    [Senate Hearing 119-260]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                         S. Hrg. 119-260

                         CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL
                                 APPOINTMENTS
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   ----------

                               SEPTEMBER 17, 2025

                                   ----------

                              Serial No. J-119-48

                                   ----------

             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
    62-461                       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
    Durbin, Hon. Richard J...........................................     3
    Tillis, Hon. Thom................................................     6

                              VISITING INTRODUCERS

    Johnson, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin...................     4
    Budd, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from North Carolina.................     5

                                    NOMINEES

    Bailey, Sara Carter..............................................    31
        Questionnaire................................................    47
        Responses to written questions...............................    64
        Additional materials.........................................   102

    Bragdon, David A.................................................    28
        Questionnaire................................................   121
        Responses to written questions...............................   155
        Additional materials.........................................   221

    Freeman, Lindsey Ann.............................................    29
        Questionnaire................................................   236
        Responses to written questions...............................   264

    Orso, Matthew E..................................................    29
        Questionnaire................................................   316
        Responses to written questions...............................   351

    Rodriguez, Susan Courtwright.....................................    30
        Questionnaire................................................   401
        Responses to written questions...............................   457

    Taibleson, Rebecca L.............................................     9
        Questionnaire................................................   505
        Responses to written questions...............................   537
        Additional materials.........................................   593

                                    APPENDIX

    Items submitted for the record...................................   605

                  CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS

                                  ----------

                         WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2025

                                  United States Senate,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice at 10:17 a.m., in
    Room G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E.
    Grassley, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Grassley [presiding], Cruz, Hawley,
    Tillis, Kennedy, Schmitt, Britt, Moody, Durbin, Whitehouse,
    Blumenthal, Hirono, and Booker.
        Also present: Senators Johnson and Budd.

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

        Chairman Grassley. Welcome everyone.
        Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman. May I be recognized?
        Chairman Grassley. It's very unsual but I wouldn't want to
    tell you no.
        Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman. The entire United States
    Senate would like to congratulate you on your birthday----
        Chairman Grassley. Well thank you.
        [Applause.]
        Senator Kennedy [continuing.] Which is today.
        [Applause].
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you. Forget about it. Forget about
    it.
        [Standing Ovation.]
        Senator Kennedy. And folks you haven't lived until you see
    Senator Grassely's birthday cake with all the candles lit.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Kennedy. It looks like a praire fire.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you.
        Senator Kennedy. So happy birthday Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you Senator Kennedy. Now maybe we
    can get down to work. I'd like to welcome everybody to todays'
    hearing.
        Our first panel features Rebecca Taibleson, nominated to
    the U.S. Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit. On panel 2, we'll
    hear from four district court nominees, Matthew Orso and Judge
    Susan Courtright Rodriguez, the Western District of North
    Carolina, and David Bragdon and Lindsey Ann Freeman, Middle
    District of North Carolina. The second panel will also include
    Sarah Carter, nominated for the Director of Office of National
    Drug Control Policy. Senator Johnson will introduce Ms.
    Taibleson in a moment, but I'd like to say a few words to lead
    us off.
        Ms. Taibleson clerked for not one, but two sitting Supreme
    Court justices; Justice Scalia, and then-Judge Kavanaugh when
    he was on the D.C. Circuit. Ms. Taibleson is no stranger to
    this Committee. In 2018, she testified in defense of Justice
    Kavanaugh's nomination. Ms. Taibleson's firsthand experience
    working with Judge Kavanaugh was an important counterpoint to
    the embarrassing partisan spectacle that some people on this
    Committee orchestrated. I hope that my Democrat colleagues
    treat Ms. Taibleson with the fairness and decorum that they
    denied her mentor.
        Indeed, Ms. Taibleson is extremely well-qualified to serve
    as circut judge. Her 15-year experience has spanned private
    practice and public service. She's been a Federal prosecutor
    and the appellate chief in the East District of Wisconsin for
    nearly a decade. Ms. Taibleson has prosecuted some of the most
    violent criminals and serious drug trafficking cartels. She's
    also a member of the Attorney General's Review Committee on
    capital cases.
        During the first Trump Administration, she worked on detail
    as an assistant to the Solicitor General. In that capacity, Ms.
    Taibleson drafted numerous briefs before the Supreme Court. She
    participated in oral arguments before that court, not once, but
    twice.
        Our district judge nominees in North Carolina are also
    highly qualified. Their experiences represent a broad array of
    legal experience. Mr. Bragdon and Ms. Freeman are Federal
    prosecutors who have helped uphold the rule of law. Mr. Orso is
    an accomplished attorney in private practice, and the Judge
    Courtright Rodriguez is a well-respected magistrate judge on
    the same court in which she has been nominated. We'll hear more
    about their background from our colleagues from North Carolina,
    and I look forward to hearing from each of them today.
        Turning to Ms. Carter, she's been nominated to oversee the
    National Drug Control Policy. Addressing the scourge of drug
    abuse is an important issue for Members on both sides of this
    aisle, and we've taken steps to address it in this Congress. I
    co-lead the HALT Fentanyl Act, which was advanced through this
    Committee in a bipartisan vote earlier this year and signed
    into law by President Trump this summer. I appreciate our
    Committee's collaboration to get that bill across the finish
    line.
        Ms. Carter is well positioned to lead the fight to save
    American lives through common sense drug control policy. As an
    investigative journalist, Ms. Carter developed a deep
    understanding of drug crisis facing our country. She's
    absorbed, has observed firsthand the unlawful trafficking of
    controlled substances over the Canadian and Mexican borders,
    and her efforts highlighted the importance of border security
    to the end the flow of drugs and illicit substances into the
    country. I look forward to hearing from Ms. Carter today as
    well.
        Before I turn over to Senator Durbin for his statement, I'd
    like to mention that we have a very long hearing today. We have
    six nominees, two panels, and multiple introducers. I'll ask
    everyone to keep their questions limited to the 5-minutes
    allotted to keep the hearing on schedule. Senator Durbin.

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

        Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, happy birthday.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you.
        Senator Durbin. At the outset, I want to thank you and the
    Members on both sides of the aisle for defending this
    Committee's longstanding bipartisan tradition of requiring blue
    slips from Senators supporting district court nominees from
    their State.
        As Chair of this Committee, I honored the practice despite
    pressure to do away with blue slips from the Democratic side.
    As a result, many Senate Republicans were able to negotiate
    with the Biden White House to fill vacancies in their States.
    Other Republicans use the blue slips to hold open seats in
    their States as Democrats have done, too. I didn't particularly
    like that approach, but I respect their decision.
        As a result, several of the district court nominees before
    us today have been nominated to fill some of those vacancies in
    red States. Blue slips remain a critical part of this body's
    advice and consent responsibility, even when they frustrate the
    party in power.
        Let me say a word about the nominees today. Two panels.
    First panel, a circuit court nominee, of course, by herself,
    and then a second panel, which consists of judicial nominees
    and others. President Trump has sent his nominees to us. Today,
    we'll hear from Sarah Carter Bailey. She's been nominated to be
    director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, also
    known as the ``drug czar''.
        I can't think of a single issue. I agree with the Chairman
    on this of more serious consequence than drug addiction in the
    United States and the heavy price we pay, not just individuals
    and families, but as a society. Doing something about drug
    drugs certainly is the highest priority that we face. The
    Office of National Drug Control Policy is supposed to lead that
    effort, particularly because of the liaison with law
    enforcement, to make sure that the $300 million in Federal
    grants that was available last year will be given for law
    enforcement effectively on a local State basis to reduce drug
    addiction.
        This is an important position that requires a professional
    who is an expert in combating, for example, the opioid
    epidemic. Sadly, Ms. Carter is not that serious nominee. She
    has been a MAGA loyalist and podcaster whom President Trump has
    chosen for this critical role in government. Until she joined
    ONDCP 3 months ago, she had never worked in government. She has
    never served in law enforcement. She has no expertise in public
    health nor any drug policy. She's been a loyal MAGA podcaster.
        Why is it important to bring this up at this point? Because
    of two things from the Trump Administration, which we ought to
    take to heart. The first was a statement made by the Trump
    White House earlier this year about the HIDTA program, HIDTA,
    H-I-D-T-A. A program that provides $300 million to law
    enforcement.
        Here's what the Trump White House said about it.
    ``Initially, for every dollar invested in the HIDTA program,
    the American people get $68 in benefits, making HIDTA an
    effective and efficient use of taxpayers money, and an
    important tool in the Nation's effort to stop drug traffickers
    and save American lives.'' That was the first statement by the
    White House.
        The second statement was their budget request. Guess what
    they did to the HIDTA grants? They cut them by 34 percent from
    $300 million to $196 million. So, I'd have to say to Ms.
    Bailey, whose side are you on at this point? Law enforcement
    comes to us and begs for more money to fight drug problems in
    their communities, and I want to give it to them, but the White
    House wants to cut it by 34 percent.
        What's your position going to be? We'll find out in the
    questioning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. At this point, I'd like to enter into
    the record 10 letters from law enforcement organizations across
    the Nation who are fighting each day to combat drug and human
    trafficking, and who enthusiastically support Ms. Carter's
    nomination. They stated, ``Ms. Carter's commitment to the truth
    and firsthand experiences embedded with our Nation's military
    and law enforcement is proof that she has the determination to
    get the job done, as well as an understanding for what the men
    and women in uniform experience daily. This is precisely the
    bold and innovative leadership we need.''
        Without objection, those will be entered into the record.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Johnson.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. RON JOHNSON,
               A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

        Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman
    Grassley, happy birthday. We all wish you many, many more.
        Ranking Member Durbin and Members of the Committee. I'm
    pleased to introduce Rebecca Taibleson as the President's
    nominee to become the next judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of
    Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
        She's highly qualified for this judgeship having graduated
    magna laude from Yale College and then from Yale Law School in
    2010. After graduation, she clerked for then-Judge Brett
    Kavanaugh on the U.S. Circuit Court of Repeals for the D.C.
    Circuit, and Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court.
    She then practiced civil litigation at Kirkland & Ellis until
    2016.
        In 2016, she joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
    Eastern District of Wisconsin, where she continues to serve as
    an assistant U.S. attorney and appellate chief. During the
    first Trump Administration. Rebecca also served while on detail
    from the U.S. Attorney's Office as an assistant to the
    Solicitor General in the solicit in the Solicitor General's
    office.
        She argued two cases before the Supreme Court on criminal
    issues and briefed dozens more. She also defended the
    President's First Amendment right to control his social media
    accounts, specifically his Twitter account. As an assistant
    U.S. attorney and appellate chief, Rebecca briefed and argued
    criminal and civil appeals, and prosecuted broad range of
    crimes including murder, human and drug trafficking, sexual
    child, child sex abuse, bank fraud, and robbery and
    embezzlement of public funds.
        When organizations were exploiting the COVID-19 pandemic to
    release prisoners, Rebecca fought successfully to keep them in
    prison. Praise for Rebecca's legal mind and commitment to the
    Constitution is numerous and glowing. But just as noteworthy is
    Rebecca's qualifications and accomplishments are even more
    impressive that her top priority remains devotion to her
    family, her husband Benjamin, and her three children, and to
    her faith.
        I'm proud to have recommended the President nominate
    Rebecca Taibleson to the Seventh Circuit, and to be introducing
    her to the Committee as the nominee. I strongly encourage
    everyone to vote in favor of her confirmation. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator Johnson. Now, Senator
    Budd.

