attorney General for the Office
    of Legal Counsel. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator Moreno. And you may
    go if you want to.
        Senator Tillis.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOM TILLIS,
            A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

        Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I am pleased to introduce John Squires, the President's
    nominee for the Undersecretary of Commerce and Secretary of the
    U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
        When I first met John, I told him that the USPTO needed a
    fierce advocate for strong IP rights. And after a review of his
    record, I am convinced that he is the right person for the job.
        John and I trace back similar roots. He was at IBM before
    becoming a lawyer. I was at IBM before I made the fateful
    decision to go into politics. There are several things and
    experience, though, that I think you will see in the
    confirmation hearing today that make him very well suited to
    lead the USPTO.
        John is a 9/11 survivor, and that has greatly shaped his
    perspective on patent eligibility. And I am sure that we will
    get into that during the hearing. Like me, he believes that
    startups and emerging companies are critically important to our
    innovation ecosystem. And I believe that he can bring expertise
    to the office that will make sure that that segment of our
    innovation economy is well represented.
        For example, small businesses, firms having less than 10
    employees receive about 60 percent or more of the patents per
    capita than corporations. And startups and small businesses
    create almost half of all the U.S. jobs and growing. That is
    why we absolutely have to get this right, so that the pyramid
    of our innovation ecosystem stays strong.
        John is also a consensus builder. He has gotten great
    reviews from prior directors of both political parties. That is
    important for the work that we are doing here. I have said
    multiple times in the IP Subcommittee, I love the Subcommittee
    because it is an island of calm in a sea of chaos at the main
    Committee. We work on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, and I
    think John is going to be a great asset in that role.
        America innovation needs a champion dedicated to ensuring
    that this country maintains strong, reliable, and predictable
    patent rights. We, the United States of America, must remain
    the innovation leader in the world. And I believe that John
    Squires will bring the leadership to the USPTO to make sure
    that we accomplish that end. I strongly support his nomination,
    and I look forward to asking him a number of questions.
        And by the way, to the little baby, I will tell you all
    what I have said to others. As a grandfather and a father of
    two kids, nothing is more beautiful than the sound of someone
    else's baby crying.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Tillis. I fully support Mr. Squires' nomination.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Tillis, thank you.
        Now, Senator Moody.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ASHLEY MOODY,
                A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

        Senator Moody. Thank you. As one of two Senators who are
    moms of kids in school, I think it is also a good distraction
    tactic for mothers because all I wanted to do was run over
    there. So my Democrat colleagues, be on notice if you ever want
    to distract us, pack the room with babies.
        Good morning. It is my honor to be here today to introduce
    President Trump's nominee to be the next Director of the United
    States Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS, Joseph
    Edlow. Mr. Edlow's nomination comes in an extremely critical
    time in our Nation's history. As Florida's attorney general, I
    sat aghast as one of the first actions of Biden and his
    Administration was to tell our local and State officers to
    stop, that there will be no more detainers, and that they were
    to just release everyone here committing crimes back into our
    communities. They then, at one point, started taking people
    that were finishing Federal prison sentences, and instead of
    deporting them back home, as had always been traditionally
    done, pushing them back into our communities.
        And as the borders were open and mass quotas were installed
    in terms of pushing people into our interior that were barely
    vetted, and as new programs were developed to fly people
    straight here, barely vetted, it became abundantly clear, as we
    saw the aftermath and consequences of that, that a strong
    vetting system, indeed a strong USCIS, and someone at the helm,
    what is critically important to this Nation's security, and
    indeed our families' securities.
        We have experienced over the last 4 years watching
    millions, some say upwards to 20, but at least 11 million
    people flood this country. We don't know who they are. We don't
    know, in many cases, their criminal backgrounds, although we
    are figuring that out now, and now we see why it is so
    important that it wasn't that we just needed to seize
    operational control of the border, and I am so grateful for
    President Trump for doing that. It is now so important that our
    legal immigration system function as it was meant to, and that
    is screen and vet and guarantee that the safeguards and laws we
    have put in place to make sure those that are coming here are
    coming because they want to add and contribute to this country,
    and they do so legally. It is so important we have someone at
    the helm to make sure that happens.
        The Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
    is responsible for leading the charge to screen and vet those
    coming to our country legally, and I know Joseph Edlow is the
    right man for the job. In fact, he has already done the job. He
    graduated law school and began his legal career as an associate
    attorney. Mr. Edlow joined U.S. Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement, or ICE, and in 2008, as Assistant Chief Counsel in
    Baltimore Office of Chief Counsel, he litigated removal matters
    and handled every type of immigration case within the
    jurisdiction of that court.
        In 2015, Mr. Edlow then worked in the House of
    Representatives, first as counsel, focusing on immigration, and
    then for the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on
    Immigration and Border Security. As counsel, he worked on
    legislative and policy matters related to immigration
    enforcement and criminal immigration law.
        In 2018, he joined the Department of Justice as a deputy
    assistant attorney general, where he was responsible for DOJ's
    regulatory agenda for all immigration matters, and in 2019, he
    became Chief Counsel for USCIS, later serving as Deputy
    Director for Policy, and then as Acting Director. I cannot
    think of anyone more qualified to take on this job, and in
    fact, putting people in these roles who did not have that type
    of experience or expertise would be dangerous for the country
    at this moment in time.
        And given his extensive experience, I have no doubt that he
    will do an excellent job as the next Director of USCIS, and
    after my conversation and my meeting with him, I am even more
    convinced that he will hit the ground running on day one and do
    what we have to do right now, working with President Trump to
    clean up the mess of the last Administration, and indeed,
    deliver an immigration system that is meant to work as the
    people intended.
        He has my full support. I hope my colleagues will feel the
    same, and it is my honor to introduce Mr. Joseph Edlow.
        Chairman Grassley. Yes. Thank you, Senator Moody.
        Will the nominees please come to the table and don't sit
    down because I want to offer oath.
        [Witnesses are sworn in.]
        Chairman Grassley. I saw everybody say yes. Please be
    seated.
        We will start with Mr. Edlow, but for all of you, it is our
    tradition that if you want to introduce family and friends
    before you give your opening statement, that is okay. Now, you
    may proceed, Mr. Edlow.

    STATEMENT OF JOSEPH EDLOW, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS DIRECTOR OF U.S.
     CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
                                SECURITY

        Mr. Edlow. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much.
        Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, and distinguished
    Members of this Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    present testimony today regarding my pending nomination to
    serve as the next Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
    Services. It is an honor to appear before this esteemed
    Committee, and given the very productive conversations that I
    had with many of you prior to today, I am looking forward to
    discussing my vision for USCIS and the legal immigration system
    of this great Nation, should I be confirmed.
        I want to first thank President Donald J. Trump for this
    great honor and for the trust that he has placed in me through
    the nomination. I would also like to thank Secretary Kristi
    Noem for her outstanding leadership of the Department of
    Homeland Security and her commitment to immigration
    enforcement, border security, and the rule of law. It would be
    a privilege to serve as the next Director of USCIS in such a
    vibrant and stalwart Administration.
        I also want to take this time to acknowledge my family, as
    well as professional and personal colleagues and friends,
    several of whom are in this room, who have provided endless
    support during the confirmation process, as well as throughout
    my personal and professional development. First and foremost,
    thank you to my wife, who has stood steadfastly beside me, and
    still laments that she can cite the Immigration and Nationality
    Act verbatim after years of endless conversations; my two
    children, who are the lights of my life and my primary
    motivation for my calling back to public service; and my
    parents, who have provided me with the foundation that has
    ultimately led me to this moment.
        I would be remiss if I didn't mention my two legislative
    mentors, Raul Labrador and Bob Goodlatte, as well as my
    colleagues at the House Judiciary Committee, Immigration
    Subcommittee, who serve as my immigration compass and a never-
    ending source of friendship and professional camaraderie.
        The United States sits at a critical crossroads on the
    issue of immigration policy. As I have written and testified
    repeatedly over the past 4 years, the Biden-Harris
    Administration waged a war against the immigration system, with
    the results speaking for themselves. The immediate impacts of
    unchecked illegal migration and border incursions since 2021
    had tremendous impacts on the ability of USCIS to carry out its
    core functions. The misplaced priorities and reassignments of
    resources to support unlawful border activity has left the
    agency with backlogs that are unprecedented and beyond anything
    that was ever previously contemplated.
        While the situation is dire, the immediate and decisive
    actions taken by President Trump, Secretary Noem, and others
    within the executive branch have stemmed the tide, and we are
    now enjoying some of the lowest daily, weekly, and monthly
    border numbers in American history. With CBP's success at the
    border and the tremendous work being done by ICE in interior
    enforcement, the time for decisive action within our legal
    immigration system is now.
        If confirmed, my vision for USCIS is simple. I will restore
    integrity within the legal immigration system. While the whole
    Department of Homeland Security is working hard to make America
    safe again, USCIS must play as critical a role in that mission
    as any other immigration enforcement agency. At its core, USCIS
    must be an immigration enforcement agency, an agency that is
    dedicated to ever-evolving and innovative techniques for
    screening and vetting its applicant pool; an agency that must
    be vigorous in its efforts to detect, deter, and disrupt
    immigration fraud, threats to our national security, and to the
    safety of the American public; and to ensure that only those
    aliens deserving of the honor to become citizens of this great
    Nation are able to exercise the sacred right to vote. These
    core missions will make America safe, while also aiding us in
    more rapidly and more confidently adjudicating cases, will lead
    to a significant reduction of the agency's backlog, and will
    put American interests first.
        For the last 4 years, USCIS was referred to as a welcoming
    agency. While we should absolutely be a welcoming agency for
    eligible aliens into this country, make no mistake, my oath
    will always be to the Constitution, as I will act to faithfully
    enforce the laws as Congress has prescribed them, and will
    always put the interests of the American people before all
    else. Under my leadership, we will not only safeguard our
    Nation's immigration system, but also serve our integral role
    as an agency committed to protecting the homeland and
    safeguarding our Nation. I look forward to working with the
    very dedicated workforce at USCIS to accomplish these goals.
        I thank this esteemed Committee again for its attention to
    this confirmation process, and I welcome your questions. Thank
    you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Edlow.
        Now, Mr. Gaiser.

                    STATEMENT OF T. ELLIOT GAISER,
          NOMINEE TO SERVE AS U.S. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

        Mr. Gaiser. Thank you very much, Chairman Grassley, Ranking
    Member Durbin, Members of the Committee. Thank you also for the
    kind introduction, Senator Moreno.
        Before I go any further, I would like to recognize a few
    people who are here with me and those who couldn't be here.
    First and foremost, my beautiful wife, Alexandra, who is the
    most intelligent woman in any room; my 3-year-old son, Elijah,
    and 11-month-old daughter, Allegra. I think you have all met
    her. My father-in-law and mother-in-law, Alan and Stephanie
    Harrison, who are celebrating their 37th wedding anniversary
    today. Thank you so much for being here.
        And my mom and dad, Linda and Brian Gaiser, I wouldn't be
    here without you. You raised me and my siblings, Jeff and Ari,
    who are also watching from home, to love this great country and
    thank God for our freedoms. Who could have imagined raising us
    in that little brick house on West 138th Street in Cleveland,
    that someday your son would have the honor to testify before
    this esteemed Committee.
        I would not be the lawyer I am today without the incredible
    jurists I have the honor of serving as a law clerk, Judge Edith
    Jones, Judge Neomi Rao, and Justice Samuel Alito. Your kindness
    and concern for the ordinary American is matched only by your
    brilliance and strength of character, and I hope to live up to
    your examples.
        Thank you also to Attorney General Dave Yost of Ohio, who
    has entrusted me the role of his Solicitor General to represent
    Ohio before the Supreme Court and beyond, and to assist with
    his statutorily authorized power to issue formal advisory
    opinions on Ohio law.
        And though I believe they are now in a better place, I wish
    to remember Ted Olson, who did his best to impart some of his
    kindness and wisdom to me when I was a young lawyer, and
    Ambassador Boyden Gray, whose mentorship to me when I was just
    one of four lawyers at the law firm he founded will leave, I
    hope, a generational legacy.
        Most important, I am grateful to President Trump for
    nominating me. It would be the honor of a lifetime to execute
    the duties of assistant attorney general for the Office of
    Legal Counsel.
        The functions of OLC date to the Judiciary Act of 1789, and
    it has served to uphold the rule of law and the separation of
    powers into the modern era by issuing opinions and answering
    legal questions according to the best reading of the law. In
    that sense, OLC reinforces a critical piece of American
    exceptionalism. One past head of OLC, Justice Antonin Scalia,
    often remarked that many despotic nations had eloquent bills of
    rights, but those parchment lists were worth less than the
    paper they were printed on.
        Why? Those nations did not enjoy the structure of the
    American Government, the separation of powers and federalism,
    without which flowery lists of individual rights meant so
    little. Thomas Hobbes described the Government as a leviathan.
    That is a Hebrew etymological word which means ``that which
    gathers itself up in folds,'' and indeed for most of human
    history, government matched that description.
        But in 1776, with a reliance on the protection of God's
    providence, our forebearers revolted against the encroaching
    folds of empire. The Constitution they established runs with
    the warp and woof of human nature, where ambition counteracts
    ambition, where the atom of sovereignty is split between the
    States and the Federal Government, and where representative
    democracy ensures public service is always a public trust.
        The separation of powers in federalism ensures American
    Government is more than smothering folds, but rather responsive
    to the whole people, including the forgotten men and women who
    desire only safety in their communities, security on our
    borders, growing not tightening family budgets, and laws not
    weaponized against political enemies, but even-handedly applied
    to all.
        I am proud to have fought in court to defend these
    principles, first as a litigator in private practice, and now
    as the Solicitor General of my home State. And should I be
    confirmed, I will devote every day to providing my best advice
    and counsel on the best reading of the law at the Department of
    Justice. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Gaiser.
        Now, Mr. Squires.