                      STATEMENT OF HON. TED BUDD,
            A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

        Senator Budd. Thank you, Chairman Grassley, happy birthday.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you.
        Senator Budd. Ranking Member Durbin, thank you as well, and
    thank you to Senator Tillis for his partnership on these
    judicial nominations before the Committee today.
        It's my honor to introduce David Bragdon and Lindsey
    Freeman, who've been nominated by President Trump to serve on
    the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
    Carolina. And Matthew Orso and Susan Rodriguez have been
    nominated to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina.
        I'm grateful to President Trump for nominating these
    exceptionally qualified individuals to serve as U.S. district
    judges for the great State of North Carolina. I have full
    confidence in each of these nominees, and trust that they will
    faithfully apply the words of our Constitution in the letter of
    the law without resorting to the wrongful practice of judicial
    activism.
        I'm equally confident they will make the decisions in an
    impartial manner, exercising deep judicial humility and
    treating everyone in the courtroom equally with respect.
        I'd like to now take a moment to briefly introduce these
    nominees to the Committee and present their qualifications to
    assume the bench. David Bragdon currently serves as the chief
    of the Appellate Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
    Eastern District of North Carolina, and previously served as
    the assistant U.S. attorney in this office.
        Mr. Bragdon also served as the resident legal advisor for
    the Philippines and the U.S. Department of Justice, where he
    helped to strengthen law enforcement tools. Notably, Mr.
    Bragdon was also a law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas on the
    Supreme Court and to circuit judge, Stephen Williams, on the
    U.S. Court of Appeals for the District for the Columbia
    Circuit. Mr. Bragdon graduated from the University of Virginia
    School of Law summa cum laude. Campbell University where he
    served as student body president.
        Lindsey Freeman currently serves as the assistant U.S.
    attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District
    of North Carolina. She's previously served in senior roles at
    the Department of Justice, including as chief of staff in the
    Office of the Associate Attorney General and the Office of
    Legal Policy. Ms. Freeman was also of counsel at the law firm
    of O'Melveny & Myers, LLP in Los Angeles and in Washington, DC.
        She began her legal career as a law clerk to Judge John M.
    Rogers on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Ms.
    Freeman graduated magna cum laude. Order of the Coif from the
    University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School magna cum laude
    from Harvard University.
        Matthew Orso currently serves as partner of the law firm
    Troutman Pepper Locke in Charlotte, and was previously a
    partner at McGuire Woods in Charlotte.
        Mr. Orso began his law career as the clerk for Judge Robert
    J. Conrad Jr. of the U.S. District Court of Western North
    Carolina. Mr. Orso graduated magna cum laude from St. Louis
    University School of Law, where he served as editor in chief of
    the Law Review, and from the University of Dayton where he was
    captain of the rugby team.
        Last, but certainly not least, Susan Rodriguez, serves as
    the U.S. magistrate judge in the Western District of North
    Carolina. Judge Rodriguez was also previously a law partner at
    McGuire Woods in Charlotte. She served in policy roles at the
    White House Counsel's office and the U.S. Department of
    Homeland Security.
        She began her legal career as law clerk to District Judge
    Frank Whitney of the U.S. District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina. Judge Rodriguez graduated from
    George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School, and
    graduated magna cum laude from Center College.
        Mr. Chairman, I have personally met with each of these
    nominees before the Senate Judiciary Committee today. I've
    heard directly from them about their passion for the rule of
    law and our Constitution. They're highly qualified to serve the
    people of North Carolina in our great Nation with distinction
    and with honor. After hearing their testimony and responses to
    questions today, I'm sure that the Committee will agree that
    they are well qualified and prepared for the responsibility of
    serving North Carolina.
        I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will find
    the same level of confidence in these four nominees before the
    Federal bench that I have, especially on this Constitution Day,
    as we reaffirm our duty to uphold the principles of justice
    enshrined as the supreme law of the land. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator Budd. You folks are
    excused if you want to go. Senator Tillis.

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

        Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
    congratulations, on the 42nd anniversary of your 50th birthday
    [laughter]. I also want to thank my colleague Ted Budd for
    being here. He is a great partner in the State of North
    Carolina. He makes us all proud.
        Chair Grassley, also I'd like to take the opportunity to
    thank Senator Durbin, former Chair Durbin, who honored the blue
    slip policy in the last Congress, which is why two of the
    nominees are before us today. So, thank you, Senator Durbin.
        It's an institution that's over 100 years old, and it's
    every bit as relevant today as it was 100 years ago when a
    Senator from Georgia sent a note on a blue slip of paper to a
    Chairman of the Committee saying that he disagreed with
    somebody in who was going to be solely in his State. And that
    began the process of the blue slip that I hope lasts another
    100 years.
        Now, I want to congratulate the nominees and their
    families. And lots of kids here in the audience. Senator
    Kennedy is a very kind man and brought stationary to some of
    you, but there's more kids than we had stationary, so we'll
    make sure we get you some more before you leave today.
        But I want to welcome Matt Orzo, Susan Rodriguez, David
    Bragdon, and Lindsey Freeman. All four of these nominees are
    imminently qualified, and will make the State and our country
    proud. I want to thank Senator Budd again today for his great
    introductions. I may duplicate, but will add some to what I
    think are the best credentials you could possibly imagine for a
    District Court judge.
        There are currently only 10 active Federal judges in North
    Carolina, not counting those on senior statutes. So, filling
    these four vacancies is very important for our State. Senator
    Budd and I set out to find the best possible judges to fill
    these spots, and I could not be more pleased with the nominees
    that we have before us today. I'd also like to thank President
    Trump and the White House Counsel's office for their work with
    us on these nominations.
        Turning now to our outstanding nominees. Matthew Orzo is a
    graduate of the University of Dayton and St. Louis School of
    Law. Following law school, he clerked for Judge Robert Conrad
    in the Western District of North Carolina. Mr. Orso is
    nominated to fill that seat today. I believe Judge Conrad is in
    attendance today, and I'd like to welcome him, and thank him
    for his service.
        Following his clerkship, Mr. Orso went to private practice
    and is currently a partner at Troutman Pepper Locke. He has
    earned a reputation as one of the best lawyers in North
    Carolina, and will make an excellent addition to the bench. In
    addition to Judge Conrad, Mr. Orso is joined by his wife and
    five children. That's why I think he had a problem with the
    tablets. And I'd like to welcome them all.
        Susan Rodriguez is a graduate from Center College and the
    Antonin Scalia School of Law at George Mason. Between law
    school and college, she served in the Bush administration at
    the White House Counsel's Office. Following law school, she
    clerked for Judge Frank Whitney, whose seat she is nominated to
    fill today. Judge Whitney is also here today as well, and I'd
    like to welcome him and recognize him for his distinguished
    service.
        Judge Rodriguez was in private practice until she was
    appointed as a magistrate judge in the Western District of
    North Carolina, where she currently serves with distinction. In
    addition to Judge Whitney, Judge Rodriguez is joined by her
    husband, and children, and parents today. Welcome, to all of
    you.
        David Bragden is a graduate of Campbell University and the
    University of the Virginia School of Law. Following law school,
    he clerked on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and then for
    Justice Clarence Thomas on the U.S. Supreme Court. He has been
    with the U.S. Attorney's Office since 2007, serving as
    appellate chief since 2021.
        From 2017 to 2020, Mr. Bragdon served as the Department of
    Justice residential legal advisor to the Philippines. He has
    also served as an adjunct faculty member at Campbell University
    School of Law. Mr. Bragdon is joined today by his wife, two
    sons, and his in-laws. I welcome them.
        Finally, Lindsey Freeman is a graduate of Harvard
    University and the University of Pennsylvania School of Law.
    Following law school, she clerked for the Sixth Circuit Court
    of Appeals before joining private practice. During the first
    Trump Administration, Ms. Freeman served at the Department of
    Justice, including as chief of staff and senior counsel.
        She currently serves as an assistant U.S. attorney in the
    Middle District for North Carolina. Ms. Freeman is joined by
    her husband, and I'd like to welcome them. It's an honor to
    introduce these four nominees with impeccable credentials, and
    I look forward to their testimony and their appointment to the
    bench. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Cruz was going to introduce
    Sarah Carter, but he's tied up in another Committee meeting, so
    I'd like to read his statement introducing Sarah Carter. So,
    I'm reading from Senator--what Senator Cruz would've said.
        It is my privilege to introduce my dear friend Sarah Carter
    as President Trump's nominee to serve as director of Office of
    National Drug Control Policy. The position is the so-called
    ``drug czar'' of the United States, charged with assessing and
    countering an ongoing crisis in which murderous substances
    pedaled by murderous cartels have flooded our streets and our
    country. It is a responsibility she is eminently qualified to
    fulfill.
        After graduating from California State Politic University
    with a BA in journalism and communications, Sarah began her
    distinguished career as a journalist. She currently serves as
    Fox News contributor, as well as senior investigative reporter
    and president of Dark Wire Incorporated, positions that she has
    held since 2017.
        Her career spans more than two decades of journalism,
    including Circa.com, the Blaze, Washington Examiner, The
    Washington Times, and the Los Angeles News Group. Sarah is one
    of the most tenacious investigative journalists, tracking and
    reporting on issues at the core of the national security and
    law enforcement.
        She has traveled, monitored, and reported on everything
    from Afghanistan to the U.S. Southern Border. She exposed the
    deadly impact of fentanyl and opioids, uncovered terrorists and
    cartel operations, and shed light on the devastating reality of
    human trafficking. She has brought to the Nation's attention
    the overlapping crisis of illict drugs cartels and human
    trafficking.
        Her focus on the fentanyl crisis and border security
    revealed secret tunnel systems, narcotics, trafficking routes,
    and even the involvement of the Mexican Federal officials in
    the drug trade. I have been to the U.S. Mexico border with
    Sarah several times. She accompanied me and other Senators on
    multiple delegations. Sarah and her team were on the front
    lines conveying footage of the humanitarian and drug crisis.
        In 2019, Sarah received the HIDTA Award for her nonprofit
    documentary, Not in Vain, which examined the fentanyl crisis
    cartel activity and national security threats. In 2023 she was
    honored by CPAC for her reporting on human trafficking in the
    Western Hemisphere. As President Trump said when he nominated
    Ms. Carter, ``Sara will lead the charge to protect our Nation
    and save our children from the scourge of drugs.'' I strongly
    encourage my colleagues to support her nomination. Thank you.
    That's the end of Senator Cruz's statement in support of Sarah
    Carter.
        Now, I'd like to have Ms. Taibleson come to the table, and
    I'd like to have you stand before you start out, because I'd
    like to issue this oath.
        [Witness is sworn in.]
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you. Now, as you sit down, you can
    give your opening statement. You have the privilege of
    introducing anybody you want to introduce that's here or isn't
    here in support of your nomination.