       STATEMENT OF JOHN SQUIRES, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS U.S. UNDER
    SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF
                  THE U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

        Mr. Squires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, and
    Members of the Committee. I would like to thank the Chairman
    for the opportunity to introduce my family before my opening
    statement. I would like to introduce my lovely wife, my
    beautiful wife, Mary Lou, of 33 years, my lovely daughter,
    Elizabeth, my handsome son, Will, both of whom are proud alums
    of Camp Invention, and my friends and colleagues who have
    supported me over the years, including Professor John Duffy,
    who is with us today.
        It is my honor to be here today, and I am, of course,
    grateful to President Trump, to whom I was introduced to by an
    inventor, and Commerce Secretary Lutnick, the department's very
    own ``New Age Edison,'' with over 400 patents. I appreciate
    their trust and confidence in nominating me for the
    Undersecretary of Commerce and Director of the United States
    Patent and Trademark Office.
        My intellectual property awakening began, as Senator Tillis
    mentioned, not with my chemistry degree, but rather with IBM
    and marketing. Back then, it was IBM versus Japan, Inc., and
    IBM won because of patents. With my new patent and law license
    in 1993, the robust frontier of IP opened up.
        As to patents, I started out in the traditional realms of
    chem and bio pharma, materials and manufacturing. Then it was
    on to the internet, building fintech and regtech disruptors.
    Most recently, it has been the leading edge of AI, crypto, and
    quantum computing.
        With the onrush of technology, it is always on to the new
    and the next. As to trademarks, from scholarship on free speech
    to NFTs to standing athwart the name, image, and likeness
    earthquake, it has been equally remarkable.
        Since 2000, in bringing my practice to Wall Street, I have
    sought to better our system. And as a survivor of 9/11, in me
    you will find no fiercer defender of national security, tougher
    enforcer of good faith and fair dealing, or eager proponent of
    free market solutions.
        In the wake of 9/11, Secretary Lutnick, as you know,
    courageously rebuilt his company with patents. For me, patents
    became the tip of our private sector's spear in America's soft
    power war against terrorist financing, with our partners in the
    CIA, FBI, and Treasury. We humbly received an FBI Director's
    Award almost a decade later.
        Armed with our inventions to combat terrorism, we barged
    into the patent eligibility debate and were ultimately
    successful as Supreme Court amici. I have humbly chaired
    industry subcommittees, taught at UPenn, testified to the FTC,
    and co-authored a Federal trial judge bench book on complex
    patent damages.
        But most notably, it is truly a special honor for me to be
    here today for a second time, proudly now as a nominee, having
    testified almost 20 years earlier to then-Chairman Leahy.
        Finally, for the last 8 years, I have helped startups use
    their IP to attract investment, commercialize their products,
    and create jobs. I couldn't be more excited to join the
    Commerce Department, as I believe the breadth of my experience
    will help lead our remarkable unitary systems efficiently into
    the future.
        To succeed, though, we will need to have a commercially
    compelling answer to the question, why come here? To answer
    that, we must ask what we want from innovation. We want it to
    be better, cheaper, faster, more sustainable, to get us to
    market more quickly with quality and confidence.
        At present, unfortunately, our system is going in the other
    direction. But with born-strong patents and robust quality
    marks, we can reclaim America's primacy, revitalize industry
    and growth, proudly export our culture, boost national
    security, and improve our lives. We well know the issues,
    namely pendency, patent quality, and uncertainty.
        And while the solutions are at hand, there is a danger too.
    AI tools are being amassed that could easily overwhelm the
    system. However, if harnessed, these tools can deliver our
    finest hour. By leaning into AI, the burgeoning asymmetry can
    disappear. We can equip our world-class examining corps to
    grant patents tested by those same fires, expeditiously issued,
    and of provable quality. And we will use these very same tools
    to learn from, reduce, and remedy mistakes that manifest later.
        I believe I am uniquely prepared for this role. It is said
    that every patent begins its life as a trade secret. We want
    inventors from every conceivable walk to bring their inventive
    raw materials to our American patent factory where we will help
    them hone and hew new, strong proprietary rights that are the
    building blocks of dreams, where they are rewarded and society
    advances just as the Constitution intended.
        As you can tell, I am very bullish on the chapter ahead and
    for a very bipartisan reason. Patents aren't red. Patents
    aren't blue. Upon Government grant, they are red, white, and
    blue. They are the best of us, extol our wares, and foretell a
    future of American ingenuity unleashed for all the world to
    see. Brilliant computer scientist Alan Kay once said, ``if you
    want to change the future, invent it.''
        We need to get to work. Today, I humbly ask for every
    member's consideration and support for my nomination. Thank
    you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Squires.
        Mr. Woodward, I want to apologize to you. When I got done
    introducing you, I wasn't done. I only said half of it, so I
    realize now I will put the other half in the record so you get
    fully introduced to the Committee. Please forgive me.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Grassley appears as a
    submission for the record.]

     STATEMENT OF STANLEY WOODWARD, JR., NOMINEE TO SERVE AS U.S.
                       ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL

        Mr. Woodward. Mr. Chairman, no apology necessary. Thank you
    for that very kind introduction.
        Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, I appreciate this
    opportunity to address the Committee. Thank you to the
    Committee Members and staff who took the time to meet with me
    and to discuss the thoughts and concerns about the challenges
    facing our Nation. If confirmed, I look forward to working
    together with you, the leadership of the Department of Justice,
    and the leadership of the Trump Administration, to address
    these challenges.
        To quote another, I stand before you on the shoulders of
    giants. I would not be here but for so many who have taken the
    time to serve as mentors throughout my personal and
    professional development. To my family, mere thanks is wholly
    insufficient. You have endured a great deal on this journey and
    never asked for any of it.
        Senators, sometimes actions speak louder than words, and
    today I am privileged to be joined by nearly every senior
    attorney at the Department of Justice to be appointed by the
    attorney general. It has been an honor to work by your side in
    the trenches these last few weeks.
        Senators, I have long believed that, as attorneys, we have
    a duty of service to our community. To so many, the law is
    beyond understanding, and so with the ability to learn the law
    comes the responsibility to use that gift for a greater good.
    Nowhere is this belief more poignant than at the Department of
    Justice. If confirmed, I pledge to seek justice for all.
        I submit that my professional journey serves as evidence of
    my commitment to this pledge. Beginning in law school, I felt
    this calling. Classmates and I traveled to Biloxi, Mississippi,
    to volunteer in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. This trip
    profoundly changed my view of the role of the law. Door to
    door, we went meeting with families living in trailers,
    advising them of the Federal assistance available to help them
    rebuild. My colleagues would visit 10 or 12 homes a day. I
    often managed only to visit one or two. As I sat on makeshift
    porches, sipping iced tea, looking at pictures of what was
    lost, I came to realize that, if given the opportunity, I would
    do good with my ability to learn the law for these people did
    not understand, did not know, that they could apply for Federal
    assistance. They did not know.
        It was in part this desire to serve my community that
    motivated me to found and lead the housing law practice at the
    firm where I practiced. There, I led teams of attorneys in
    defending tenants with housing code violations facing eviction.
    That experience was equally enlightening because they did not
    know that they could not be evicted where there were housing
    code evictions. This simple concept was foreign to them because
    the law was foreign to them.
        I say in part because I also pursued that work to find
    opportunities to appear in court. Senators, I went to law
    school to be in court. And so when I founded my own law firm at
    the height of the pandemic, it was natural for me to seek out
    additional opportunities to appear in court. I applied and was
    appointed to the Federal Criminal Justice Act panel here in the
    District of Columbia where I would be appointed by the court to
    represent criminal defendants.
        At that time, the Department of Justice was in the midst of
    its largest ever investigation, prosecuting thousands for their
    involvement in the events of January 6. I was surprised to see
    that so many were unwilling to represent these defendants. I
    was reminded of John Adams' famous observation in his defense
    of British soldiers. ``Facts are stubborn things.''
        I would also be remiss were I not to observe that while the
    media may have been focused on the weaponization evidenced in
    the case I am perhaps now best known for, the defense of Walt
    Nauta in the so-called Florida documents prosecution, the
    tactics that were employed there were present in many of the
    cases I had with lesser national import. Across my practice, I
    saw firsthand how the power of government can be abused.
    Senators, there is no place for weaponization in our
    Government.
        Although I know the journey may be fraught, I am inspired
    by those who have led us to this point. To President Trump,
    thank you for your nomination to this post. Your trust in me
    will not be taken for granted. As I sat at counsel's table with
    you, the former President, a defendant in a courtroom, I
    watched as you persevered when many would have faltered.
        Our journey here today calls to mind President Teddy
    Roosevelt's now famous colloquy. ``It is not the critic who
    counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles
    or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The
    credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose
    face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives
    valiantly, who errs, who comes short again and again because
    there is no effort without error and shortcoming, but who does
    actually strive to do the deeds, who knows the great
    enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a
    worthy cause, and who at best knows in the end the triumph of
    high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least
    fails while daring greatly.''
        Senators, if confirmed, I pledge to dare greatly. I look
    forward to your questions.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Woodward.
        We have 5-minute rounds. I will start with Mr. Edlow.
        H-1B abuse has been a priority and significant concern of
    this Committee. Senator Durbin and I have bipartisan bills that
    would crack down on H-1B abuse that we are working on to
    reintroduce very soon. Recently, many Americans took to social
    media to express their outrage over H-1B abuse. They even
    shared personal stories about being laid off by Big Tech, even
    as their employers continued to hire H-1B workers. So how would
    you fight fraud and abuse in the H-1B program when you become
    director?
        Mr. Edlow. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question.
        In terms of fraud and abuse in the H-1B program, it is
    absolutely pervasive, and it is something that in the first
    Administration we attempted to handle via regulation.
    Unfortunately, that regulation was vacated. If confirmed, I
    look forward to moving forward with additional regulations and
    sub-regulatory actions.
        But also, I do have to commend you and Ranking Member
    Durbin for introducing legislation to bring attention to this
    critical issue, and I want to be a partner, if confirmed, with
    both of you to fight this however we can.
        And it is more than just the H-1B system. Frankly, we need
    to be focused on the fraud, waste, and abuse that we have found
    in every nonimmigrant and immigrant program that needs to be
    addressed at this point.
        Chairman Grassley. We have to take care of that fraud in
    order to get some increase in numbers that people desire.
        Mr. Squires, I am troubled about the growing industry
    whereby financial institutions engage in third-party litigation
    funding, including IP litigation funding. While you were in
    private practice, you helped create Fortress Investment Group
    IP funding arm. I understand that Fortress Investment Group
    commits billions of dollars each year to fund IP litigation.
    Please explain the role you played in the creation of Fortress
    and your professional and financial involvement with that group
    since its creation. And have you supported or represented other
    IP litigation funders?
        Mr. Squires. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.
        In reverse order, I have not represented Fortress since
    about 2016, 2017 or so and have never represented litigation
    funders in any capacity. I have no arrangements with them
    financial or otherwise since my legal representation of them.
        This is certainly a question in litigation financing. It is
    a bit of a misnomer insofar as issues of which there has been
    much ado about with my work. My work for Fortress at the time
    was before they were acquired. It was a group that came to me
    around 2012 regarding legal papers and theories I had developed
    about patents as derivatives and patents as assets per se to be
    valued on their own fundamentals in economics. In fact, I have
    been rather tough on trolls in some of my writings. Because
    troll practices are exploitive of inventors, they generally are
    not based upon the fundamentals and are arbitrage play, whereas
    our patent theories with them as assets per se allow companies
    to monetize their patents.
        So they came to me with an issue, wanting to solve a
    problem of how a company could monetize its patents without
    selling them, without suing, and without licensing them. We
    developed effectively a patent mortgage where the company could
    borrow against its patents as collateral and use the proceeds
    to fund working capital. Those were several companies who were
    their clients initially that staved off bankruptcy as a result
    of this.
        And I was pleased to see in 2021 one of the deans of the
    patent bar, Marshall Phelps, wrote an article where companies
    used this construct to survive COVID.
        Chairman Grassley. Mr. Gaiser, I have got 35 seconds left.
    District court judges have been issuing an unprecedented number
    of universal injunctions to try to block President Trump's
    immigration policies. I think you spoke to the separation of
    powers, but let me ask you anyway, in our constitutional
    system, who has the primary authority for protecting the
    borders and setting immigration policy? And what is the proper
    role of district courts in resolving immigration disputes?
        Mr. Gaiser. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Congress makes the laws, and the President executes those
    laws to secure our border. District courts have authority under
    Article III to adjudicate cases and controversies.
        Chairman Grassley. Okay. Senator Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I believe, and many of us do, that we are on the cusp of a
    constitutional crisis, an historic moment. The Justice
    Department is currently defending the Trump Administration in a
    number of lawsuits challenging executive actions taken by the
    President and officials of his Administration.
        Federal judges, both Republicans and Democrat appointees,
    have enjoined some of these actions, holding that they are
    illegal or unconstitutional. Alarmingly, President Trump and
    his allies, even some nominees before this Committee, have
    responded by questioning whether the executive branch must
    follow court orders. If confirmed, you will hold key positions
    in the executive branch, and you will take an oath to uphold
    and defend the Constitution.
        So my question I ask of each of you is this. If, after
    exhausting all rights of appeal, do you believe a litigant,
    including officials in the executive branch, can lawfully defy
    a court order? Mr. Woodward.
        Mr. Woodward. Thank you. Thank you for the question. I do
    take issue with the premise of the question insofar as district
    court judges are not holding that President Trump's orders are
    illegal or unconstitutional. The only ask of district court
    judges at that time is whether there is a likelihood of success
    on the merits.
        Senator Durbin. If you would stick to my hypothetical, it
    is an approach that is very clear. I don't want to argue a
    different issue. I would like to argue this issue.
        Mr. Woodward. To your question, Senator, the President has
    made clear that he will follow any order of the Supreme Court.
        Senator Durbin. Do you believe that officials in the
    executive branch can lawfully defy a court order, yes or no?
        Mr. Woodward. Senator, the President has been very clear
    that he will follow any order of the Supreme Court.
        Senator Durbin. No response. Mr. Squires?
        Mr. Squires. Thank you, Senator. In my world, which is
    generally governed by Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, the
    Patent Office is an ex parte body. And generally, there are
    appeals from executive actions taken by the Director, and there
    is a lone court of appeals, unlike the circuit system for the
    Federal circuit, and then up to the Supreme Court. So patent
    issues tend to be adjudicated for issues that are in dispute up
    to the Supreme Court, and obviously, the Supreme Court
    precedent governs, and that would be followed.
        Senator Durbin. So you believe a litigant, including
    officials in the executive branch, must follow a court order,
    cannot lawfully defy a court order?
        Mr. Squires. Thank you, Senator. I believe that the Supreme
    Court orders will be followed by the executive branch, yes.
        Senator Durbin. Mr. Gaiser?
        Mr. Gaiser. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Durbin. The
    President has been very clear he will follow all court orders
    of the Supreme Court.
        Senator Durbin. Do you believe that any executive official
    can lawfully defy a court order?
        Mr. Gaiser. No.
        Senator Durbin. Mr. Edlow?
        Mr. Edlow. Thank you, Senator. If confirmed, I will always
    follow advice of counsel when addressing these matters and how
    to handle such cases as you have raised them.
        Senator Durbin. So can an executive official lawfully defy
    a court order?
        Mr. Edlow. I would defer to counsel as that I am not here
    in an attorney's role right now. I am here as a Director or as
    the nominee for Director.
        Senator Durbin. I don't believe you need a law degree to
    answer this question. Can an executive official lawfully defy a
    court order?
        Mr. Edlow. Again, given the speculative nature of the
    question, my answer remains the same. I will always follow the
    advice of counsel.
        Senator Durbin. No response. This is what troubles me
    greatly. If we cannot agree on this as the basic premise of our
    rule of law, where in the world are we headed as a Nation? It
    should be a clear answer, lawfully defy a court order, no.
    Senator Kennedy said as much when he came back to this
    Committee after a hearing in which I asked a question, and the
    present Solicitor General equivocated on the answer. There
    should be no equivocation by Democrat or Republican, in or out
    of power, and yet you hear what I run into, the evasion that I
    face.
        Mr. Squires, have you ever engaged in dishonest and
    dangerous activity at a law firm?
        Mr. Squires. No, Senator.
        Senator Durbin. Do you know what has happened to your
    former firm, Perkins Coie?
        Mr. Squires. Yes, Senator, I have seen the Executive order.
        Senator Durbin. Did you read the President's, or at least
    the Administration's, position on your former law firm? The
    Executive order claimed that the firm's ``dishonest and
    dangerous activity has affected this country for decades.'' The
    order further alleged that the firm is ``undermining democratic
    elections, the integrity of our courts, and honest law
    enforcement.'' Did you see any evidence of that activity when
    you were a member of this firm?
        Mr. Squires. Thank you for the question, Senator. My role
    at Perkins Coie was to establish the first New York Patent
    Office presence. I dealt only with patent issues and
    intellectual property issues, and I had really no line of sight
    into any of the practice areas.
        Senator Durbin. So you saw no evidence? I want to complete
    the question. Did you see any evidence of this wrongdoing that
    the President alleges in his Executive order?
        Mr. Squires. Sir, in my areas of responsibility, I saw no
    wrongdoing with respects to intellectual property.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Tillis.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Squires, thank you for being here. Actually, I wanted
    to go back. I think you answered the question from Senator
    Durbin exactly right within the lane that you would be
    operating for the USPTO. Would you just describe that again
    about how most cases move through the courts and up to the
    Supreme Court?
        Mr. Squires. Thank you for the question, Senator, and thank
    you also for the opportunity to meet and the kind introduction.
        Yes, the patent system is a little bit unique insofar as
    other agencies. It is an ex parte. It is not adversarial. So
    there are appeals that move--taken from an executive branch
    decision that move up through the court system in a very
    prescribed fashion, and that is the Federal Circuit Court of
    Appeals and up to the Supreme Court.
        Senator Tillis. Yes, my point is I felt like your answer
    was characterized as a non-answer. It was a concise answer in
    the context of the role that you are being considered for.
        Patent eligibility, PERA or PREVAIL, what do you think
    about them?
        Mr. Squires. Thank you for the question. I am very
    gratified to see work being done in this area. Some of the
    issues across those bills are costing American competitiveness,
    particularly on the area of patent eligibility.
        I would note, especially from the IP Subcommittee hearing
    last Wednesday, the Chinese national patent system has a more
    expansive subject matter area than the United States does, and
    that is troubling to me. It should be troubling to all
    Americans.
        Senator Tillis. Should it be troubling to all Americans
    that you can file for a patent in China anonymously?
        Mr. Squires. I viewed that session, sir, and I was shocked
    by that, and also equally shocked by the--written into the
    laws, the requirement that the disclosure be made to the
    Chinese embassies. This is before a----
        Senator Tillis. What risk do we have if we don't move
    forward with some of these bills that are improved certainty
    that the intellectual property just flows elsewhere and we lose
    the advantage that we have today and that gap is closing with
    China?
        Mr. Squires. Thank you. I think that is a big risk. As I
    mentioned in my opening remarks, we want people to come to the
    American patent factory first and have a compelling reason to
    come here, so we are in danger of losing competitiveness,
    especially in subject matter areas that other countries have no
    problem with. I believe there are tools in our system to avoid
    these issues, and I believe the bills also take care of those
    issues, so thank you for those efforts.
        Senator Tillis. Well, thank you.
        Mr. Woodward, just a real quick question for you. I intend
    to support your confirmation, but I did have a question. I know
    you defended some of the January 6 defendants. After your
    defense, did you actively advocate, go on stage, have
    interviews? Beyond your role as a defense attorney, in the
    space that they were being prosecuted, have you had any public
    statements or any presence that would go beyond just doing the
    defense work but being an advocate for them after the fact?
        Mr. Woodward. Senator, thank you for the question. No, sir.
    I make my arguments in court.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you. That is the right answer.
        Mr. Gaiser, I believe in this concept of political physics.
    For every partisan action, there is an equal and opposite
    reaction. Under previous Administrations, the OLC at times
    shifted from issuing authoritative determinations on legality
    of executive branch actions to instead essentially advocating
    for the legality of these actions. Neither the Administration
    nor the OLC were well served by this shift. In other words, can
    I count on you to returning to the intended purpose and mission
    of the OLC?
        Mr. Gaiser. Thank you so much, Senator Tillis. Yes, sir,
    you can. The----
        Senator Tillis. I expected that based on your concise
    answer to Senator Durbin's question.
        Look, we have got to be the adults in the room and stop
    having this back-and-forth or we are no better than the people
    we are criticizing when they do the same thing.
        Let me see. Mr. Woodward, I think I am good with that
    answer. I look forward to supporting you all's nomination.
        Mr. Squires, I am especially looking forward to getting
    with you and having your commitment to come and work--not in
    hearings. I hate hearings. They have to be done--but
    participating in workgroups and letting us continue to do the
    good work of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee.
        And I also want to publicly thank the Members of the
    Intellectual Property Subcommittee because we have great
    attendance there, which is one of the reasons why we get so
    much good work done.
        I want you to be a partner that goes out of the formal
    setting and into the get-the-work-done setting. I got your
    commitment on that?
        Mr. Squires. Thank you, Senator. Yes, you have my
    commitment to do my level best. And if I am done the honor of
    being confirmed, as I said in my opening statement, we need to
    get to work.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you. I look forward to supporting all
    your confirmations.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thanks very much, Chairman.
        Let me followup on Senator Tillis' questions, Mr. Gaiser.
    On this Committee, I lived through the OLC torture opinions,
    which were so bad that the Administration that wrote them had
    to withdraw them; the warrantless wiretapping opinions, which
    were so bad that they created a mutiny within the Department of
    Justice; and with the walk-back of OLC from enforcing the so-
    called Reagan memo, which posits that the department and OLC in
    particular will be a somewhat neutral arbiter in conflicts
    between the Executive and the legislative branch over
    oversight. In all of those matters, the OLC became, as Senator
    Tillis said, the active partisan for the Administration and not
    a neutral decider.
        If I look at your record, first, how long have you been a
    lawyer?
        Mr. Gaiser. Thank you very much, Senator Whitehouse. I have
    been a lawyer for 10 years.
        Senator Whitehouse. And how many of those were you a law
    clerk?
        Mr. Gaiser. I was a law clerk for three different jurists,
    about a total of 28 months.
        Senator Whitehouse. And how many of those years were spent
    in private practice?
        Mr. Gaiser. I was in private practice, Senator, for about 4
    years.
        Senator Whitehouse. At the associate level?
        Mr. Gaiser. I was an associate, yes, sir.
        Senator Whitehouse. How long have you served as Ohio
    Solicitor General?
        Mr. Gaiser. I have served since November 2023 and currently
    serve as Ohio Solicitor General.
        Senator Whitehouse. Have you ever tried a case to a final
    judgment?
        Mr. Gaiser. Thank you very much for that question, Senator.
    I have worked on trial litigation teams. I have not myself been
    personally the counsel of record in a trial case. I am
    primarily an appellate lawyer and an advisor and counselor.
        Senator Whitehouse. Have you ever personally appeared in
    trial court?
        Mr. Gaiser. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Whitehouse. Now, some time ago, you had pretty
    strong views about President Trump. You said that ``His
    political positions are a lot like his hair, pasted on for
    effect and flopping whichever way the wind blows'' that ``He
    has an astonishing weakness for flattery, falling for Vladimir
    Putin after a few coquettish bats of the eyelashes from the
    Russian thug,'' and that ``He is a short-fingered, vulgarian
    candidate.'' Since then, have you had a role in Donald Trump's
    litigation that tried to overturn the results of the 2020
    election?
        Mr. Gaiser. Well, thank you for that question, Senator.
    Like millions of Americans, I have seen the courage and the
    results that President Trump has delivered. I watched in that
    field in Pennsylvania as he stood after the assassin's bullet.
    And I hope my children look up to and live up to that kind of
    courage in their life.
        Senator Whitehouse. So, while in private practice, did you
    have a role in Donald Trump's litigation that tried to overturn
    the results of the 2020 election?
        Mr. Gaiser. Well, thank you for that question, Senator. I
    was retained by Donald J. Trump for President Incorporated in
    the 2020 campaign to provide legal advice, which I did.
        Senator Whitehouse. The former White House Press Secretary
    testified that you were one of her go-to people to advance the
    argument that Vice President Pence could overturn the 2020
    election. Is that true?
        Mr. Gaiser. Well, Senator, as you know, ethical obligations
    of confidentiality attach to any client matter. And as a former
    attorney for a former client, I am not going to divulge the
    confidential communications that I made to that client.
        Senator Whitehouse. You know, just if I look at this, you
    don't seem to have the legal experience that most OLC chiefs
    have. You seem to have done a very abrupt pivot politically
    into the Trump camp and into election denialism. On what basis
    should I have any confidence that you will exert any
    independence or judgment within OLC if the Trump Administration
    comes knocking on your door for an opinion and won't go down
    the road of, we will give you your free torture opinion, we
    will give you your free warrantless wiretap opinion, and we
    won't bother to enforce the Reagan memo any longer? What will
    keep you from going down those bad roads that we have seen OLC
    go down?
        Mr. Gaiser. Well, thank you, Senator Whitehouse. The first
    role of any lawyer is to be able to state the law as it is. And
    the Office of Legal Counsel serves an important role in our
    Administration by providing a neutral opinion objectively of
    what the law is.
        Senator Whitehouse. You would do that?
        Mr. Gaiser. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Whitehouse. Okay, Mr. Woodward, last question. I
    will re-ask Ranking Member Durbin's question a slightly
    different way. Under what circumstances would you recommend
    that the Trump Administration defy a lower court order?
        Mr. Woodward. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired. May
    I answer the question?
        Chairman Grassley. Please, you should answer, yes.
        Mr. Woodward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Whitehouse, I can't imagine a circumstance in which
    I would be called upon to advise the defiance of a court order.
    I have had the great privilege of working with President Trump
    now for many years, and I just don't ever imagine a
    circumstance in which I would be called upon to give advice of
    that nature.
        Senator Whitehouse. Even for lower courts?
        Mr. Woodward. Well, Senator, at the risk of giving a legal
    answer, it depends.
        Senator Whitehouse. On what?
        Mr. Woodward. On the nature and circumstances of the case
    before us.
        Senator Whitehouse. So there are certain circumstances that
    would cause you to recommend to the Administration that it defy
    a lower court order?
        Mr. Woodward. Well, Senator, for example, in some
    circumstances, in order for a court order to be challenged, an
    official must be held in contempt. And so, yes, it is possible
    that we could get there. However, I would be remiss were we to
    go down the path of talking about hypotheticals because, as I
    say, I can never imagine a situation in which I would be asked
    to give that advice.
        Senator Whitehouse. Chairman, thank you for your generosity
    with my time. I appreciate it. Thank you all.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Kennedy.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Gentlemen, I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, but
    I also don't want to debate how many lawyers can dance on the
    head of a pin. I think you understand where a lot of these
    questions are coming from.
        Mr. Gaiser, would you ever advise a client to ignore a
    Federal district court opinion?
        Mr. Gaiser. Thank you very much, Senator Kennedy. I would
    advise----
        Senator Kennedy. You can thank me by answering it.
        Mr. Gaiser [continuing]. I would advise a client on how
    best to comply with all lawful court orders.
        Senator Kennedy. Is that a yes or a no?
        Mr. Gaiser. Yes, sir.
        Senator Kennedy. You would advise a client not to follow a
    Federal district court opinion?
        Mr. Gaiser. I would advise a client to follow court orders.
        Senator Kennedy. Would you ever advise a client not to
    follow a Federal court of appeals decision?
        Mr. Gaiser. I had the privilege of clerking on two Federal
    courts of appeals.
        Senator Kennedy. Is that a yes or a no?
        Mr. Gaiser. Yes. I would advise them to follow the orders
    of courts of appeals.
        Senator Kennedy. How about a Supreme Court opinion?
        Mr. Gaiser. Yes, Senator, I would advise them to follow the
    Supreme Court's orders, as President Trump has been very clear
    that those orders are to be followed.
        Senator Kennedy. Mr. Woodward, let me ask you the same
    question. Would you ever advise a client not to follow a
    district court opinion?
        Mr. Woodward. No, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Would you ever advise a client not to
    abide by an opinion of the Federal court of appeals?
        Mr. Woodward. No, Senator. Again, it is difficult to answer
    in the hypothetical, but----
        Senator Kennedy. Would you ever advise a client not to
    follow an opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court?
        Mr. Woodward. No, Senator. As the President has been clear,
    he will follow all orders of the U.S. Supreme Court.
        Senator Kennedy. Tell me what I would need to do under the
    APA, the Administrative Procedures Act, if I want to change a
    current rule.
        Mr. Woodward. Well, Senator, as a Senator, you would pass a
    law that would change the----
        Senator Kennedy. No, no, no, no. I don't want to play games
    here, Counsel. What would one have to do? What would the head
    of an agency have to do to overturn a current rule and
    regulation?
        Mr. Woodward. Well, Senator, I apologize. I know that there
    are many ways to do that, and I don't want to play games
    either. I want to----
        Senator Kennedy. No, okay.
        Mr. Woodward [continuing]. Answer the question.
        Senator Kennedy. That is fair.
        Mr. Woodward. There are many ways in which an agency can
    overturn a rule.
        Senator Kennedy. Well, you have to give notice, right?
        Mr. Woodward. As a general matter, yes, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. And you have to invite input, right?
        Mr. Woodward. As a general matter, yes, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. And sometimes you have to hold a
    hearing, right?
        Mr. Woodward. Sometimes you do, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Yes. Are there any exceptions to that
    under the Administrative Procedures Act?
        Mr. Woodward. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, I am
    not aware of any exceptions, but there are exceptions under the
    law.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Are you familiar with the good-cause
    exception to the Administrative Procedures Act?
        Mr. Woodward. Senator, I am vaguely familiar with that
    exception.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Do you know what it says?
        Mr. Woodward. No, Senator, I do not.
        Senator Kennedy. I understand. Here is what I am driving
    at. Are you familiar with the Supreme Court's case called Loper
    Bright?
        Mr. Woodward. Senator, I am vaguely familiar with the
    Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright.
        Senator Kennedy. The overturned Chevron doctrine, right?
        Mr. Woodward. The Chevron deference doctrine, yes, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. If there is a rule promulgated by a
    prior Administration or even by a current Administration that
    is in clear violation of the U.S. Supreme Court's pronouncement
    under Loper Bright ruling unconstitutional the Chevron
    doctrine, would it be possible--strike that--would it be
    prudent for the Justice Department to exercise authority under
    the good-cause exception to the APA in the public interest and
    forgo the notice and comment?
        Mr. Woodward. Senator, thank you. I think I now understand
    your question. I was alluding to the non-APA process. I mean,
    if a rule has been promulgated that is plainly
    unconstitutional, it absolutely would be appropriate for the
    Department of Justice to look at that rule and make a
    determination.
        Senator Kennedy. My point is you don't have to ignore the
    APA to do that, do you?
        Mr. Woodward. I would say it depends, but I take your
    point.
        Senator Kennedy. I mean the APA provides an exception.
        Mr. Woodward. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. It is Section 553. It is right there, as
    big as Dallas. Am I done?
        Chairman Grassley. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. I thought that was maybe a mouse or
    something.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Coons.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member
    Durbin. Congratulations to your families and to you for your
    nominations. Thank you for your service.
        Mr. Squires, I will turn to you first, and I have a series
    of fairly quick questions about patent policy. I am encouraged
    that you are willing to serve at this pivotal moment in global
    IP policy and appreciate your taking the time to meet with me.
        Earlier this month, Senators Tillis, Durbin, Hirono, and I
    reintroduced the PREVAIL Act. It includes common-sense reforms
    to the Patent, Trial, and Appeal Board and will help make it
    more the fair and efficient forum I believe Congress intended
    in the America Invents Act. Do you think the PTAB needs to be
    reformed? If so, in what ways? And do you think PREVAIL could
    contribute to those reforms?
        Mr. Squires. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for your
    question, and thank you also for the opportunity to meet in
    your office.
        I do think there is a need of reform. I think we have
    almost 15 years of data since the America Invents Act to see
    the distribution, if you will, between post-grant review and
    IPRs, and the data seems to be skewed in favor of one versus
    the other, so reform may help flatten out that curve.
        Senator Coons. There is a significant pendency problem,
    about 800,000 unexamined patent applications. Dealing with that
    will require streamlining and improving the workforce. The PTO
    reducing this backlog will require resources. One of the
    provisions of the PREVAIL Act would permanently end the
    practice of fee diversion. The PTO is entirely fee-funded by
    the substantial fees paid by those who seek patents. Would you
    oppose fee diversion at the PTO?
        Mr. Squires. Thank you, Senator. We have a Commerce
    Secretary also who is very savvy with patents and has lived the
    patent life in the private sector. Fee diversion, I had
    testified years ago, almost 18 years ago, should end. The
    Patent Office should be able to keep its fees and run its
    system like a business. I think the fee diversion ending would
    be a positive thing for the Patent Office.
        Senator Coons. In eBay, the Supreme Court dramatically cut
    back on the availability of injunctive relief after finding a
    patent infringement. My RESTORE Act with Senator Cotton would
    return patent law to what was literally centuries of tradition
    by restoring a rebuttable presumption that a patent owner can
    get an injunction. What is injunctive relief? What does it mean
    to small inventors, and why is it significant?
        Mr. Squires. Thank you for the question, Senator.
    Injunctive relief is basically a cease-and-desist order for
    operations, sales, manufacturing, any commercialization of a
    product. It is important to individual inventors because they
    are coming to the office with their issued patents to get an
    exclusive right. A right to exclude is a property right, and
    property right enforcement usually involves kicking out the
    trespassers. So that is why the individual vetters look to that
    provision.
        It also gives them the exclusive right, as conferred by the
    monopoly granted by the Government, to practice--not the right
    to do anything themselves but to exclude others. That is what
    the patent grant means.
        Senator Coons. In the Section 101 area, the jurisprudence