     STATEMENT OF REBECCA L. TAIBLESON, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED
              STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

        Ms. Taibleson. Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member
    Durbin, and to the Committee, for considering my nomination.
    And thank you to President Trump for the great honor of that
    nomination. I'm also grateful to Senator Johnson for his
    generous introduction.
        I'll introduce some family who are here, my wonderful
    husband and three children in from Wisconsin. I just have to
    say, go Brewers for my son. Even today, especially today, the
    most important job I ever expect to have is being their mom. My
    parents, Michael and Cynthia are here from Pickens County,
    South Carolina, a place very familiar to Senator Graham.
        I lack the time or the eloquence to properly thank them
    today, both are lawyers. My father, a law professor, the apple
    did not fall far from the tree. We moved here from Canada when
    I was 4. We were not fleeing persecution or poverty. My parents
    simply wanted to raise their children in the greatest country
    that has ever existed. This one, and I am profoundly grateful.
        My brother, Josh, a veteran, has come here all the way from
    Hawaii, a State he fell in love with when he was stationed
    there as a Marine. My 3-month-old nephew and his mom are
    watching from Maui. I also have my husband's wonderful family
    here, and great friends and colleagues. Thank you for coming.
        Today, is Constitution Day, the 238th anniversary of its
    signing. That is the longest surviving written Constitution of
    any country in the world. And in my opinion, the Federal
    judiciary is one of our Constitution's finest creations. I know
    that firsthand from the judges who have been my bosses and
    mentors, especially Antonin Scalia, Brett Kavanaugh, and Diane
    Sykes, and from the work of appearing in the Federal courts day
    in and day out, representing this country and fighting crime in
    the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
        I know the Seventh Circuit particularly well. It's a
    learned and collegial court, and if I have the honor of being
    confirmed, I will spend the rest of my life living up to those
    values, to the examples set by my judicial mentors, and to the
    faith put in me by the President and this body. Thank you,
    Senators.
        Chairman Grassley. Are you ready for questions now?
        Ms. Taibleson. Yes sir.
        Chairman Grassley. Okay. Thank you very much. And
    compliments to your family for working with you for your public
    service. You had the rare opportunity clerk for not one, but
    two justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, Scalia, and then-Judge
    Kavanaugh when he was on the D.C. Circuit. What did those
    mentors teach you about the proper role of a judge and how did
    they inform your judicial philosophy
        Ms. Taibleson. So much, Senator. From Justice Scalia, I
    learned, I think, what we all learned from Justice Scalia,
    which is how to interpret the text of our Constitution and
    laws. He was a profoundly influential justice, perhaps the most
    influential of the century in which he served.
        And his influence on me was very pronounced. I wanted to
    clerk for him from the first Scalia opinion I read as a 1L in
    law school because no one more persuasively made the case for
    judicial restraint for textualism and originalism. And clerking
    for him was the best possible training in those values.
        From Justice Kavanaugh, I also learned so much. I think the
    number one thing I learned, I'll describe it as energetic
    public service, which is to say we in public service are
    supposed to--we work just as hard as someone who is billing a
    private client and getting paid by the hour.
        We take our obligation to the public profoundly seriously.
    And that means employing a very careful process to decide each
    case, no matter how long it takes. Reading each brief,
    carefully, deeply researching the law, and then writing in a
    manner that is so careful because your opinions need to
    withstand the tests of time and future testing in litigation.
        Chairman Grassley. The judiciary interprets laws to ensure
    the preservation of liberty guaranteed under the document. One
    of the most sacred is the right to free exercise of religion.
    Justice Kavanaugh recently said that the Supreme Court has,
    ``made some good progress on recognizing the Constitutional
    protection of religious equality and religious liberty.''
        What are your views on religious liberty and the role of
    judges in protecting it?
        Ms. Taibleson. Justice Kavanaugh is right, Senator. In
    about the last 12 or 13 years, the Supreme Court has issued
    opinion after opinion that has been strongly protective of
    religious liberty. And I would of course follow those
    faithfully as a lower court judge.
        I actually had the privilege of working on several of those
    matters while I was at the Solicitor General's office. I worked
    on and helped draft the brief in a case involving Thomas More
    Law Center against Becerra challenging a California law. And
    there, the Supreme Court agreed with our religious protective
    views. I worked on Espinoza against Montana involving the
    Blaine Amendments and funding for religious schools.
        I worked on Fulton v. City of Philadelphia involving
    Catholic social services work to place foster children. And in
    both of those cases as well, the Supreme Court holdings
    protected religious liberty, which was consistent with the
    arguments that we made.
        In addition, Senator, I am a proud and practicing Jew,
    raising three Jewish children. And I think as a Jewish American
    you would have to be completely historically illiterate to be
    anything but profoundly grateful for this country's tradition
    of religious liberty. And that tradition protects not just the
    religious among us, but also secular values.
        I mean, if you think back to the sort of canonical phrasing
    in West Virginia against Barnett, the case involving the Pledge
    of Allegiance saying something like, you know, if there's any
    fixed star in our Constitutional constellation, it's that no
    official can tell citizens what is Orthodox in the areas of
    religion, politics, or morals.
        And so, that's, I think, an example of how the Supreme
    Court's protection of our religious freedoms really inures to
    the benefit of all Americans.
        Chairman Grassley. You appeared before this Committee
    several years ago in defense that Judge Kavanaugh's nomination.
    His hearing was tainted with unfair political attacks on his
    character. But your testimony as a woman who worked closely
    with him, provided critical insight into Justice's competency
    and temperament. How did Justice Kavanaugh's commitment
    throughout the confirmation hearing and his jurisprudence
    influenced you?
        Ms. Taibleson. The experience of watching and supporting
    Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation was a formative one. I
    remember thinking to myself many times that his commitment to
    public service, energetic public service, must be very strong
    to go through all of that.
        I was very honored to appear before this Committee in 2018.
    I actually had with me the littlest one there. She was a
    newborn. And so, she came, and she sat right outside the door
    there with a babysitter while I testified. And Senator Kennedy,
    I'm sure you don't remember, but at the airport later that day,
    our flight was 7 hours delayed. And I was there with a very
    fussy baby, and Senator Kennedy ran into me and was extremely
    kind. So, I remember that very well.
        And I'm very honored to be here before you, again, ideally
    in less contentious times and circumstances.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you. Senator Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Ms. Taibleson, you were doing just great
    until you mentioned the Brewers.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Taibleson. I'm sorry, hard disagree.
        Senator Durbin. Well, I won't hold that against you. Let me
    tell you, I'm wrapping up my Senate career with one more year.
    It's been my great honor to serve on this Committee, virtually,
    the whole time I've been in the Senate.
        There have been some glorious great moments and some not so
    glorious. I can recall when we had the first Muslim American
    nominee for the Circuit Bench in the Third Circuit a few years
    ago under President Biden. And the questions that were asked of
    that nominee I thought were beneath the of Committee.
        He was asked as a Muslim, if his family celebrated 9/11 in
    their home. He is from the New York area, and protested that he
    thought it was an outrage that anyone would suggest that
    because he had lost personal friends in 9/11. I thought that
    was a low point in the Committee.
        But I'm sorry to say what's happened to you today may be a
    new low point. We've received letters from conservative
    conservative political organizations criticizing you, your
    husband, and your family. How do they criticize you on the
    basis of your religion and your religious practice? I've never
    seen anything like it.
        American Family Association sends us a letter, let me tell
    you some of the things they criticize you for. You and your
    husband are affiliated with what they consider to be a
    politically liberal congregation. I can't pronounce it, but
    it's Emanuel Jerusalem in the Milwaukee area.
        They go on to criticize. ``It appears that the rabbi whom
    the Taibleson chose to perform their wedding currently serves a
    pro LGBTQ congregation.'' They then say that you and your
    family have donated to the Milwaukee Jewish Federation. I'm
    familiar with the Jewish Federation. It's a big deal in
    Chicago, as I'm sure it is in Milwaukee. They do remarkable
    great work. They then talked about other things such as your
    husband and you donating to candidates of both political
    parties.
        It's is beyond me to believe that an organization with this
    membership would raise these issues. They're ignoring the very
    basics of our Constitution, as you noted, which says, of
    course, in the Bill of Rights, we have freedom of religious
    belief or no religious belief. That's up to us, and the
    Government is not going to choose a preferred religion.
        But there's a third provision which says no religious test
    shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or
    public trust under the United States. So, whether it's the
    First Liberty Institute or the AFA action group, both of which
    sent letters opposing your candidacy, conservative groups
    making that position, they're ignoring the obvious letter and
    law of the Constitution. I'd like to give you an opportunity to
    comment or react.
        Ms. Taibleson. Senator, I'm very proud of my Jewish faith.
    I was raised that way, my parents who are right there, raising
    our children Jewish. And, of course, Article VI of the
    Constitution says that there's no religious test for public
    office. And that's one of our Constitution's many protections
    for people of faith.
        And regardless of those letters, I'm really honored by--you
    know, it was the President's choice to nominate me, and he did
    so, and I'm honored by that selection and grateful for it.
        Senator Durbin. And let me ask you so it's a matter of
    record. Your selection for this position involved the two U.S.
    Senators from Wisconsin, did it not?
        Ms. Taibleson. Well, Senator, I don't want to mislead you.
    I don't think I have Senator Baldwin's support. What it did
    involve was its tradition in Wisconsin for any judicial nominee
    to proceed through this sort of nominating commission to which
    each of our Senators appoints three people. And I did go
    through that nominating commission, and they did send my name
    forward. But and I'm very privileged to have Senator Johnson's
    support. But I don't want to be misleading, to my knowledge, I
    do not have Senator Baldwin's support.
        Senator Durbin. Could I ask you to comment in the short
    time that's remaining. The Kavanaugh nomination was
    controversial at many different levels. One of the questions
    was what he would do as a member of the Supreme Court on the
    case of Roe v. Wade. What was your understanding of his
    promise, and what actually occurred?
        Ms. Taibleson. I don't recall him making any specific
    promise about a future case, like the one Dobbs that did come
    up. My memory is that like every nominee, he recited the sort
    of judicial canon that he can't make prejudgments or promises
    of cases in the future.
        I recall that, I think, he described as has every nominee,
    Roe v. Wade as a precedent of the Supreme Court, which of
    course it was. And then, in the Dobbs decision, the Supreme
    Court applied the established stares decisis factors to
    determine what to do with that precedent of the Supreme Court.
        Senator Durbin. What was your reaction to his vote on the
    Dobbs decision
        Ms. Taibleson. Senator, as a judicial nominee sitting
    before you, I can't give you a thumbs up or a thumbs down on
    Supreme Court precedents. Dobbs held that Roe was egregiously
    wrong on the day that it was decided, and had caused numerous
    problems in the law and in American society. And Dobbs
    determined that it was appropriate to overrule it.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley [off mic].
        Former DOJ employees, they describe Ms. Taibleson as, ``An
    extraordinary lawyer, public servant, and colleague.'' And they
    praise, ``her topnotch legal mind, her unwavering commitment to
    the rule of law and her deep and abiding love of this country
    during her nearly decade long service within the department.''
        Without objection, that will be included.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Kennedy's the next. Senator
    Kennedy, you're the next.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Counselor, as you
    know, it's hard to pass a bill in the U.S. Senate. Our Founders
    intended that to be the case. And consequently, if a bill does
    pass, it's gone through a long, arduous process; a lot of
    reports issued a lot of debate, and all of it is written down.
        Why has it become common practice, and do you support it,
    of ignoring that rich legislative history when you interpret a
    statute?
        Ms. Taibleson. Well, Senator, I think the first rule of
    statutory interpretation is that the text is what's paramount.
    And that's because the text is what actually proceeded through
    bicameralism and presentment, which are really just the----
        Senator Kennedy. Of course, it's paramount, but why can't
    the text be supplemented by looking at the history?
        Ms. Taibleson. I think the legislative history can
    sometimes provide a tool to help interpret the text, and it's
    often in parties' briefs, and I would of course consider it
    that way. But it's just important to keep in mind its
    subordinated role in that interpretation because the intention
    of any particular legislator does not have the force of law.
    Instead, the text does.
        So, the legislative history and the intentions of specific
    legislators should never take primacy over the text or refute
    the text.
        Senator Kennedy. But it doesn't have to, does it, Counsel?
    It just gives you context.
        Ms. Taibleson. I agree with that.
        Senator Kennedy. When you interpret a statute or write a
    brief and you think that the language is plain, aren't you
    tempted to go look at the history just to make sure that your
    interpretation is correct?
        Ms. Taibleson. It depends, I suppose, on the particular
    statute, and the nature of the history at issue, and the
    question.
        Senator Kennedy. But don't you want to just go take a peek?
    You look at the language and you say, ``Well, this is, this is
    as clear as thunder on a summer night, but maybe I'll just take
    a peek at the legislative history to make sure that I'm not out
    in left field.'' And the Supreme Court condemns that. Does it
    not?
        Ms. Taibleson. The Supreme Court does not uniformly condemn
    that. And there are certainly cases where, you know,
    legislative history or statutory history have provided a tool--
    --
        Senator Kennedy. But sure, they do. Sure, they do. I mean,
    originalism--and I'm not saying they're wrong. Please don't
    misunderstand me. I'm just trying to understand your
    perspective. Originalism and textualism is accepted even by the
    left of center justices, and I've read opinion after opinion,
    lower courts as well, where they say, ``Well legislative
    history, we can't rely on it.''
        Ms. Taibleson. Legislative history cannot be relied upon to
    trump the language of a statute. And so, in the language of a
    statute, really, is that clear, Senator? There's not that much,
    and it bears directly on the question before the court.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Well, let me ask you something. Does
    the Supreme Court sanction looking to the Federalist Papers in
    interpreting the Constitution?
        Ms. Taibleson. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. Why isn't that legislative history?
        Ms. Taibleson. The process for ratifying the Constitution
    is of course different than the bicameralism and presentment
    process that applies to statutory text. The Constitution was of
    course publicly ratified----
        Senator Kennedy. No, it's not. No, it's not.
        Ms. Taibleson. Well.
        Senator Kennedy. You look at the plain language, don't you?
        Ms. Taibleson. Yes, yes. But in looking at the plain
    language, the question we ask is what was the original public
    meaning of that language? And in the case of the Constitution,
    the original public meaning is elucidated by the debates
    surrounding its ratification. And those debates are really
    captured in the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalists Papers,
    ratification debates, the notes from the Constitutional
    Convention, documents like that.
        So, those documents can bear directly on the Constitutional
    text in a way that is more legitimate necessarily than the
    statement of an individual legislature would be vis-a-vis
    statute.
        Senator Kennedy. Well, then when we interpret the United
    States Constitution--and I agree with you that's the case, I'm
    just asking you whether you think it ought to be the case--then
    when we interpret the United States Constitution, why do we let
    lawyers do it? Why don't we just hire history professors?
        Ms. Taibleson. The history that judges are looking to in
    interpreting the Constitution and other statutes, is primarily
    legal history. It's not something like you know a biography of
    George Washington. It's instead things like statutes or debates
    about statutes, the Federalist Papers. And certainly, I think
    law schools could do a better job and should do a better job,
    teaching students how to read that legal history. But it is
    fundamentally legal history.
        And then the task the judges have in reading that legal
    history is to draw analogies between that legal history and our
    modern times. And that analogical reasoning is, I think, a
    fundamentally lawyerly task the judges are particularly skilled
    at.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley [off mic]. Senator Moody.
        Senator Moody. Thank you. Feel like I'm [off mic] over my
    colleague here, but I'll gladly do it. There.
        Chairman Grassley [off mic].
        Senator Moody. Thank you. You run a tight ship, and we
    appreciate you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much----
        Senator Kennedy. It's his birthday.
        Senator Moody. It's your birthday, and it's the
    Constitution's birthday.
        Senator Kennedy. He was there
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Cruz. You should just ask him about the Federalist
    Papers and the debate.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Moody. Absolutely.
        Senator Kennedy. Just ask Grassley.
        Senator Moody. Thank you for being here, and
    congratulations on your nomination. Thank you to your family.
    These hearings, we know, can be difficult, sometimes the most
    difficult because of my colleague Kennedy here than anybody
    else. But certainly, I know that you appreciate their support
    and we recognize them for being here today.
        I was particularly touched by your comments about
    Constitution Day, and that the Federal judiciary is one of our
    country's greatest creations. Indeed, the structure of our
    Government and the rights of its citizens that are set forth in
    the Constitution.
        I believe right now, at this moment in time, every American
    should be reminded of the beauty of this country. And it's the
    documents that set forth how we will govern ourselves as a free
    people, and the true purpose of government to protect its
    people and their rights.
        And I always love to hear from nominees their value in
    that, and especially right now we have this convergence of
    disorder and crime around some of our States and cities in
    which politicians are undermining the rule of law based on
    encouraging people in office to just obliterate the separation
    of powers. Meaning, someone in the executive branch that is
    asked for the responsibility to enforce the law, saying,
    ``Well, I don't agree with those laws and therefore I will not
    do that.'' Or even judges in some respect.
        And I say this with great sadness because I believe an
    independent judiciary is a cornerstone of securing the rights
    of a people and ensuring that grievances and conflicts have a
    place that people can take them, an independent arbiter. But I
    watch as district court judges around this country, not only
    rule based on what they believe the law should be, but go on to
    write lengthy written opinions that personally attack a
    governor or someone in office.
        And I don't say that that makes me angry or sad just
    because it may be a Republican, but because of what it does to
    the integrity of the institution, of the Federal judiciary, the
    undermining of the public's perception of its trustworthiness
    and independence. And I believe when you shake that too much
    you shake the foundation of this Nation and so on Constitution
    Day, I think it's important that we come back together and get
    back to basics on the true role of a judge.
        And you know you're going to be asked to write written
    opinions, sometimes you may author them. I was hoping you could
    give us your opinion on how a judge might author opinions that
    would restore or reinforce the public's trust in the judiciary
    and its true role. And it's a judges understanding of it's
    limited scope and the enormous trust of responsibility that we
    give judges.
        Ms. Taibleson. Thank you, Senator. The Federal judiciary
    plays, as you suggested, a vital role in preserving our
    separation of powers and done right. The Constitution assigns a
    very specific job to the Federal judiciary, which is to
    interpret and apply the law and not to make or change the law.
    And judges who carry out that obligation in good faith, I
    think, increase the public's faith in the institutions of our
    Government.
        Now, a few more specific interpretive principles flow from
    that general rule. Things like textualism and originalism help
    judges ensure that they're applying the law as written and not
    importing their own moral or policy preferences into cases. The
    elected branches are the ones who are able to exercise, and
    should exercise their moral and policy preferences in
    representing the people, but judges are not elected to the
    contrary.
        Senator Moody. What about these swipes that they like to
    take at elected officials in really superfluous language that
    is not needed in a legal opinion.
        Ms. Taibleson. I'm very lucky to be nominated to an
    extremely collegial court whose opinions are very disciplined,
    and I cannot think of such a swipe in a recent Seventh Circuit
    opinion. I would commit to following that tradition of
    collegiality and civility. There's really no need or place in
    for a judge to be taking personal swipes at anybody, whether
    it's from the bench or in your written work product.
        Chairman Grassley [off mic]. Senator Blumenthal.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Congratulations on your nomination. Thank you for being here.
        I want to go back to the question that Senator Durbin asked
    you about your support for Justice Kavanaugh. You were not only
    supportive, you were energetically and vehemently so appearing
    before this Committee as a witness and on cable television. I'm
    just curious if you knew then what he did in reversing Roe v.
    Wade, would you have supported him?
        Ms. Taibleson. Yes, Senator. What I said then, and what I
    still think is true now, is that then-Judge Kavanaugh had
    amassed a considerable record of experience on the D.C. Circuit
    that demonstrated his qualifications to serve on the Supreme
    Court. And I think his service on the Supreme Court has borne
    that out.
        Senator Blumenthal. But he demonstrated in Dobbs a total
    disregard for precedent and the principle of stares decisis.
        Ms. Taibleson. In Dobbs, the Supreme Court applied the
    established stares decisis factors to evaluate the ongoing
    precedential relevance of Roe. Those factors include the nature
    of the error in the precedent, how bad the error was or the
    quality of the reasoning, the reliance interests, the effect
    that the prior precedent has had on other areas of law, and its
    workability.
        Senator Blumenthal. So, you think Dobbs was correctly
    decided?
        Ms. Taibleson. Senator, as a judicial nominee, the cannons
    of ethics preclude me from giving a thumbs up or thumbs down to
    Supreme Court precedent because it suggests that I would apply
    that precedent according to my own thumbs up or thumbs down.
    And I wouldn't. I would apply every precedent of the Supreme
    Court faithfully.
        Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you as a matter of
    precedent. Do you think Brown v. Board of Education was
    correctly decided?
        Ms. Taibleson. Yes, I do. As many judicial nominees, wiser
    than I, have gone before me to explain, Brown is a monumental
    and foundational decision of this country. And its core holding
    that's separate but equal is a violation of the Equal
    Protection Clause is correct.
        Senator Blumenthal. And how about Loving v. Virginia?
        Ms. Taibleson. The same exception has been recognized for
    Loving. And so, yes, I agree that Loving v. Virginia is
    correct.
        Senator Blumenthal. And Obergefell v. Hodges.
        Ms. Taibleson. In Obergefell, the Supreme Court held that
    the 14th Amendment requires States to recognize same sex
    marriages on the same terms as they recognize opposite sex
    marriages. And I would faithfully apply that precedent as a
    lower court judge.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, let me make sure I understand.
    Are you answering the question, yes or no?
        Ms. Taibleson. I'm answering the question, that I would
    faithfully apply Obergefell as a lower court judge. And you
    know along with my fellow former nominees, I can't give
    Obergefell a thumbs up or a thumbs down.
        Senator Blumenthal. You said Loving was correctly decided,
    Brown was correctly decided. Obergefell, you won't opine?
        Ms. Taibleson. That's correct, Senator. Like previous
    judicial nominees who have sat before you, I'm bound by the
    canons of judicial ethics and I'm simply following the
    recognized examples of acknowledging the sort of monumental----
        Senator Blumenthal. The principle of Obergefell is less
    valid to you than the principles in those other cases?
        Ms. Taibleson. That's not what I'm saying, Senator. I'm
    saying that Brown and Loving are monumental and solid decisions
    in sort of this Nation's history. The prior nominees have----
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, I think there are a lot of folks
    who would feel that Obergefell is a monumental decision, too.
        Ms. Taibleson. Like basically every prior nominee before
    me, Senator, I'm not able to give a thumbs up or thumbs down
    there.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, I think we expect more of an
    appellate court judge in your position than just to say like
    every other nominee before me, I'm going to evade an answer to
    that question.
        Ms. Taibleson. I will faithfully follow Obergefell and
    every Supreme Court precedent.
        Senator Blumenthal. And Griswold v. Connecticut, correctly
    decided?
        Ms. Taibleson. I will faithfully follow Griswold, along
    with Obergefell, and every binding Supreme Court precedent.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, I'm disappointed in your answers,
    and my time has expired.
        Chairman Grassley [off mic]. Senator Britt.
        Senator Britt. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and happy birthday.
    Thank you for being here. I appreciate your willingness to
    answer the call to service. You have an incredibly impressive
    career. To your children that are sitting behind you guys, your
    mom is a boss. Pretty incredible.
        And so, thank you so much for your willingness to do this
    at a time where I think our Nation is grappling with what it
    means to be in the public eye and stepping up to serve. In
    addition to that thank you for, for your willingness to do that
    at the highest level.
        Looking at your background, obviously clerking for then-
    Judge Kavanaugh and Justice Scalia, immensely impressive. In
    addition to your courtroom experience, I'd like to know,
    through that courtroom experience that you've had, is there a
    particular case that you've worked on that you believe is the
    most formative in your career? And how is that going to help
    kind of inform your work on the bench?
        Ms. Taibleson. I think the most formative case for me in
    terms of, especially, my Seventh Circuit practice was an in
    bank case called United States against Paige. And Paige
    concerned the standards for convicting people of conspiracies
    to traffic drugs. So, these are the more serious drug
    traffickers who we prosecute in the U.S. attorney's office.
        And in Paige, what we urged the Seventh Circuit to do was
    actually to overturn decades of its own case law that had sort
    of bit-by-bit, case-by-case, gone awry and deviated from the
    Supreme Court's guidance about the meaning of conspiracy.
        And we achieved that result successfully by doing
    essentially very deep research into the Seventh Circuit's case
    law, and then presenting our arguments forcefully, but
    respectfully, when you're asking court to overturn many of its
    cases.
        And we succeeded, you know, I think beyond my wildest
    expectations, garnering in the vast majority of the court to, I
    think, you know adjust its case law in the manner that we asked
    it to do so.