    about what is patentable, I think, in fact, the Federal circuit
    thinks that the Supreme Court's jurisprudence has ended up
    getting into a box canyon that is hard to get out of. What has
    the impact been of critical decisions like Myriad and Alice on
    cutting-edge technologies like AI and blockchain?
        Mr. Squires. It's created uncertainty throughout the entire
    process. When a patent is granted, even if they are overcome in
    the office those particular eligibility objections, they are
    litigated and not respected rights once they are in the
    marketplace, and they are often, you know, vehicles for
    litigation outside of the merits of infringement, whether the
    claims read on an accused product.
        Senator Coons. And has this hurt our competitiveness
    globally in terms of where cutting-edge technology patents are
    being filed and advanced?
        Mr. Squires. Thank you, Senator. I believe it has. As I
    mentioned in my response to Senator Tillis, we have seen other
    nations have success with more expansive subject matter. We
    shouldn't be so constrained.
        Senator Coons. Thank you. Thank you for your answers across
    a range of patent issues.
        Mr. Edlow, if I might, between 2020 and 2021, over 80,000
    employment-based green cards for legal employment here in the
    United States went to waste because the then-USCIS leadership
    didn't adjudicate them, resolve them on time, and that sparked
    bipartisan concern. Do you agree that wasting green cards that
    have been authorized by Congress is unfortunate, and these
    opportunities for legal employment shouldn't be missed? And as
    Director, will you prioritize reducing unnecessary paperwork
    and improving processes to improve legal employment here in
    this country?
        Mr. Edlow. Senator, thank you so much for the question. You
    know, in the last 4 years, I have had the privilege of serving
    in the private sector, and I have seen the need to modernize
    forms in a way that I never really understood before. If
    confirmed, I plan on making major gains to modernize our
    systems, both for vetting and screening purposes, but also to
    allow attorneys to better send in forms, as opposed to still
    using paper forms, to be able to scan them and then that
    information be taken in through a PDF process, so absolutely.
        Senator Coons. Thank you. Last question, if I might, Mr.
    Chairman. I have been gravely concerned about recent decisions
    to abruptly end TPS provisions for folks who came to this
    country under these legal programs from Haiti, from Venezuela,
    in particular from Afghanistan, and that are leading to
    hundreds of thousands of people losing their current legal work
    authorizations at the same time.
        Businesses in my State and around the country are facing
    significant labor shortages, and families that are here
    legally, working legally, are facing return to countries that
    are not demonstrably any more stable than they were when they
    left. As Director, would you work to prioritize getting those
    who are eligible for other pathways to remain here and to work
    here legally the opportunity to do that, to limit the damage to
    their lives and to their communities?
        Mr. Edlow. Well, Senator, let me start with commending the
    work of the Administration right now in terms of following the
    law with how TPS is supposed to be. The Secretary is required
    to make determinations at certain intervals, and if the
    conditions that led to the initial TPS decision are no longer
    met, then they need to be terminated. Regardless of that, when
    someone is here with TPS or another temporary pathway, those
    are temporary pathways, and if they have----
        Senator Coons. I am familiar with the process, sir, and I
    am also familiar with the ongoing circumstances in both Haiti
    and in Afghanistan and disagree with the determination that we
    should force back to Afghanistan anyone who came here legally.
        Mr. Edlow. Mr. Chairman, if I may.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Britt.
        Senator Britt. Yes, why don't you go ahead, Mr. Edlow, and
    respond.
        Mr. Edlow. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator, all I would say to that is I understand that--I am
    not going to comment--I think it would be inappropriate for me
    to comment on any case that is pending right now with Federal
    litigation. That said, certainly, as temporary programs exist,
    there are permanent programs such as seeking asylum or other
    humanitarian protections, and I would suggest that someone who
    came in on a temporary program who feels that they cannot go
    back because of a reason that would lead them to need
    protection should apply for those protections.
        Senator Coons. Thank you.
        Mr. Edlow. Senator, thank you so much.
        Senator Britt. Got it.
        We will go ahead and continue with you. Thank you so much
    for taking time to meet with me. I am obviously very impressed
    by the different roles that you have served and the department
    in which you seek to run. Knowing that, knowing your previous
    work, what do you see as your vision? What are your big
    priorities, you know, if you are confirmed?
        Mr. Edlow. No, thank you, Senator. I think the big priority
    has to be the reduction of the backlog.
        Senator Britt. Okay.
        Mr. Edlow. You know, that backlog has grown to
    insurmountable levels over the last 4 years. When I left as the
    Deputy Director of Policy in January 2021, there were about
    450,000 affirmative asylum cases pending around the country.
    That number has grown. There is over 1.5 million now.
        Now, what does that mean? That means that all these extra
    people have been now--have gotten into the pipeline, and that
    is only for asylum. We also have green card backlogs and, as
    the Senator alluded to, other employment-based green cards that
    we need to look at, too.
        However, the real problem that I see is I don't know who is
    in the backlog. For me, backlogs are more than just a
    bipartisan talking point about, you know, how we have got to
    get the agency in order. I think it is, of course, important to
    get someone's benefits to them as quickly as possible so that
    they have the certainty, and if they are able to begin a life
    in the United States and assimilate, that is fantastic. If not,
    they need to know that certainty and to move forward.
        However, the real problem with the backlog is that we don't
    know who is in the backlog because of the lack of screening----
        Senator Britt. How do you propose we find that out?
        Mr. Edlow. Well, again, utilizing existing and emerging
    technologies, more reassignment of individuals, moving the
    Fraud Detection and National Security----
        Senator Britt. Okay.
        Mr. Edlow [continuing]. Division within USCIS out of the
    shadows to actually do its job because at the end of the day,
    the backlog presents----
        Senator Britt. Absolutely.
        Mr. Edlow [continuing]. A national security and public
    safety risk.
        Senator Britt. Let's adjudicate and let's get these things
    moving.
        On that, look, over the last 4 years, I believe I have seen
    what was just a terrible misuse of the Presidential parole
    authority. When I am looking at what the Biden Administration
    did, giving blanket parole, things like the CHNV program where
    it is intended to give on a case-by-case basis, and looking at
    the actual ramifications of that, you know, it gives me real
    concern.
        My question to you is what do you plan on putting in place
    or how do you plan on, you know, I guess, addressing this, and
    how do you plan on approaching it if and when confirmed?
        Mr. Edlow. Thank you, Senator. If confirmed, we will take
    what steps are necessary at USCIS to assist with the other
    departmental partners in terminating parole programs,
    terminating parole, reviewing on a case-by-case the people who
    got parole, to look for the fraud in the sponsor petitions that
    we know now exist. There is a lot that needs to be done, but,
    you know, I find it interesting. We have been talking about,
    you know, following the law. The law on parole is very, very
    clear----
        Senator Britt. Clear.
        Mr. Edlow [continuing]. In my opinion. And the parole
    program, the use of categorical parole programs is illegal, and
    we have got to get back to that. Parole is fine on a case-by-
    case basis. It has been in the law since the 1960's or the
    1950's. But the legislative intent for it was always severe
    humanitarian needs or significant public interest. And that was
    a one-off, not necessarily supposed to be mass programs used to
    obfuscate the numbers at the border.
        Senator Britt. And do you think this is something where
    Congress likely may need to act on this issue?
        Mr. Edlow. Senator, there have been bills previously
    introduced that I think would certainly handle this on parole
    reform, and I would love to see another.
        Senator Britt. Absolutely. Thank you. Just in my remaining
    minute, my question is for Mr. Woodward. As serving as
    associate attorney general, you will have direct oversight over
    the Civil Rights Division. This is something that I think is
    critically important. We want to make sure that everyone has
    the right to vote, and they also have the security and peace of
    mind of knowing that their vote counts.
        When you are looking at that, one of the reasons I actually
    introduced the Citizen Ballot Protection Act last Congress--and
    I will reintroduce it this year, and I have a number of
    colleagues that have different pieces of legislation that
    address the same thing--is amending Federal law to explicitly
    allow States to put in place a proof-of-citizenship requirement
    both on Federal mail-in voter registration forms and State mail
    voter registration forms that might be developed. I think that
    is a commonsense way to ensure integrity of the vote, that
    American citizens are the ones voting in these elections.
        And my question for you is, if confirmed, what plans do you
    have to ensure that DOJ and the Civil Rights Division will work
    to enhance the integrity and security of our elections and make
    sure that the voters, the American citizens, aren't diluted?
        Mr. Woodward. Well, Senator, thank you for the question. I
    couldn't agree more. It is of critical importance to ensure
    that our Nation's civil rights laws are enforced.
        If confirmed, I look forward to working with AAG Dhillon
    and ensuring that voting rights are as respected as every other
    right. And so I am confident that we will find a way to
    accomplish this, but also welcome additional legislation. Of
    course, the office does not itself promote policy. It enforces
    the law. And so if your legislation is passed, we would pursue
    that as aggressively as possible.
        Senator Britt. Thank you very much. I look forward to
    working with you both.
        Senator Tillis [presiding]. On behalf of the Chair, Senator
    Welch.
        Senator Welch. Thank you very much. I am not making this
    up. I have been recognized.
        Senator Tillis. On behalf of the Chair, I recognized you.
        Senator Welch. All right.
        Mr. Woodward. I apologize for----
        Senator Welch. I was looking over----
        Mr. Woodward. I apologize for distracting the Senator,
    gentlemen.
        Senator Welch. Thank you. Mr. Edlow, a couple of questions.
    Number one, immigration is a mess here, and a lot of the
    responsibility is Congress' because there are areas where we
    should legislate. I agree with that. And that includes on
    parole. But one of the areas I am really concerned about is ag
    workers. We have had some of our dairy workers picked up. And I
    am fully in support of hopefully bipartisan legislation that
    allows for our farmers to get the labor they need in Vermont.
    If we don't have immigrant labor, our cows don't get milked. It
    is just that simple. Do you have a view on a position that
    would reform the immigration laws that would allow for ag
    workers in Tennessee and Kentucky and Vermont and Iowa?
        Mr. Edlow. Yes, thank you, Senator. I'm, you know, well
    aware of this issue, having worked for a Congressman from
    Idaho.
        Senator Welch. Right.
        Mr. Edlow. I have spoken to many people within the dairy
    industry and understand what they face.
        Senator Welch. So what do you think we should do?
        Mr. Edlow. Well, I think we do need to talk. And if
    confirmed, I am happy to work with you and your staff on a
    bipartisan basis to figure out.
        Senator Welch. I assume that. What should we do? We have to
    have an ag worker policy that allows for the ease for vetted
    folks who want to work on a farm to be able to do it. Do you
    agree?
        Mr. Edlow. Respectfully, sir, I do agree in that we do need
    to look closely at both the H-2A and H-2B visas as they exist
    right now to see whether and how they need to be updated to
    address the needs of these industries.
        Senator Welch. Okay, thank you.
        Mr. Woodward, thank you for our visit yesterday in the
    office. I appreciated that.
        The one thing that I wanted to talk to you a little bit
    about today is you had two clients in the Mar-a-Lago case. You
    had Mr. Nauta and you had Mr. Taveras, right?
        Mr. Woodward. Senator, thank you for the question. I did
    represent Mr. Nauta, and for a time I did represent Mr.
    Taveras.
        Senator Welch. Right. And this is where I just wanted to
    get an explanation of what happened. My understanding is Mr.
    Taveras testified in the grand jury. The judge informed him
    that there may be a conflict because of the situation he faced
    and your other client, Mr. Nauta. And at that point, he got a
    new lawyer. Is that right? I think a Federal defender.
        Mr. Woodward. Senator, it is a little bit more complicated
    than that, and I also want to be mindful of not divulging
    confidences involving my former clients, but that generally
    tracks.
        Senator Welch. Yes, so this is public record, and of course
    I am not going to ask you to divulge any confidences, so I am
    with you there. But what I understand happened is that Mr.--and
    this is the public record--that Mr. Taveras changed his
    testimony from what he had said in the grand jury, where
    basically he was saying he didn't recall anything, to testimony
    where he said the boss wanted those tapes to be ``lost.'' So
    how did it happen that you went from--and you were being paid
    by a Trump PAC, as I understand it, or by a Political Action
    Committee. Is that correct, for your representation on behalf
    of both of these individuals?
        Mr. Woodward. Senator, I have received compensation by the
    State of America PAC, yes. That is public record.
        Senator Welch. Yes, that is right. Thank you. So what
    happened that the testimony Mr. Taveras had given suddenly
    became different testimony after he got a new lawyer?
        Mr. Woodward. Senator, with respect, the public record
    speaks for itself, and I would be remiss were I to engage in a
    discussion about advice that I provided any former client.
        Senator Welch. All right. But I am correct that in the
    public record, Mr. Taveras gave testimony that he recanted once
    he got a new lawyer.
        Mr. Woodward. Again, Senator, with the utmost respect, I
    think the public record says a great deal about this, and I
    will let it speak for itself.
        Senator Welch. Okay. I have no more questions. I yield
    back, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Tillis. On behalf of the Chair, Senator Moody.
        Senator Moody. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I appreciate all of you being here. It is never an easy
    thing to sit and stand for questions among all of my esteemed
    colleagues. Thank you very much, and thank you to your
    families. I often find these are harder on our families than it
    is on the folks taking the incoming questions. So thank you
    very much.
        Each of you comes with a unique background and, indeed,
    experience and expertise in the jobs that President Trump and
    our Nation is asking you to take on. I know you could probably
    make a lot more money in the private sector, and I am always
    inspired by people who are willing to take a timeout of their
    private practices or other endeavors that may bring them more
    pecuniary gain to serve this Nation, and I appreciate that.
    Thank you so much.
        And we are at a time where we have an incoming
    Administration that is having to marshal resources to deal with
    a mess and a dangerous situation like we have never seen, maybe
    outside wars. We are having to--not only human resources, but
    the financing to deal with one of the largest influxes of folks
    surging into this Nation, some say 11 million, some say up to
    20 million. If you take the more conservative number, that is
    more than the population in 42 of our States.
        Most of those were barely vetted. Many of them, we don't
    know what their backgrounds are. Many have proven to be really
    dangerous criminals, leading to rapes, murders, robberies,
    aggravated assaults. I could go on and on and on. I saw it
    firsthand as Florida's attorney general and fought very hard to
    stop what was happening.
        But it became very clear that there was an intentional
    destruction of any semblance of security at our border. We saw
    this because we saw known people on the terrorist watchlist and
    other criminals that we later found, and it was a cover-up. We
    had both Administration, our President, a Secretary in charge
    of DHS say our border was secure the whole time.
        So now you come in at a time where you are going to have to
    use the law to help remedy what we are faced with. And I am
    grateful for a President that came in and has tried as fast as
    possible to remedy the situation that we as America find
    ourselves in, but you are going to have to deal with what is
    left by somebody who is supposed to be a commander-in-chief
    protecting this Nation.
        This morning, I introduced an Expedited Removal of Criminal
    Aliens Act. This has been getting a lot of attention because
    you have an Administration trying to use what law is available
    to them, some as far back as the Alien Enemies Act, but you
    have to use--I think that was in the 1700's, and people are
    criticizing them for that, but we are in historic unprecedented