        Senator Britt. When you're looking at the then-Judge
    Kavanaugh or Justice Scalia and that experience that you had,
    is there any particular case or moment that where you were in
    discussion dialog with them? Anything that you feel like will
    be formative to how you conduct yourself when you're on the
    bench?
        Ms. Taibleson. As a law clerk?
        Senator Britt. Yes.
        Ms. Taibleson. As a law clerk, I think the most formative
    case that I helped with was the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare
    case. Obviously, the rules of confidentiality and clerkships
    preclude me from saying too much about that work, but it was a
    huge case and I was privileged to get to work for Justice
    Scalia on that.
        Senator Britt. Excellent. Look, I know that you're a member
    of the Attorney General's Review Committee on Capital Cases,
    and you've litigated cases involving issues related to the
    death penalty. I know that the death penalty is far more common
    at the State level than the Federal level.
        But as President Trump has now issued the executive order
    allowing the use of the death penalty when in criminal cases in
    Federal, when authorized and appropriate under the law, can you
    explain how the use of capital punishment differs from Federal
    court as opposed to the State court system, and discuss your
    role on the Attorney General's Review Committee and what all
    that entails?
        Ms. Taibleson. Yes. So, each State, of course, has the
    authority to decide for its own self, the penalties that are
    attached to its most serious crimes. So, some of our States
    have the death penalty and some do not. And you know in
    practice, as a result, there are far more executions in some
    States than in others.
        The Federal Government, by contrast, of course, has a
    uniform rule across the United States, and there are a
    reasonably small number of Federal crimes that are eligible for
    the death penalty upon conviction. Within the Department of
    Justice the decision of whether to seek the death penalty in a
    particular case is an extraordinarily weighty one that goes all
    the way up to leadership.
        And in its path up to leadership, there's something called
    the Review Committee for Capital Cases, which is a set of DOJ
    attorneys who review the cases that are eligible for the death
    penalty and make a recommendation that goes to department
    leadership about whether to seek or not.
        And so, it's a careful process that's really case-specific
    and that you know always keeps in mind the extreme weightiness
    of that work. I have, as you mentioned, led the appellate
    litigation team for two Federal executions, and that is among
    the weightiest and most serious work I have ever done. And so,
    I take that extremely seriously.
        Senator Britt. Absolutely. Well, I just want to say thank
    you for your willingness. Are these your parents here as well?
        Ms. Taibleson. Yes.
        Senator Britt. You've got to be so proud. I mean, her
    command of the issues, her knowledge, and the way she conducts
    herself with class, integrity, is amazing. You know, when you
    see somebody go toe to toe with our colleagues up here, it's
    amazing. And I also wanted to say thank you for your commitment
    to Senator Moody of conducting yourself with collegiality and
    civility, and the way that you approach things on the bench.
        Ms. Taibleson. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley [off mic]. Senator Whitehouse
        Senator Whitehouse. Thanks very much, Chairman. Ms.
    Taibleson, welcome. Tell me where the boundary is between First
    Amendment protected speech and unlawful prosecutable
    misconduct?
        Ms. Taibleson. There are a few categories of you know
    speech that are exempted from First Amendment protection and
    they are criminal. So, examples are threats or fraudulent
    speech. Things like libel and defamation can be subject to
    civil litigation. Fighting words, incitement. Those are the
    sort of standard categories of speech that are exempted from
    First Amendment protection, and instead, subject to civil or
    criminal liability.
        Senator Whitehouse. And that is pretty established set of
    boundaries. Right?
        Ms. Taibleson. Yes, Senator. I should have been clear. I
    was answering with respect to Supreme Court precedent not--you
    know it's not written in the text of the Constitution itself.
        Senator Whitehouse. But those boundaries have been there
    for a long time and are quite clear to ordinary normal judges.
    Correct?
        Ms. Taibleson. The categories are reasonably well
    established. There are sometimes questions about whether
    something fits into a particular category, whether it's conduct
    or speech. So, not every case is easy, but I think the
    categories I listed are pretty well established in Supreme
    Court precedent.
        Senator Whitehouse. And does that boundary shift in any
    respect depending on which side of a public argument you are
    on?
        Ms. Taibleson. Under Supreme Court precedent, viewpoint
    discrimination under the First Amendment is strictly--is
    basically almost never. And so, to the extent you're talking
    about viewpoint-based discrimination, which say sort of
    treating different speech favorably or less favorably under the
    law based on its viewpoint, that is subject--is the strictest
    scrutiny under the Supreme Court's cases.
        Senator Whitehouse. The reason I ask is that I think we're
    seeing an administration that wants to attack and perhaps even
    try to criminalize, or at least burden with investigation and
    prosecution, protected speech that it just happens to disagree
    with because the protected speech is to disagree with and
    challenge the administration. And I think it's really important
    in that contest that courts hue to that well established line.
        Do you agree that courts really need to stick to their guns
    on this question of the line between First Amendment protected
    speech and unlawful conduct?
        Ms. Taibleson. Every case has to be taken case-by-case with
    respect to the very specific speech that's in front of you, and
    the facts, and the law. And of course, Senator, the ultimate
    obligation of every Federal judge is to follow the law.
        Senator Whitehouse. And there's no rule that gives the
    President a special privilege to move that boundary just
    because he's the, the senior executive official?
        Ms. Taibleson. The President has the authority to set our
    enforcement priorities you know, as every President has done,
    including in criminal prosecutions. And then, within the scope
    of each criminal prosecution, the you know law will be applied
    to the facts of that particular case. And in that process, yes,
    it's the law that governs.
        Senator Whitehouse. And the boundary remains the boundary?
        Ms. Taibleson. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Whitehouse. Yes. I wanted to just flag one
    additional thing. I mentioned this fairly often in these
    hearings because court credibility often comes up as an issue,
    I think, in which we are all concerned.
        And I just want to take this opportunity to point out with
    respect to court credibility, that if you look at the record of
    what is going on at the Supreme Court, and particularly, you
    look at amicus practice in front of the Supreme Court, what I
    see regularly is a flotilla of anonymously funded, dark money-
    funded right wing groups that file packets of amicus briefs,
    10, 12 at a time in a really big case, as many as 50.
        And the Court does not oblige them yet to disclose whether
    or not those amicus briefs are coordinated, scripted, commonly
    funded, multiple ways for the same actual voice to penetrate
    the Supreme Court case with seemingly independent, but actually
    like different piano keys on the same piano. And I think that's
    a failure of the court.
        And I also think that it becomes telling at some point when
    whoever's behind those briefs always wins. They don't always
    show up. They only show up when it matters to the interests of
    who are behind those front groups. But my experience is--and
    we're trying to put some hard numbers to this--my experience is
    that when those right-wing dark money groups show up, they
    always win. And I think that does not help the credibility of
    the court.
        And I thank the Chairman for allowing me to go 8 seconds
    over.
        Chairman Grassley [off mic]. Senator Hawley.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Taibleson,
    welcome. It's great to have you here. Congratulations on your
    nomination. Let me just pick up on a question that Senator
    Blumenthal was asking a moment ago about abortion and life
    issues. What standards should courts apply when reviewing State
    abortion laws?
        Ms. Taibleson. What the court held in Dobbs was that the
    Constitution does not provide a right to abortion. And as a
    result, Dobbs returned the issue of abortion to the people and
    the representatives, State-by-State, and said essentially, this
    is not a question for Federal judges because it doesn't say it
    in the Constitution. It's a question for the people and the
    democratic process. And that is the effect of Dobbs. And as a
    result, you know the State democratic process is now the
    process that has control over that issue.
        Senator Hawley. What about Federal legislation affecting
    abortion?
        Ms. Taibleson. Federal legislation affecting abortion would
    be subject to the same you know scrutiny as other Federal other
    Federal legislation. It has to fall within Congress' enumerated
    powers first and foremost.
        Senator Hawley. What's the precedent or lines of precedent
    that would govern any review of Federal legislation related to
    abortion?
        Ms. Taibleson. Well, I mean, a few lines of precedent might
    potentially be relevant. You know, whether it's legitimate
    commerce clause or spending clause, legislation is probably the
    first question that comes to mind, depending on how the law is
    structured and if not, whether there is some other affirmative
    hook in the Constitution that provides Congress with the power
    to pass that law.
        Senator Hawley. So, you recognize Dobbs then as the
    controlling precedent when it comes to life questions? Is that
    what I'm hearing you to say?
        Ms. Taibleson. From the Supreme Court, yes, sir.
        Senator Hawley. Well, and the Seventh Circuit or anywhere
    else for that matter. Correct?
        Ms. Taibleson. Absolutely.
        Senator Hawley. I mean, if there's any contrary Seventh
    Circuit precedent, Dobbs would supersede that.
        Ms. Taibleson. Absolutely. I think--yes.
        Senator Hawley. And you--I'm sorry, go ahead.
        Ms. Taibleson. No, absolutely. And I would faithfully
    follow Dobbs, of course.
        Senator Hawley. Good. And you regard it as controlling
    precedent and as settled law?
        Ms. Taibleson. Yes.
        Senator Hawley. Let me ask you this. How should courts
    weigh the rights of medical providers who object on unconscious
    grounds to participating in abortions?
        Ms. Taibleson. The Supreme Court's decision in Hobby Lobby
    provided--you know, reflected the fact that employers have
    important religious rights to resist the Government's
    requirements that they provide certain forms of healthcare to
    which they object.
        Senator Hawley. What about doctors?
        Ms. Taibleson. I'm sorry, Senator, what about doctors?
        Senator Hawley. Medical providers, I mean doctors who
    object to participating in abortion-related procedures? Well,
    how should the court weigh those claims?
        Ms. Taibleson. I think I should be somewhat circumspect
    because there is litigation pending around the country. And so,
    the canons of ethics preclude me from prejudging these
    questions too much. But I think the basic method of analysis
    would follow the Supreme Court's approach in Hobby Lobby, but
    extending it to that context.
        Senator Hawley. What about pro-life sidewalk counseling
    outside of clinics? Is that core First Amendment speech?
        Ms. Taibleson. Sidewalks are recognized by the Supreme
    Court as core public forum where the rights to free speech are
    at their Zen or their strongest.
        Senator Hawley. And there's no difference. It doesn't
    matter if it's an abortion clinic or something else you're
    saying. I mean, it regardless, the fact that the sidewalk is a
    traditional public forum should control the analysis and
    whatever the facts of the case may be.
        Ms. Taibleson. Generally, Senator, under Supreme Court
    precedent, content, or viewpoint-based discrimination in the
    context of a traditional public forum is viewed with extreme
    skepticism.
        Senator Hawley. Very good. Let me ask you about free
    exercise questions. Should the free exercise clause be given
    the same strength and weight of other fundamental rights like
    free speech?
        Ms. Taibleson. Absolutely. The free exercise clause, I
    believe, the very first clause in our Bill of Rights, and for a
    reason.
        Senator Hawley. So it is. How should courts evaluate claims
    of religious liberty when they conflict with generally
    applicable laws?
        Ms. Taibleson. The Supreme Court has spoken to that
    recently in cases like 303 Creative and some other--you know,
    Espinoza, Fulton. And what the Supreme Court has established is
    that even generally applicable laws don't carry with them an
    exception to the First Amendment's free exercise clause. And
    so, if the application of what looks like a generally
    applicable law, like, let's say, a funding restriction has the
    effect of discriminating against people for their religious
    practice, then that can violate the First Amendment.
        Senator Hawley. Is this the Trinity Lutheran case of any
    bearing here, do you think?
        Ms. Taibleson. Yes. Thank you, Senator. The Trinity
    Lutheran case concerned, if memory serves, funding for those
    playground grounds--we've all seen them with kids that are made
    of recycled tires.
        Senator Hawley. Correct.
        Ms. Taibleson. And there was a State program to fund
    playground grounds of recycled tires and a church playground
    applied for funding. And it was denied on the grounds that we
    don't provide funding to church organizations. And so, what the
    Supreme Court held in Trinity Lutheran was, no, you can't do
    that. If you have a general funding program, you can't
    discriminate against some of your recipients simply because of
    their religious faith.
        Senator Hawley. And how does that interact with the Smith
    case?
        Ms. Taibleson. The Smith case held that general laws of, I
    think, neutral applicability don't necessarily violate the free
    exercise clause. And Smith case remains a precedent of the
    Supreme Court that I would follow. But in the last 12-ish
    years, the Supreme Court has explained that Smith case doesn't
    mean a State can effectively exempt a religious entity from a
    State benefit, which is what was happening in cases like
    Trinity Lutheran.
        Senator Hawley. Last question, Mr. Chairman. I think, think
    you're Mr. Chairman now, right? Very good. Just one further
    question on Smith. So, in the Trinity Lutheran case and the
    Hosanna-Tabor case, the Supreme Court said, well, Smith
    actually is about physical acts, it's not about other things.
    How do you understand that?
        I'm not asking you to grade the Court. I'm not asking you
    to go beyond what the Court said. I'm just trying to figure out
    how you--you're a student of the law. You've worked at that