    time, so you have to use the tools that are available to you to
    protect this Nation and its people.
        As the courts are trying to figure out what that looks
    like, many are frustrated because it appears so many of these
    district courts are trying to stymie this President and indeed
    what you will be charged with, of delivering a remedy, a
    recovery, and the protection of our people, but in the
    meantime, we need to start moving here in Congress to ensure an
    expedited process to get these dangerous people out of here.
        I am going to start with you. The person that I had the
    privilege of introducing, Mr. Edlow, is an act like this
    needed, and can it be useful to this Administration?
        Mr. Edlow. Senator, first of all, thank you so much for the
    kind introduction. I greatly appreciate it.
        I am aware of your legislation. I look forward to, if
    confirmed, working with you and with our departmental partners
    to see it move forward. I think it is absolutely necessary.
        Senator Moody. And as a result of all of the litigation
    around the Nation, it is often said by some of my colleagues on
    the other side of the aisle, and they point out, that this
    Administration has had more orders against them. As we are
    trying to show, this is probably because these nationwide
    injunctions and other decisions are certain courts trying to
    stymie this Administration and being ineffective in delivering
    on promises to the American people to secure this Nation again.
    One might say, this shouldn't be surprising because you have an
    Administration that is doing their job and using the law on the
    books in a way we haven't had to use them before because of the
    unprecedented, dangerous, reckless, irresponsible, some would
    say criminal actions of the last Administration. Would you
    agree, Mr. Woodward?
        Mr. Woodward. Senator, thank you for taking the opportunity
    to meet with me. And as you and I discussed, I do agree. I am
    very passionate about that. There is a tremendous amount of
    litigation in the courts right now because President Trump is
    doing a tremendous amount. He is being challenged, but he is
    also asserting his Article II powers in a way that no President
    has ever done before.
        Senator Moody. Or had to do.
        Mr. Woodward. Or had to do. And so, if confirmed, I look
    forward to assisting the President in professionally litigating
    and defending his exercise of those Article II powers as often
    as is needed.
        Senator Tillis. On behalf of the Chair, Senator Schiff.
        Senator Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to followup on Senator Kennedy's line of questioning
    and ask a similar line of yes or no questions just to put a
    finer point and make sure that your answers are as definitive
    as they sounded.
        So let me start with you, Mr. Edlow. Yes or no, would you
    ever advise the Administration that it could ignore, disregard
    an applicable district court order because you believe the
    Supreme Court will ultimately overturn it?
        Mr. Edlow. Senator, as I said before----
        Senator Welch. Just a yes or no question like Senator----
        Mr. Edlow [continuing]. I don't believe I will ever be in
    that position but----
        Senator Schiff. You may not, but just like you answered
    Senator Kennedy, we want to make sure that you are not
    misleading anyone. So let me ask the question again. Would you
    ever advise the Administration that it could disregard an
    applicable district court opinion or order because you believe
    the Supreme Court will ultimately overturn it, yes or no?
        Mr. Edlow. I don't want to speculate, but I can't see a
    situation where I would advise to not follow the court order.
        Senator Schiff. So your answer is, no, you would never
    advise them to disregard a district court order even if you
    thought the Supreme Court would overturn it?
        Mr. Edlow. Again, I don't want to speak in----
        Senator Schiff. I just want you to be precise and answer
    yes or no.
        Mr. Edlow. I can't see a time where I would do that, no.
        Senator Schiff. Okay. Mr. Gaiser, yes or no?
        Mr. Gaiser. Thank you very much, Senator Schiff. I would
    advise clients to follow court orders.
        Senator Schiff. Even if you believe the Supreme Court would
    ultimately overturn the district court?
        Mr. Gaiser. Well, Senator, as far as----
        Senator Schiff. Yes or no?
        Mr. Gaiser. The answer is the same. The President has said
    he would follow court orders.
        Senator Schiff. Well, the same answer. Yes or no?
        Mr. Gaiser. Senator, the President has said he would
    follow----
        Senator Schiff. You were able to answer Senator Kennedy,
    but I want to make sure that you were not misleading Senator
    Kennedy. Yes or no, would you ever advise the Administration it
    could ignore a district court order because you believed the
    Supreme Court would ultimately rule otherwise? Yes or no? Would
    you ever advise them that?
        Mr. Gaiser. Senator, applicable court orders should be
    followed.
        Senator Schiff. That is not my question. Yes or no?
        Mr. Gaiser. Senator, you asked me----
        Senator Schiff. Yes or no, Mr. Gaiser? It is a simple
    question.
        Mr. Gaiser. Senator----
        Senator Schiff. Mr. Gaiser, you were able to answer Senator
    Kennedy. Are you raising a doubt now about your answers to
    Senator Kennedy because you can't answer this question?
        Mr. Gaiser. Senator, I would advise clients to follow
    applicable court orders.
        Senator Schiff. Is that a yes or no?
        Mr. Gaiser. I would advise clients to follow applicable
    court orders.
        Senator Schiff. Is that a yes or no? Let me repeat the
    question so there is no ambiguity about it. Would you ever
    advise the Administration--you are going to be--if you are
    confirmed heading the Office of Legal Counsel that helps
    determine whether actions are lawless or lawful, would you ever
    advise the Administration that it could ignore an applicable
    district court opinion or order because you believed the
    Supreme Court would ultimately overturn the order? Yes or no?
        Mr. Gaiser. Senator, if I am confirmed to lead the Office
    of Legal Counsel, I would----
        Senator Schiff. All right. You are not answering the
    question, so I guess the answer is to Senator Kennedy, you just
    might advise the Administration to ignore a district court
    order.
        How about you, Counsel?
        Mr. Squires. Thank you, Senator Schiff. In my role as
    Director, I am not----
        Senator Schiff. I am just asking a yes or no.
        Mr. Squires. Well, thank you. I wish to clarify I am not--
    if confirmed a Director, I am not acting in a legal capacity at
    all. I am part of the executive agency branch and therefore
    would not be advising clients on any aspects of that.
        Senator Schiff. Well, would it be appropriate in your view
    for anyone else among legal counsel to do so?
        Mr. Squires. In general, court orders should be followed
    and respected. There are situations which I recall back from
    law school between branches----
        Senator Schiff. I guess you are not able to answer the
    question either.
        Counsel, how about you?
        Mr. Woodward. Senator Schiff, thank you. I mean, I agree. I
    don't believe it is appropriate to address this hypothetical.
    At the Department of Justice----
        Senator Schiff. Okay. So you want to revise your answer to
    Senator Kennedy then? That is, there may be circumstances where
    you advise the Administration to disregard a district court of
    opinion because you believe the Supreme Court might rule
    otherwise? Is that your opinion?
        Mr. Woodward. As a lawyer, the answer is it depends.
        Senator Schiff. Okay.
        Mr. Woodward. What I can----
        Senator Schiff. Thank you. Then we will make sure Senator
    Kennedy is aware that you just might, it depends, advise the
    Administration to ignore court orders.
        Let me ask another question. Mr. Gaiser, would you agree
    that it would be unlawful for the President to accept a gift
    from a foreign State without the consent of Congress? Would you
    agree that is unlawful?
        Mr. Gaiser. Well, thank you for that question, Senator.
        Senator Schiff. Yes or no?
        Mr. Gaiser. Whether something is lawful or not, I would
    always want to look----
        Senator Schiff. I am just asking you a simple question. Is
    it unlawful for the President to accept a gift from a foreign
    State without the consent of Congress? Very simple question.
        Mr. Gaiser. Senator, as a lawyer, I would always give my--
    --
        Senator Schiff. I am not asking you for a preamble, just
    yes or no.
        Mr. Gaiser. Well, Senator Schiff, it depends on the fact--
    --
        Senator Schiff. Well, Mr. Gaiser, where is the depends on
    the facts of Article I, Section 9, Clause 8, which says, ``No
    person holding any office shall, without consent of Congress,
    accept any present from any foreign State?'' That is the
    Constitution. It doesn't say, well, it depends, or it might, or
    maybe. It says no person shall do so. Do you find that
    ambiguous?
        Mr. Gaiser. Senator----
        Senator Schiff. I thought you were supposed to be the
    strict constructionist. This is what the Constitution says. Is
    there an exception for $400 million planes from Gulf Emirs?
        Mr. Gaiser. Senator----
        Senator Schiff. Is there an exception for that?
        Senator Tillis. On behalf of the Chair, Senator Schmitt.
        Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I do wonder, though, whether or not we should set up a
    chair for a strawman for these hearings because these are all
    ridiculous strawman arguments. First of all, the President of
    the United States has said he would abide by court orders, and
    this Administration has abided by every single court order. So
    this contraption that Democrats continue to try to create, to
    create some faux constitutional crisis that doesn't exist or,
    as it was during the campaign, some threat to democracy to
    scare people, they ought to be ashamed of themselves because it
    hasn't happened. It hasn't happened.
        And I want to give, Mr. Woodward, you an opportunity to
    respond when the Senator from California didn't give you the
    chance to respond with your answer before I go into my
    questions with a limited amount of time.
        Mr. Woodward. Thank you, Senator. I will be brief. And I
    will reiterate that I don't believe I would ever be asked to
    advise my client to defy a court order. It is not happening.
    And so the answer, it depends, matters because there is
    litigation all across this country right now, and so we have to
    look at each and every case very carefully. We advise the
    client, and then the client acts. That is the role of the
    Department of Justice.
        Senator Schmitt. Mr. Edlow, I do want to ask. I have been
    raising the alarm on this temporary protected status, or TPS,
    for quite some time now. And the Supreme Court has just weighed
    in and ruled essentially that Joe Biden had really been abusing
    his authority, especially at the end, just sort of waving a
    magic wand and really abusing this process. And so there are
    350,000 Venezuelans now that will not receive this temporary
    protected status because they shouldn't have got it in the
    first place. I want to ask, how will the USCIS stop automatic
    renewals and kick out folks whose countries do not qualify
    anymore?
        Mr. Edlow. Well, thank you for the question, Senator. As I
    stated earlier, the decision on whether to continue any TPS
    program rests with the Secretary. And USCIS would act
    accordingly. So depending on the country, depending on when
    the----
        Senator Schmitt. Well, let's use these Venezuelans.
        Mr. Edlow. Senator, I would hesitate to comment on anything
    that is under active litigation at this point.
        Senator Schmitt. Okay. Let's say there is another--because,
    I mean, let's say Haitians, which also fell into that. I want
    to know what tools--and I am not asking you to opine on that. I
    want to know what tools are going to be used to enforce a
    lawful court order----
        Mr. Edlow. I understand.
        Senator Schmitt [continuing]. To kick people out of here.
        Mr. Edlow. So certainly, Senator, the employment
    authorization cards, which are essentially the evidence of the
    status, are going to set to expire. The systems at USCIS, when
    appropriate, are turned off so that renewals are either kicked
    out or rejected. And then at that point, it becomes the
    responsibility of our sister agency, ICE, to work on the next
    step, which would be the apprehension and removal of any
    individual that remained after that period of time.
        Senator Schmitt. So USCIS decides who qualifies for TPS?
        Mr. Edlow. Well, after a TPS designation is made, USCIS
    would determine eligibility----
        Senator Schmitt. Correct.
        Mr. Edlow [continuing]. Based on the law.
        Senator Schmitt. So they need to prove they have been here
    since the designation date and meet other rules. But the Biden
    Administration made it with a rubberstamp, right? It totally,
    completely obliterated the process that was put in place. Is
    that your understanding?
        Mr. Edlow. Senator, my understanding is everything the
    Biden Administration did with regard to USCIS was with a
    rubberstamp. So, yes, TPS, the way in which parole was
    utilized, the way in which anything was utilized was a
    rubberstamp, while not caring about the long lines of people
    within the backlog that just kept growing because they weren't
    taking that seriously. They were reassigning resources to just
    handle the unlawful border activity.
        Senator Schmitt. Right. So what could be introduced as far
    as new vetting rules to make sure this isn't just being handed
    out like candy? What could be done?
        Mr. Edlow. Well, certainly, you know, if confirmed, I am
    happy to work with Congress to figure out if there are
    additional authorities that we need in order to move in that
    direction. But I really do think that, once confirmed, we can
    take a look at things internally, turn some processes on, act
    both regulatorily and sub-regulatorily to take a real bite out
    of some of this and to actually, for the first time, feel
    confident in the vetting that is being done by the agency.
        Senator Schmitt. Thank you.
        Mr. Squires, I do want to ask you, switching gears. China
    has been ripping us off for a very long time as it relates to
    our IP. And I know there is a lot of concern with some of the
    breakthroughs they have gotten from DeepSeek. I mean, there is
    no IP acknowledged, really, if it is not being ripped off. It
    just isn't part of what they are and how they how they handle
    these things.
        What concerns do you have or what can be done to combat
    Chinese IP theft? But then as we get into these large language
    models moving forward, how do you view generally accepted IP
    laws to be--how does it work into large language models moving
    forward? Because you have heard some people talk about just
    abandoning IP altogether.
        Mr. Squires. Thank you, Senator. It is quite a complicated
    question.
        Senator Tillis. Mr. Squires, I know that it is. Could you
    submit that for the record? Because I am very interested in the
    detailed response.
        Mr. Squires. I would be happy to, Senator.
        Senator Tillis. On behalf of the Chair, Senator Lee.
        Senator Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And thanks to all of you for being here and especially for
    your willingness to serve.
        Mr. Edlow, let's start with you. The Biden Administration
    turned a lot of things on their heads. One of the many things
    they turned on their heads involves the optional practical
    training program. And they turned it into the single largest
    guest worker program, bypassing the traditional limitations,
    traditional rules that would otherwise apply by operation of
    law on other visas like H-1B in the United States. What changes
    would you plan, if confirmed, to make in order to fix that
    issue?
        Mr. Edlow. Thank you, Senator. I think the way in which OPT
    has been handled over the past 4 years, with the help of
    certain decisions coming out of the D.C. Circuit Court, have
    been a real problem in terms of misapplication of the law. What
    I want to see would be essentially a regulatory and sub-
    regulatory program that would allow us to remove the ability
    for employment authorizations for F-1 students beyond the time
    that they are in school.
        Senator Lee. Great. Thank you.
        Mr. Gaiser, I would like to turn to you next. You are an
    issues and appeals guy. You have clerked for two Federal court
    of appeals judges, Judges Rao and Edith Jones, two of the very
    best judges we have ever had in the U.S. Courts of Appeals, and
    also for Justice Alito. At Jones Day, I take it you worked in
    the issues and appeals section, and that is what you do. That
    is exactly what we need inside the Office of Legal Counsel, in
    my view.
        Trial work is important. It is fundamental. It is essential
    to our system. And it is very, very different than doing
    appeals, so I just wanted to note that. One of my colleagues
    made an observation about that. To me, that matters next to
    nothing, how much time you have spent in a trial courtroom or
    in front of juries. That is not the work of the Office of Legal
    Counsel, which has historically been staffed quite
    appropriately, in my view, by people with stellar, blue-
    ribboned, usually good appellate court experience, appellate
    court clerkships, and U.S. Supreme Court experience, so for
    whatever that is worth.
        Now, you are currently serving as the Solicitor General of
    the State of Ohio, further advancing your expertise, your
    knowledge, your familiarity with the appellate courtroom. As I
    understand it, the Solicitor General of the State of Ohio
    operates a little bit differently than many of the others do,
    and in ways that almost certainly will prepare you
    exceptionally well to head the Office of Legal Counsel. Tell us
    about that.
        Mr. Gaiser. Thank you very much, Senator Lee. In my
    capacity as Ohio Solicitor General, I not only am the chief