    court. You've litigated at that court. I'm just trying to
    figure out how would you, as a judge, you're going to have to
    read these intersecting lines of cases.
        What does that mean to you? How do you interpret that
    distinguishing of Smith? What do you think that means? How does
    that cash out?
        Ms. Taibleson. That's a tough question, Senator. I think
    the Supreme Court is struggling with Smith in many of these
    religion cases. I think the other thing that it said in Fulton
    v. City of Philadelphia was that Smith didn't apply there
    because although there was a general policy was one that the
    city was granting exemptions to sort of left and right. And so,
    there are certainly exceptions to Smith that the Court has
    recognized.
        But happily, there are enough of these cases that I think
    as a lower court judge, you can generally find one that's
    roughly similar to the facts before you, and that's
    particularly true in the last 12 or 13 years, where these cases
    have been uniformly protective of religious liberty.
        So, my essential method would be one of an analogy and to
    see which of these Supreme Court cases is most on all fours
    with the case before me.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you very much. Thank you. I've
    enjoyed your answers, and I think, very, very cogent. Thank you
    very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cruz [presiding.] Ms. Taibleson, let me first of
    all say, nice job dancing with both Senator Hawley and Senator
    Kennedy. They can be challenging questioners and you acquitted
    yourself ably----
        Ms. Taibleson. Thank you.
        Senator Cruz [continuing]. For both of them.
        Ms. Taibleson. Thank you.
        Senator Cruz. By the way, Kennedy did show some mercy not
    quizzing you on obscure Latin maxim. So, I'm disappointed,
    frankly, because that's one of the things I enjoy most about
    these hearings.
        Senator Kennesy. Res Ipsa.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Taibleson. The thing speaks for itself.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Cruz. You began your career clerking for two
    Supreme Court justices, Brett Kavanaugh, when he was on the
    D.C. Circuit, and then-Justice Scalia. What did you learn about
    judging and approaching the law, from both justices?
        Ms. Taibleson. From Justice Scalia, I learned to be
    fearless in your intellectual commitments. You know, when
    you've thought about something deeply and have written about
    it, and you've made a sort of intellectual commitment to an
    area of law, you follow that commitment wherever it goes. But
    at the same time, to maintain deep civility and collegiality
    with your colleagues, even those with whom you disagree as
    Justice Scalia did.
        I also learned from Justice Scalia that it's possible to
    balance a full life in the law with a very full life at home.
    He just. I mean, he had that huge family and really great
    friends, and he really lived life fully. And I hope to emulate
    that.
        From Justice Kavanaugh, I learned that you can never be too
    careful. It's really always worth the time to go back and read
    one more case, to reread your opinion one more time, to make
    sure that you've picked every single one of your law clerk's
    brains, because the work is profoundly important. And we serve
    the public by writing opinions that have to last and that have
    to work in different factual scenarios.
        And from both justices I learned, you know, they are both
    still learned in the law, but managed to maintain a persistent
    sort of intellectual curiosity about the law. You know, if
    there was a new law review article, they would read it. And
    they were always sort of interested in intellectual debates
    about corners of the law that they hadn't yet explored. And I
    think that curiosity and open-mindedness really serves a
    Federal judge well, because it keeps you open and also excited
    about your work.
        Senator Cruz. So, you have a very impressive legal career.
    You managed to overcome the enormous impediment of graduating
    from Yale. Not once, but twice. I will say though, your
    nomination has attracted quite a bit of interest. I have had
    people reach out to me on this nomination more than any other
    judicial nomination in the second Trump term both from critics
    and from multiple conservatives who I respect deeply and who
    know you well and have vouched for you energetically.
        As Senator Durbin, noted 55 conservative groups signed a
    letter opposing your nomination, and they raised concerns that
    I think boiled down to a concern that you are secretly a closet
    liberal, and that you'd be an activist on the bench. I want to
    give you an opportunity to respond to those concerns however
    you would like.
        Ms. Taibleson. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator. Let me say,
    I guess two things. First, I was raised by a very conservative
    law professor sitting right there. And you know, it has stuck.
    We were actually--you know, I went to a Jewish day school, and
    we were--I think it felt like we were the only conservatives at
    our Jewish day school in the 1990's.
        Especially back then, if you were Jewish and conservative,
    you had to really mean it. And we did, and my parents raised us
    to be proud of those beliefs and to be proud of those
    differences.
        I think my service in the U.S. Government has been fully
    consistent with those values. I have obviously been a
    prosecutor fighting violent crime. I have prosecuted human
    traffickers, meth traffickers, international opioid dealers,
    corrupt city employees, armed robbers, carjackers. I think that
    work is consistent with my values. We also turned our lives
    upside down to move to DC with two 3-year-olds and an infant so
    I could serve in the Solicitor General's Office in 2019. And in
    that job, I did work that I'm very proud of. And that was
    consistent with my conservative values.
        The second thing, you know I guess, I'll address, Senator,
    is I know that a lot of the concerns are about my husband. And
    it is true that my husband and I don't agree about everything
    in politics or the law, but my husband and I do agree about
    what it turns out are more important things in day-to-day life.
    We are agree about devotion to our children, our religious
    faith, love of this country, devotion to public service, deep
    relationships in our local community. And that is the stuff of
    day-to-day life.
        And I was raised in actually in the best tradition of
    Charlie Kirk to relish debate, you know, prove me wrong. And
    so, we do have law and policy debates, but it works for us
    because we have so much else in common. And although I'm quite
    certain my husband is wrong, on many matters of policy and law,
    I love him very deeply, and we have a wonderful family life.
        Senator Cruz. If you're anything like my wife, you're quite
    certain your husband is wrong on every issue that he disagrees
    with you on.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Taibleson. Depends if you take the trash out.
        Senator Cruz. And you're probably right. That was a very
    impressive answer. And I will say one thing that I find
    particularly impressive is Justice Kavanaugh's nomination
    before this body was incredibly contentious, and I think you
    showed a lot of courage standing up and defending your former
    boss. And I think that speaks to character. And I don't know if
    you care to explain why you chose to come forward and put your
    own credibility on the line to defend Justice Kavanaugh.
        Ms. Taibleson. Absolutely, Senator. You know what? It
    wasn't hard because everything that was being said about
    Justice Kavanaugh was fundamentally inconsistent with a man who
    I knew very well. I've known him very well for 15 years now. We
    worked very closely together, and I know that he's a good man.
    And those allegations were so fantastical to me that it was not
    hard to raise my hand and tell the truth about the man that I
    knew, and I would do that again, 100 times out of 100.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you.
        Senator Tillis [presiding]. Senator Schmitt.
        Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    being here. Congratulations on the nomination, and you're here
    on Constitution Day.
        Ms. Taibleson. Yes.
        Senator Schmitt. I mean, quite an honor. I do want to ask
    you in that vein the preamble of the Constitution states that,
    you know, says, ``We the people.'' The Second Amendment grants
    the right to keep and bear arms to the people. The Tenth
    Amendment sets aside rights for the people. Section 2, Article
    I says, the people choose their Members of the House. Who are
    the people?
        Ms. Taibleson. Well, Senator, this is obviously a subject
    of much litigation right now, particularly under the Second
    Amendment. And so, I need to proceed with a bit of caution
    given the judicial canons. But you know there are arguments out
    there that the meaning of the people was not necessarily
    exactly the same amendment by amendment and provision by
    provision, and that you know there might be some contextual
    analysis that needs to be done to define the precise scope of
    each of those constitutional rights.
        Senator Schmitt. Yes. It's been interpreted differently for
    public education versus maybe the Second Amendment. How do you
    wrestle with that as relates to sort of the privilege and
    immunities clause that guarantees rights to citizens? How do
    you--and what I'm getting at is are illegal aliens part of the
    people?
        Ms. Taibleson. Well, you know the privileges and immunity
    clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, when you read it, it
    certainly sounds like it would do quite a lot. But since the
    Supreme Court's decision in the Slaughterhouse cases, it has
    not had a ton of weight to pull in constitutional litigation.
        And instead, the Supreme Court has viewed the due process
    clause as the lens through which many substantive rights are
    incorporated against the States and apply to the people. You
    know in terms of the protections that illegal aliens have under
    different provisions of the Constitution. Again, it's an issue
    under active consideration in the courts, so the cannons
    prevent me from getting into it too much.
        The general parameters of the analysis would be to look at
    the text of the constitutional provision in question, look at
    the history of its application. So, for example, the history of
    the application of the Second Amendment might differ from the
    history of the application of the Fourth Amendment, and then
    understand the constitutional text in light of that history.
        Senator Schmitt. Yes. My guess is you might have some of
    these cases coming before you as they'll be litigated. In the
    time that I have remaining, I want to ask you about a couple of
    other things that you've done a very good job of addressing all
    the legal questions. What role in your view does common sense
    play in in your jurisprudence?
        Ms. Taibleson. I'm from Wisconsin, and so I embrace common
    sense. For me, I think it's fair to say I am a textualist and
    an originalist, and but I do have some common-sense guardrails
    in me. By which I mean, when you get to the end of your work,
    it's important just to pick your head up and look around, and
    make sure that you haven't lost the forest for the trees, or
    been staring at the same five words of a statute for so long
    that you've, you know have forgotten what else is out there in
    the world, and talk it through with your colleagues and your
    law clerks in a sort of common-sense way.
        Now, I don't think that means any judge's personal common
    sense should trump the law that this body has enacted. It
    definitely should not. But I do think that it's important for
    judges not to totally lose the forest for the trees.
        Senator Schmitt. During my time in the job I had before
    this as Missouri attorney general, I learned through some
    pretty contested litigation, I think, some of the important
    character traits that that public officials should have, or
    through this kind of forging process that you go through that
    matter.
        As a Federal judge, you're going to be confronted with a
    lot of difficult cases that have a lot of implications and
    consequences, and the chattering classes will be talking a lot.
    And do you still have a life outside, I hope. Outside of your
    role on the bench? And I guess what I'm getting at, and I
    actually think this question is perhaps the most important
    question least that I can ask especially in the times in which
    we're living in of this really hyper politically charged
    environment threats of violence; what, aside from your very
    commendable support for now, Justice Kavanaugh and his
    confirmation hearings, can you give me an example of a time
    where you stood up for your beliefs and your convictions, and
    risked really professional and personal backlash in making the
    right decision, even though you knew there was going to be a
    lot of heat in the kitchen?
        Ms. Taibleson. Yes, Senator. I mentioned before that I led
    the appellate litigation team for two Federal executions during
    the first Trump Administration. And one of those executions was
    on January 14, 2021. So, it was 6 days before the transition.
    And at that point, the issue of continuing lawful Federal
    executions became quite controversial in the department, and
    large parts of the department bowed out. But I did not.
        And I raised my hand to handle that work. And I did the
    work of not only the SG's office in that, but also the other
    divisions that had declined to participate. I don't think I
    left the office for several days. And I did so because a jury
    decades earlier had lawfully returned a verdict of death, and
    the victims in that horrific case had been waiting for decades
    for justice, but it was not easy, personally or professionally.
        Senator Schmitt. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your time.
        Senator Tillis. Ms. Taibleson, thank you for being here
    today. I did want to compliment you. I think some of us noticed
    you did your opening statement, including the introduction of
    all your family members in 2 minutes and 44 seconds. For those
    about to do introductions, you may want to keep that in mind.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Tillis. I'm not going to ask questions. I'm quite
    satisfied with your background and the work you've done, and I
    remember you walking the halls when we were doing the Kavanaugh
    hearings. I also want to tell your son I'm a Braves fan, but
    I'm also a Brewers fan because I once coached when I lived in
    Northern Virginia, a team that was called the Brewers a bunch
    of eight-and 9-year-olds out on the baseball field. So, the
    Brewers have a place in my heart, even if they don't for
    Ranking Member Durbin.
        But thank you for being here today, and you now may step
    aside, and we'll have the staff transition for the next panel--
    --
        Ms. Taibleson. Thank you very much.
        Senator Tillis [continuing]. I'd like to administer the
    oath. If you all please stand and raise your right hand.
        [Witnesses are sworn in.]
        Thank you. You may be seated. We will allow introductions
    at this point. It's our normal process if you'd like to
    introduce any of your family members, I know we got a lot here,
    please feel free to do so. Mr. Bragdon, we'll start with you.