    appellate lawyer for the State of Ohio, I am also in charge of
    the attorney general's Opinions Unit, where the attorney
    general of Ohio is authorized to opine definitively on Ohio law
    to certain authorized requesters. I understand that role is
    very similar to the Office of Legal Counsel's historic role of
    opining on Federal questions.
        Senator Lee. Stunningly similar, in fact. The U.S.
    Department of Justice operates as something of a full-service
    law firm, the biggest in the country, and the office that you
    will be heading, should you be confirmed, is that office, that
    office that provides people with advice. That necessarily
    requires you to have extensive appellate experience and a good
    ability to read how appellate courts, including and especially
    the Supreme Court, will respond.
        Mr. Woodward, if confirmed as the associate attorney
    general, in addition to being the number three person at the
    Department of Justice, you will be the man. You will be, in
    Spanish we would say ``el mero mero,'' the law, when it comes
    to all of the oversight of all civil litigation and a number of
    other matters as well. Tell me how, in that position, if
    confirmed, you could help the Department of Justice rein in the
    burdensome, excessive regulation and the excessive delegation
    of lawmaking power to our executive branch agencies through the
    non-delegation or otherwise.
        Mr. Woodward. Senator, thank you for the question and thank
    you for taking the opportunity to meet with us in advance of
    the hearing.
        As the associate attorney general, there would be a number
    of opportunities for us to challenge the burdensome regulations
    that have been imposed on our Nation, on our businesses, on our
    people. Affirmative litigation is a critical aspect of what the
    associate's office oversees. What we see in the papers today is
    the defense of Executive orders. What is talked less about is
    all of the affirmative cases that are being brought by the
    Civil Division, the Civil Rights Division, the Tax Division,
    the Antitrust Division. And so challenging unconstitutional
    regulations, as I alluded with your colleague earlier, would be
    a key piece of what I expect the Department of Justice to do.
        Senator Lee. Thank you for sharing that, and I want to
    followup on that just briefly. When some people hear the word
    unconstitutional, they might think, understandably, that what
    you mean is unconstitutional in a way that has been recognized
    by the Supreme Court, in a way that is directly traceable as
    unconstitutional to a particular court ruling, especially a
    Supreme Court ruling. But more broadly speaking, that is not
    necessarily the appropriate way to view it, is it? In other
    words, there are certain features of the Constitution that
    don't always get tested. If they are tested, they are not
    always directly addressed by the Supreme Court. Constitutional
    avoidance, for example, is a means by which the court will
    often try to decide a case or controversy on a different ground
    if the constitutional question can be avoided.
        And so, the non-delegation doctrine itself has been
    acknowledged by the Supreme Court, tends not to be enforced by
    the Supreme Court, and I would imagine that that is where
    Department of Justice that understands the implications of
    Article I, Section 7, the fact that in order to make, modify,
    alter, create, or repeal a Federal law, one has to follow the
    two-pronged formula of Article I, Section 7, which includes
    bicameralism and presentment. Is that something that, in your
    view, a good associate attorney general ought to examine?
        Mr. Woodward. Yes, Senator, absolutely.
        Senator Lee. Thank you very much, and I see my time has
    expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your characteristic
    generosity in letting me exceed that.
        Senator Hawley [presiding]. I love giving away time that is
    not mine, Senator Lee.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Lee. Especially when we are talking about the non-
    delegation----
        Senator Hawley. Exactly, it doesn't get more exciting than
    that.
        Senator Lee. In Provo, we speak of little else.
        Senator Hawley. Senator Hirono.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I ask the following two initial questions of every nominee
    before any of my Committees to get at the fitness to serve. So
    we will start with Mr. Edlow, and we will just go right down
    the line. Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made
    unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or
    physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
        Mr. Edlow. No, Senator.
        Mr. Gaiser. No, Senator.
        Mr. Squires. Never, Senator.
        Mr. Woodward. No, Senator.
        Senator Hirono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered
    into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
        Mr. Edlow. No, Senator.
        Mr. Gaiser. No, Senator.
        Mr. Squires. No, Senator.
        Mr. Woodward. No, Senator.
        Senator Hirono. I think that both Mr. Gaiser and Woodrow
    testified that you would advise the Administration to follow
    all court orders, correct?
        Mr. Woodward. Well, Senator, as I've said, it depends, and
    I realize that that is frustrating----
        Senator Hirono. Oh, it depends on what the court order is?
    Okay. Let me ask you another question then. In the Abrego
    Garcia case, the Supreme Court said that the Administration had
    to ``facilitate his return from the El Salvador prison.'' He is
    still there. Is the Administration complying with the Supreme
    Court's court order? We will start with Mr. Gaiser and then go
    to Mr. Woodward.
        Mr. Gaiser. Well, Senator, thank you very much for that
    question. As Ohio Solicitor General, I am not now at the
    Department, and the Department of Justice speaks through its
    briefs on matters that are in active litigation, and so it
    would be inappropriate----
        Senator Hirono. Well, in your option----
        Mr. Gaiser [continuing]. For me to comment.
        Senator Hirono. You are about to become the person who is
    going to be advising the Department formerly known as Justice,
    as far as I am concerned. So what do you think? The fact that
    Mr. Garcia is still in prison, is the Administration following
    the Supreme Court's order to facilitate his release?
        Mr. Gaiser. Well, Senator----
        Senator Hirono. You don't know?
        Mr. Gaiser. As I said, I am the Solicitor General of Ohio
    now. I am not now at the department, and it would be
    inappropriate for me to comment on actively litigated matters
    because the department speaks through its filings and its
    briefs.
        Senator Hirono. So when you actually become the person at
    the OLC, would you advise the Administration to facilitate the
    release of Mr. Garcia?
        Mr. Gaiser. Well, thank you, Senator. If I am----
        Senator Hirono. That is what the court is telling him.
        Moving on, Mr. Woodrow, what do you think?
        Mr. Woodward. Well, Senator, I appreciate you giving me the
    opportunity to respond.
        It does depend. If we are going to discuss hypotheticals,
    what about a hypothetical----
        Senator Hirono. It is not a hypothetical. This is the
    Supreme Court's order to the Administration. They are
    confronted with this order right at the moment. Mr. Garcia has
    not been released.
        Mr. Woodward. The question about following court orders is,
    of course, a hypothetical, and the hypothetical can be
    complicated. What if a district court----
        Senator Hirono. That is why, Mr. Woodrow, I asked a
    specific question relating to a specific situation. And since
    you also don't want to respond, there you have it. And, you
    know, both of you are going to be in a position to be advising
    this Administration, so I think your responses are telling.
        For Mr. Edlow, President Trump suspended the U.S. Refugee
    Settlement Program indefinitely on his first day in office.
    However, on February 7, he signed an Executive order requiring
    all agencies to promote the resettlement of white Afrikaners
    into the United States. And less than 3 months later, these
    Afrikaners are entering the United States, having completed a
    process that normally takes years.
        What changes has USCIS made to the refugee resettlement
    process to expedite the arrival of Afrikaners? And if you are
    not there yet, you don't know, you can just say you don't know.
        Mr. Edlow. Well, Senator, I am there as a senior advisor--
    --
        Senator Hirono. Oh.
        Mr. Edlow [continuing]. But I do not know. And I can tell
    you, as far as I have seen, the process is the same as any
    other refugee resettlement process for USCIS' purposes.
        Senator Hirono. Why is it that Afrikaners are being
    expedited in terms of their being able to resettle in the
    United States?
        Mr. Edlow. Senator----
        Senator Hirono. Why are they being given what looks like
    highly preferential treatment?
        Mr. Edlow. Senator, the President has the authority through
    executive action and under the law----
        Senator Hirono. Okay. That is because the President feels--
    --
        Mr. Edlow [continuing]. To determine----
        Senator Hirono [continuing]. Like doing that. Okay. That is
    the answer.
        And are these Afrikaners going to be vetted individually so
    that nobody is coming in who, for example, shows any
    antisemitic sentiment? Are they being vetted individually?
        Mr. Edlow. Senator, again, I can't speak to specifics with
    regard to any of the individuals coming in, but my
    understanding is that they are being vetted for----
        Senator Hirono. Individually. I hope so, because, for
    example, there was one who was quoted as saying that Jewish
    people are untrustworthy and they are a dangerous group. I
    would say that maybe that person shows antisemitic views. And
    so your testimony is that they are being vetted individually?
        Mr. Edlow. Senator, again, I am not currently leading the
    agency. I do not have a view into how they are being vetted. My
    understanding is they are being vetted as refugees have been
    vetted in the past.
        Senator Hirono. There are serious concerns about why this
    is happening. And, for example----
        Senator Hawley. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Hirono [continuing]. The people who are Afghani are
    not getting this kind of highly preferential treatment. Thank
    you.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you, Senator.
        Congratulations to the nominees. Thank you for being here.
        Mr. Woodward, let me start with you. You and I had a nice
    chat the other day. I appreciated the visit. When we were
    talking about the Civil Division, you referenced some
    tightening up that you believe needed to happen. And you
    brought up in that context the Mifepristone case. So I just
    want to drill down on this for a second.
        Two weeks ago or so, the Department of Justice entered and
    filed a motion in the Mifepristone case in the Northern
    District of Texas. This is a Missouri case where the State of
    Missouri and some others are seeking to put back in place the
    safety protocols for the abortion drug that existed before Joe
    Biden removed them. The Department of Justice attorneys from
    the Civil Division filed a motion in that case seeking to have
    the case dismissed. Is it your understanding that that was a
    mistake? What is your view of this? I mean, you raised this
    case to me.
        Mr. Woodward. Senator, thank you for the question. As you
    can appreciate, it is longstanding policy of the Department of
    Justice not to comment on pending cases. Those briefs do speak
    for themselves.
        The reason I raised that case with you is because we were
    having a, I thought, very helpful discussion about the fact
    that litigation should be holistic. And that as the Department
    of Justice continues to litigate on behalf of the President,
    there is an obligation, a duty even, for us to communicate with
    those with whom we are litigating against. We should be
    personal in our litigation, we should speak to those with whom
    we are litigating, and we should try to come to an agreement.
    We don't always have to resolve our disputes in court.
        Senator Hawley. Which did not happen in this case. Is that
    the thrust of it?
        Mr. Woodward. That is correct, Senator.
        Senator Hawley. In other words, the Department of Justice
    did not work with the State of Missouri. I have to tell you,
    though, I am surprised and concerned by the department's
    decision on the merits in this case. And I have said as much to
    your soon-to-be boss, the attorney general. I frankly don't
    understand it. And I am sure this case isn't going away. I
    mean, the Department of Justice said that they did not think
    venue was appropriate.
        So let me just ask you, if the States refile in another
    venue, is the department going to oppose the States on the
    merits? I mean, is the department actually going to defend Joe
    Biden's pro-abortion regulations?
        Mr. Woodward. Senator, thank you for the question. I have
    had discussions with the attorney general about this case in my
    role as counselor to her presently. Of course, it would be
    inappropriate for me to comment on those discussions.
        What I can tell you, Senator, is that, if confirmed, we
    would look very specifically at every case to have been filed
    by the Biden Justice Department and ensure that those cases are
    appropriate and also ensure that we are taking the right track
    in those cases. And so I am happy to talk with you and your
    colleagues about that case and any other case, if confirmed.
        Senator Hawley. As you, I hope, know, before President
    Biden, mifepristone, the abortion drug, had long had a series
    of safety protocols attached to it ever since it was first
    offered in the United States over 20 years ago, including
    requirements that a physician be the one to dispense the drug,
    that a physician screen for ectopic pregnancies, that a
    physician be present to provide emergency care if necessary.
    President Biden removed all of these, and now the drug is
    available. You don't have to be a physician to prescribe it. It
    can be sent through the mail. Telehealth providers from foreign
    countries are now providing this drug.
        And it doesn't matter as a consequence what any State or
    voters in any State decide, the voters of my State, for
    example. Any limits on the drug imposed by voters of the State
    consistent with the Dobbs decision is automatically overridden
    by what Joe Biden's FDA decided to do. So this is a matter of
    extreme importance. And I just point out 70 percent of
    abortions now in the United States occur because of this drug,
    which can now be administered totally unsupervised.
        Let me just ask you. Are you familiar with the Ethics and
    Public Policy Center's recent survey of mifepristone
    prescriptions, 865,000 mifepristone prescriptions over a 5-year
    period. Have you seen that study, Mr. Woodward?
        Mr. Squires. Senator, I apologize. I have not seen that
    study.
        Senator Hawley. Well, let me just bring you up to speed.
    What the study shows is that over 10 percent of women who are
    prescribed this drug, again, without physician help or aid,
    over 10 percent of these women experience a serious adverse
    health event. That means an infection, hemorrhaging, a life-
    threatening event, sepsis that leads them to go to an emergency
    room. That is 22 times higher than what the FDA label currently
    admits is the risk of a serious adverse health event. This is
    the largest study of mifepristone done, I think, ever, 865,000
    separate prescriptions were studied.
        So my point is this. The safety needs are extremely real.
    They are pressing. The rights of the States to protect their
    citizenry, I think, is extremely well-founded and well-
    developed, by the way. I mean, they are seeking the right
    relief in the right courts. And I just hope that the Department
    of Justice will do--as you were saying a moment ago, I hope the
    Department of Justice will work with these States and will also
    vindicate the rights of voters to decide these issues and the
    rights of States to protect their citizens. I just can't
    imagine why the department would want to defend the abortion
    regulations of Joe Biden, who was the most rabidly pro-abortion
    President in American history, very different than our current
    President, who has been the most pro-life President in American
    history.
        Mr. Woodward. Senator, I appreciate the question. In the
    wake of Dobbs, I agree the law is quite clear, and I am going
    to sound like a broken record, but the President of the United
    States has said time and again he will follow the orders that
    come down from the Supreme Court.
        Senator Hawley. Let me ask you here about one other
    religious liberty issue. Are you familiar with Mark Houck? Does
    that name ring a bell? Do you know about this case, Mr.
    Woodward?
        Mr. Squires. I am sorry, Senator, I am not familiar.
        [Photograph is displayed.]
        Senator Hawley. Well, that is all right. I think we have
    got a picture of Mark. Mark Houck is a pro-life demonstrator,
    peaceful demonstrator, a Pennsylvania man. Here he is with his
    family, his kids. They are at mass there. He is a faithful
    Catholic. Mark Houck took one of his boys, pictured here, to an
    abortion center to go and walk on the streets, pray, and offer
    any counsel to any women who might voluntarily want to receive
    it, pray with them, et cetera.
        For this, he was arrested by the United States Department
    of Justice. They sent a SWAT team to his home in the early
    hours of the morning in rural Pennsylvania. They detained his
    children. They used the full SWAT regalia, including
    semiautomatic weapons, rifles, and so forth, to take him into
    custody. He was taken into custody. He was charged like a
    criminal under the FACE Act. He was acquitted by the jury,
    which is truly remarkable.
        I want to emphasize the State of Pennsylvania had the
    opportunity to charge Houck. They didn't do it because they
    didn't think--liberals in Pennsylvania didn't charge him
    because they knew there wasn't a case. The Biden DOJ charged