       STATEMENT OF DAVID A. BRAGDON, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED
    STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

        Mr. Bragdon [off mic].
        Senator Tillis. Make sure your mic is on red means go.
        Mr. Bragdon Thank you Senator Tillis. Thank you for your
    kind words. Thank you, Chairman Grassley, and Ranking Member
    Durbin, for holding this hearing. Thank you to President Trump
    for the honor of nominating me, and for the Committee Members
    for your work. Thank you, again, Senator Tillis and Senator
    Budd for your kind remarks, and for your support of my
    nomination. I am very grateful to all the friends and family
    who have supported me and prayed for me through this process.
        In particular, I'd like to thank my wife, Ellen, for her
    steadfast faithfulness in 24 years of marriage, courage, and
    perseverance. Thank you to my sons Evan and Ben who are here
    today. And my son Seth who is studying abroad. I appreciate my
    family's willingness to serve God no matter what the
    circumstances. I have wonderful in-laws, Frank and Claudia
    Whitaker from Oak Ridge, North Carolina, who are here today,
    and have always supported me.
        My mother and brother, Diana and Dan Bragdon are watching
    online, and my father passed away in June, but I have always
    appreciated how he and my mom have raised me and my brother,
    for his role in developing my character. I'm grateful to
    Justice Thomas, for the chance to clerk with him and how
    influential that was in my life.
        I'm grateful to my friend, Andrew McIndoe, who is here
    today also in support of me. And thank you for all the friends
    and family who have just supported me, and are too many to be
    named. Finally, I thank God for his grace and strength each
    day, and I look forward to the Committee's questions.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Bragdon. Ms. Freeman.