    him anyway, treated him like a terrorist, and a jury acquitted
    him, thank the Lord. Now, Mr. Houck is suing the Department of
    Justice for what they did under the Biden Administration. So
    far, DOJ is opposing his suit. Doesn't this seem like something
    to you that should be settled? I mean, shouldn't this man have
    his name cleared? I want to emphasize the jury acquitted him.
    But shouldn't this man have his name cleared and have DOJ admit
    that what the Biden Administration did to him was just dead
    wrong?
        Mr. Woodward. Senator, in my practice over the last 4
    years, I saw firsthand how the Biden Administration weaponized
    the Department of Justice, and there is no place for
    weaponization at the Department of Justice. I can assure you
    that we will look at every single case, every single case, to
    ensure that there is no weaponization at the Department of
    Justice. I look forward, if confirmed, to working with Deputy
    Attorney General Todd Blanche, with Attorney General Pam Bondi.
    We will find those cases, and we will resolve them.
        Senator Hawley. Good. I am glad to hear that. I think Mr.
    Houck deserves to have his name cleared. I think he deserves
    more than an apology for what Joe Biden did to him. He deserves
    recompense. He deserves restitution. And he deserves to get
    what you have gotten for your clients, which is an
    acknowledgement that what the Government did to them is wrong.
    What the Government did to him is wrong. It was flat-out
    religious persecution, nothing but that, Joe Biden trying to
    send a signal to every religious believer and every pro-life
    believer in this country, don't you dare exercise your beliefs
    in public, or we might come with a SWAT team and haul you off
    to prison. It is a disgusting abuse of the First Amendment.
    Thank goodness a jury acquitted him. Now he deserves to be made
    whole, and I hope that you will be part of that.
        I see nobody else here. Are we going to let it go?
        Well, they tell me that Senator Cruz is on his way, which
    means that I can just keep right on questioning. So what do you
    think, Mr. Woodward? I am sure you are really enjoying this
    line of questioning.
        Let me ask you something different. Let me ask you about
    President Trump's Executive order on Title IX and men and
    women's sports. Something you and I talked about is the need to
    see that the President's Executive orders are enforced, that
    States are complying with them, that they are complying with
    Federal law. Talk to us about the importance of his order
    protecting women, getting biological men out of women's sports.
    What does the department need to do there? What do you think is
    the priority? And tell us why this is so significant.
        Mr. Woodward. Thank you for the question, Senator. You
    know, this is a deeply personal issue to me. I have a 2-year-
    old daughter who has three older brothers. She can hold her
    own, but it is a problem. It is an issue that has to be
    addressed. The President has taken this head-on as an important
    issue in his Administration.
        The Executive orders speak for themselves. And although I
    can't comment on pending litigation that has been brought by
    the Department of Justice, we have seen that the Department of
    Justice is enforcing the President's Executive orders. To quote
    the President, ``We will see you in court.'' Don't follow the
    President's Executive order? We will see you in court.
        Senator Hawley. And you would send that message to
    universities that are currently failing to comply, that are
    violating Title IX. To be clear, Title IX protects women's
    sports. Title IX creates the right of women to play in sports
    that have integrity, where they are protected from danger,
    where they are given the same opportunities as male athletes.
    These universities that are putting biological men into women's
    sports and women's locker rooms are flagrantly violating Title
    IX. So your message to those universities is, if you don't
    amend your ways, you can expect to face off against the Justice
    Department in a court of law.
        Mr. Woodward. Senator, absolutely. I mean, it is a
    complicated issue. It is often attempted to make this out as an
    easy issue, but it is a complicated issue. There are sports for
    which it is advantageous, right? Men should not be competing in
    women's gymnastics, for example. And so this is not an issue
    that is easy to summarize or to make soundbites over. It is
    complicated, which is why it is important that the Department
    of Justice is paying careful attention to what the law is and
    applying the facts to the law.
        Senator Hawley. Mr. Gaiser, let me just ask you about
    nationwide injunctions for a moment and about the proliferation
    of nationwide injunctions. We have seen them explode. They were
    first used in the 1960's. Then they are almost never used. Of
    course, a nationwide injunction is when you have one individual
    district court that purports to bind not just the parties
    before the court, but purports to impose its policy, its
    ruling, its order on the entire country, including parties not
    before the court at all, parties well outside the court's
    geographic jurisdiction or otherwise.
        Tell us about the importance of reigning in the district
    courts to their proper constitutional role, which does not
    allow any individual district court to sit in the place of the
    Supreme Court and make policy for the Nation. Tell us about the
    importance of this.
        Mr. Gaiser. Well, thank you very much, Senator Hawley. And
    as you are aware, district courts are charged with adjudicating
    cases and controversies. And the Supreme Court of the United
    States has said that that task looks to the relief sought by
    the parties, and its equitable authority extends to the amount
    of relief necessary to redress those particular injuries.
        And as you are also aware, the Supreme Court is currently
    now considering some litigation involving that, so it would be
    inappropriate for me to comment on the specifics of that. But I
    agree with you that Article III imposes genuine limits and
    authorities for district courts, and it is in the text on the
    judicial power.
        Senator Hawley. Setting aside the litigation currently
    before the Supreme Court, do you think that it is appropriate
    and maybe necessary for Congress to use our Article I authority
    to make clear that an individual district court does not have
    the constitutional authority to bind parties that are not
    before it or otherwise not within its jurisdiction? I mean, is
    that something that we in Congress ought to consider doing?
        Mr. Gaiser. Senator, I agree that Congress has an important
    role in setting the jurisdiction of the inferior courts that
    Congress creates. Those are the creature of this and the
    House's work. And so I think this body has an important role to
    play and could make a significant contribution to justice being
    done as opposed to what I think millions of Americans are
    alarmed to see, which is the weaponization of the entire
    justice system to oppose the agenda that they enacted by voting
    for elected representatives like President Trump.
        Senator Hawley. Well, I think we are looking at something
    that is very much a constitutional crisis. It is a growing
    crisis, and it is a crisis of district court judges that are
    way outside the bounds of the Constitution, that are seizing
    power that absolutely does not belong to them. And you are
    right, Article I, it does give us the authority to establish
    those courts in the first instance, to govern those courts. And
    in this case, I think it is time for this body to take action
    to ensure that those courts stay within their proper
    constitutional bounds.
        Senator Cruz, I could go on for another 15 minutes, but if
    you would like to ask questions, I am happy to recognize you.
    They are really enjoying my lengthy, lengthy questions. They
    have been praying you would arrive.
        The Chair recognizes Senator Cruz.
        Senator Cruz. I appreciate the always loquacious Senator
    from Missouri, and I hope you did not have to resort to your
    own personal poetry to fill the time.
        Senator Hawley. That was going to be next.
        Senator Cruz. Well, then I apologize for depriving you of
    that particular joy.
        Let me start by welcoming today's nominees. Mr. Squires,
    Mr. Edlow, Mr. Gaiser, Mr. Woodward, I am grateful that the
    President has nominated each of you to step into these critical
    roles at such a pivotal time for the Trump Administration.
        Over the past several months, President Trump has governed
    with clarity, purpose, and boldness. He has issued Executive
    orders to do what the American people demanded at the ballot
    box, eliminate crime in our streets, secure the southern
    border, and put the Federal Government firmly back on the side
    of law-abiding citizens.
        Under his leadership, the Department of Justice is no
    longer targeting political opponents. It is targeting violent
    criminals and criminal cartels. It is restoring order to a
    system that for years was being used to punish dissent and to
    reward lawlessness. Attorney General Pam Bondi is advancing
    that mission with energy and resolve.
        But make no mistake, the far-left resistance is organized,
    lawless, and aggressive. Far-left activist groups are flooding
    the courts in D.C., Boston, and San Francisco with lawsuits
    designed not to win on the law, but to block the President's
    agenda through judicial activism. And too many judges are going
    along with it. In just the last 4 months, more nationwide
    injunctions have been issued by lone district judges than in
    the entire 20th century.
        Let me repeat that. In 4 months, we have seen more
    nationwide injunctions than America had seen in the entire 20th
    century. That is not oversight. That is obstruction. That is
    activism. One plaintiff in one courtroom is now able to freeze
    Federal policy for 340 million Americans. This is not justice.
    It is political sabotage from the bench. And it is happening
    because the left can't win at the ballot box. It turns out
    releasing murderers, rapists, and child molesters, releasing
    gang members, is not a popular policy with the voters. But with
    left-wing radical judges, that's a different story.
        That is why your nominations matter. The Administration
    needs serious, principled leaders, men and women who know the
    law, who have the backbone to carry it out in the face of
    political pressure. And the American people deserve a DOJ, a
    USCIS, and a USPTO that defends their rights, secures their
    communities, and follows the Constitution, not simply the edict
    of activist judges. Each of you has a critical role to play in
    that.
        Mr. Woodward, you've defended clients in some of the most
    politically charged cases in the country. If confirmed, how
    will you ensure that the DOJ's Civil Division resists political
    pressure, not just from the outside but from within, and
    returns to equal enforcement of the law?
        Mr. Woodward. Senator, thank you for the question. Thank
    you also for the opportunity to meet in advance of this
    hearing. It is an important question, and I don't want my
    answer to be taken lightly, but I am not at all intimidated by
    political pressure. As I have demonstrated through my career,
    people have taken issue with lots of the work that I have done.
    And for me, what is important is ensuring that the law is
    upheld, that the Constitution is respected. And I can assure
    you, Senator, that if confirmed, I will make sure that the
    Department of Justice does just that, that we root out the
    weaponization that has been so long embedded therein. We will
    find it. We will eliminate it. It will cease to exist.
        Senator Cruz. You have seen firsthand how prosecutions can
    be weaponized. What safeguards do you intend to implement to
    prevent civil enforcement from becoming a political tool?
        Mr. Woodward. Senator, I appreciate that question. As
    counselor to the Attorney General, I am already working with
    the Attorney General to build those safeguards in. There are
    hundreds and hundreds of cases that are litigated by the
    Department of Justice. We need to know what they are. We need
    to identify them. We need to be prepared to understand what the
    arguments are. I will work very closely with the deputies that
    have been confirmed by the Senate and that are acting in that
    capacity. We will find those cases. We will organize.
        One of the reasons I would be so blessed to come to the
    department is to help organize that litigation. It is something
    that I have done in the past at my law firm and at the law firm
    that I worked before that. I am confident that I can do it if
    you give me the chance.
        Senator Cruz. The associate attorney general oversees the
    Civil Division, Civil Rights, Antitrust, and other major
    components. What is your top priority for restoring public
    trust in those divisions?
        Mr. Woodward. Senator, again, I hope I am not making light
    of the question because the answer is easy. Follow the law.
        Senator Cruz. Mr. Gaiser, you clerked for three of the most
    respected constitutionalists in the Federal judiciary, Judge
    Edith Jones, Judge Neomi Rao, and Justice Samuel Alito. All
    three are friends of mine. All three I respect deeply. How did
    those experiences shape your legal philosophy, particularly
    regarding the role of the executive branch in faithfully
    executing the law?
        Mr. Gaiser. Thank you so much for that question, Senator
    Cruz. When you are a law clerk, your first task is to do your
    best to state the law in a way that the judge can use your
    work. And you are not the decider. You are there to do
    research, to provide your independent, candid, and honest view
    of the law. And should I be so fortunate to be confirmed as the
    assistant attorney general of the Office of Legal Counsel, that
    would be my primary aim, to always provide the best reading of
    the law and the best legal advice that I can give based on the
    questions that the Office of Legal Counsel receives.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you. And, Mr. Squires, the PTAB was
    created to improve patent quality and to provide a faster,
    cost-effective alternative to litigation. But in recent years,
    many small inventors and startups have expressed concern that
    it disproportionately favors large challengers and undermines
    the value of their patents, that it is effectively an arm of
    big tech. What is your assessment of those concerns, and do you
    believe the system is functioning as Congress intended?
        Mr. Squires. Thank you for the question, Senator. I think
    if you look at the data, the concerns are in plain sight. The
    IPRs themselves have a 68 percent defect rate, if you will. If
    the American patent system is a factory, 68 percent of the
    products we put out are found effective in a later proceeding.
        So the way to address it is to have patents, if I can
    harken back to my opening statement, born strong. We need to be
    able to incentivize getting the prior art in at the examination
    stage or closely thereafter, and having the improved quality, I
    think, will alleviate many concerns.
        There is also a concern I have with IPRs that if, in fact,
    there is this prior art out there and validating patents at
    these great rates, is it or is it not getting back into the
    system and the examination on the front end so it can be
    applied when the applicants are asking for rights?
        Senator Cruz. Okay. And a final question to Mr. Gaiser and
    Mr. Woodward. I talked about the avalanche of nationwide
    injunctions we are seeing from individual district judges. How
    concerned are you about these nationwide injunctions, and what
    can be done to ensure that judges stay in their proper lane
    rather than trying to subvert the authority of the President
    and the will of the people who elected him?
        Mr. Gaiser, we will start with you.
        Mr. Gaiser. Well, thank you, Senator Cruz. As Solicitor
    General of Ohio, I have the privilege of defending Ohio's laws
    against statewide injunctions that are sometimes sought. And I
    always make the same argument, that courts are empowered to
    offer relief no broader than necessary or burdensome than
    necessary to redress the injury of those who are properly
    parties before the court. I think courts should follow that
    guidance, which the U.S. Supreme Court has long established,
    and dates back all the way to the Anglo-American legal
    tradition in equity.
        Senator Cruz. Mr. Woodward?
        Mr. Woodward. Senator, I am very, very concerned. It should
    not be the case that a President duly elected then has to
    convince 600 individual judges to enforce the policy
    prerogatives of that Administration. This is a bipartisan
    problem. This is a problem that has persisted, as you observe,
    for some time now. It is a problem before the Supreme Court,
    and, of course, it is the policy of the Department of Justice
    not to comment on ongoing litigation. But, candidly, it is a
    problem I am not sure the Supreme Court will solve. You know,
    as I look in the Constitution, Article III doesn't seem to have
    any discussion of nationwide injunctions in it, and so it is a
    dubious one to be sure.
        Let me be clear, however, is that it is not a problem I am
    unafraid to face. If confirmed, we will take on all of the
    litigation in these courts. We will defend the President's
    prerogatives, and, as a criminal defense attorney, I can tell
    you that I am used to losing in the district court. We make our
    record, and that is why God invented the court of appeals.
        Senator Cruz. Amen.
        Let me thank each of the nominees. Thank you for being here
    today.
        Written questions to the nominees may be submitted for the
    record until May 28 at 5 p.m. And with that, this hearing is
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                A P P E N D I X

    The following submissions are available at:

      https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-119shrg61819/pdf/CHRG-119shrg
        61819-add1.pdf

    Submitted by Ranking Member Durbin:

     Reproductive Rights Organizations Opposition to Gaiser, statement     2

                                     [all]