     STATEMENT OF LINDSEY ANN FREEMAN, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED
    STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

        Ms. Freeman. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Chairman
    Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, and distinguished Members of
    the Committee. It is an honor to appear before you. I would
    first like to thank President Trump for this nomination. I'm
    incredibly grateful and humbled by this opportunity. I'd also
    like to thank you, Senator Tillis, and Senator Budd, for your
    warm words and your support throughout this process.
        I first would like to thank God for as many blessings, most
    importantly, the people he has given me in my life. I have to,
    of course, recognize my husband, Jordan, who drove up from
    Greensboro last night after putting our two little ones to bed
    so that he could be here by my side. He is the most amazing
    man, and he is an incredible role model to our two sons, who at
    3 and 2, are not here today. But in case they watch this later.
    I want to say mommy loves you very much.
        I would also like to thank my parents who have always shown
    me incredible support, and my sister, who is also my best
    friend. I'm fortunate to have several friends here today, and
    that means so much to me. And throughout my career, I've been
    fortunate to have many friends, mentors, and colleagues. Too
    many to name to any degree. But I will simply say that I'm
    humbled by their kindness, support, grace, and guidance that
    they have shown me throughout my career, and I simply know that
    I would not be here without them.
        I would like to say a word about the judge that I clerked
    for, Judge John Rogers. His humble and faithful application of
    the law, and the respect and kindness he showed everyone in the
    courtroom inside and out continues to inspire me to this day.
    Again, thank you to the Committee, and I look forward to your
    questions.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you, Ms. Freeman. Mr. Orso.

    STATEMENT OF MATTHEW E. ORSO, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED STATES
       DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

        Mr. Orso. Thank you. Senator Tillis, Ranking Member Durbin,
    Members of the Committee, thank you for having me here today
    and for your dedication to fulfilling this important
    constitutional role of advice and consent. I'm grateful to be
    here and consider it a privilege.
        First, I thank God without whom none with this would be
    possible. To President Trump, thank you for your support in
    nominating me. To Senator Tillis and Senator Budd, thank you
    for your kind words today. Thank you for your support
    throughout this process, and for supporting my nomination.
        I have a few very important people here today. First, my
    wife, Jenny, of 20 years. She's my best friend. She supported
    me and my career endeavors at every step of the way. She's a
    model of loving service and holiness to me and to our six
    children, and there's no way that I'd be here without her.
        Our oldest son couldn't be here. He's in college and should
    be in class and studying, but he may be watching. And the
    remaining five are all sitting here behind me. My children are
    the joy of my life, and they're each an immense blessing to me.
        My mother, Ann, is watching online. She's my biggest fan. I
    love her dearly. My brother, Joe, and his family, and my
    brother, Jim, are also probably watching. I'm dedicating this
    all to my father, whom we lost just a couple of years ago. I
    think he's probably here watching too, though. My wife's
    parents, Brian and Patty Blais, they welcomed me into their
    family from the start and have shown me nothing but love and
    support all of these years.
        And here in the room today also is my good friend and
    longtime mentor, Judge Robert Conrad, who currently serves as
    the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
    He took a chance on me many years ago hiring me as his law
    clerk, and he hasn't stopped rooting for me after 16 years.
        Judge Ken Bell is similar. He hired me in private practice
    and provided me every opportunity to succeed and to grow as a
    lawyer. And I look forward to joining Judge Bell on the bench,
    if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed. Also, a good friend
    here, I think Jim Whitaker, today, and I value his friendship
    and support immensely. Thank you, Senators, and I look forward
    to your questions.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Orso. Ms. Rodriguez.

    STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN COURTWRIGHT RODRIGUEZ, NOMINEE TO SERVE
      AS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
                             NORTH CAROLINA

        Judge Rodriguez. Yes. Let me begin by thanking President
    Trump for this nomination and opportunity to serve the Western
    District of North Carolina. I also want to thank the home State
    Senators; Senator Tillis, Senator Budd, and to your staff for
    all of your support during this process.
        I also want to thank Chairman Grassley, of course, I didn't
    get to wish him happy birthday in person, but I do wish him
    happy birthday. Ranking Member Durbin, thank you for scheduling
    this hearing, and thank you to the other Members of this
    Committee in the Senate for considering my nomination.
        I want to introduce just a few people that are here with me
    today. My husband, Bert. He is a United States Naval Academy
    graduate, a talented runner, and of course, he honorably served
    our Country. Next year will be 20 years of marriage, and we
    together have four incredible children. Since it is
    Constitution Day. I'm very pleased to report to you that at
    least some of them through school and discussions can recite
    the preamble. And I told their teachers as an excuse for
    missing school today that this will be a great lesson in
    learning a little bit about our Government.
        I'm honored to have my parents, Vicki and Barkley
    Courtwright, right here. They're from Kentucky. Some of you
    knew or may know that I grew up in rural Kentucky. Thanks to
    the encouragement of my parents, I was the first to go to
    college in my family, and what a tremendous example they've
    been for me. And that's where I learned a very strong work
    ethic.
        My brother Mark and his wife Carolee are here. They also
    made the 11-hour trek to DC by car, and I'm very grateful that
    they're here today. My brother David and his wife, I think are
    watching. They're enjoying their new grand baby.
        I also want to introduce my father-in-law, my mother-in-
    law, Bert and Lucy Rodriguez, my niece Avery, and her parents,
    Christina and Ryan, as well as our cousins who came from Miami
    Liztie and Manuel Del Canal.
        I also want to recognize a few of the judges that are here
    with us today. Judge Frank Whitney, who Senator Tillis you
    mentioned earlier. I clerked for him, and you know what an
    incredible person he is. He's a wonderful judge, and I've just
    learned a lot from him.
        Judge Robert Conrad, who's already been introduced by my
    colleague, Mr. Orso. He once gave me a book that changed my
    life, and I'm very grateful for him. Judge Ken Bell is not able
    to be here today, but he's the one that had the trust and
    confidence in me as a young attorney to give me very
    significant matters upon which I built my career.
        There are many other judges watching from the Western
    District, and I know they're cheering us on today, and I'm very
    appreciative of all of them. I'll also want to mention U.S.
    Magistrate Judge Bob Numbers from the Eastern District of North
    Carolina is also here with us. And he's a good friend to not
    only me, but others on this panel.
        I also want to recognize U.S. Deputy Marshall Tommy Weeks
    and his family. And Senator Tillis, I know you're aware of
    this, but Deputy Marshal Weeks gave his life in the line of
    duty, and that was about 18 months ago. He's part of the court
    family, and I definitely want to recognize him and his family.
        I also want to recognize my law clerks who are not here
    today, but I know they're watching; David Greg, Mary Grove, and
    my former clerk Nicole Giffen. They are just incredible people
    with grit, and show me perseverance each and every day. I thank
    them.
        I also want to thank the good Lord for being here and the
    talents he's given me. I hope to put them to good use. If
    confirmed, I will defend and support the Constitution of the
    United States, and work hard to exercise my duties fairly and
    impartially.
        Now, there are many others that I could go on and on about,
    too many to recount today. But I do want to thank them. I know
    they're watching. And I look forward to answering the
    Committee's questions. Thank you.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you, Ms. Rodriguez. Ms. Carter.

      STATEMENT OF SARA CARTER BAILEY, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED
            STATES DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY

        Ms. Bailey. Thank you so much, Senator Tillis. First, I
    want to say thank you to you, to Ranking Member Durbin, and
    distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you for this
    opportunity. I want to begin by remembering my dear friend,
    Charlie Kirk, whose life left a lasting mark on many. Charlie
    was deeply committed to inspiring younger generations to engage
    with the world around them. His tragic loss is a solemn
    reminder that we must work together to unite to save American
    lives.
        I also want to acknowledge my husband, Marty, who is here
    with me today. He is a wounded warrior who knows the cost of
    fighting our Nation's enemies firsthand. I also want to thank
    our six children; Sophia, Analiese, Justin, Erica, I have the
    whole group, Alexander, behind me, and our six grandchildren
    who I love so much. Benjamin, Matthew, Charlotte, Gracie, Sage,
    and Baby Gabe. I love them dearly. They came from all across
    the country to be with me here today. Their love and their
    sacrifice make it possible for me to answer this call to serve.
        I am also deeply grateful to the angel families here today.
    Despite enduring the greatest loss imaginable, you continue to
    fight. You are the moral conscience of this fight, and your
    courage is an inspiration. And to the law enforcement officials
    here, including HIDTA Director, Mike McDaniels, and Deputy
    Director Goss, and to the men and women in uniform you
    represent, you are the tip of the spear in this war.
        Finally, I thank President Donald J. Trump. His leadership
    has been a fundamental declaration of our national will. By
    designating the worst cartels as foreign terrorist
    organizations, he has made it clear the era of tolerating this
    assault is over. America will no longer permit the infiltration
    of fentanyl and other illegal drugs designed to kill our
    citizens.
        I come before you, not just as a nominee, but as a witness
    to the war that has been waged against our country for years.
    For two decades, my work on the front lines wasn't just about
    telling stories, it was about mapping the enemy. I traveled
    deep into cartel territory because you cannot defeat an enemy
    you do not understand. I tracked the supply lines from the
    opium fields of Afghanistan, where my husband was nearly killed
    by terrorists, funded by drug money, to the cocaine labs in
    Guatemala, and the cartel battlegrounds in Mexico. I have seen
    these predatory criminal empires operate with impunity in our
    hemisphere. That impunity ends now.
        Let's be perfectly clear about the nature of this fight.
    This is not just a public health crisis. It is a chemical war
    being waged against the American people. Our greatest resource,
    our citizens, are being targeted and killed. They are not
    statistics. They are our children, our neighbors, our loved
    ones.
        This fight is personal to me. My mother was an immigrant
    who fled communist Cuba for the promise of a free and safe
    America. My father was a proud Marine who fought in two wars to
    defend that promise. Their fight for freedom and safety is the
    same fight we face today, and I carry their spirit with me in
    this mission.
        As director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy,
    my mission will be one of relentless offense. We will protect
    American lives by taking the fight to the enemy. We will hunt
    them in their safe havens. We will dismantle their labs, seize
    their finances and assets, and sever their supply lines. We
    will use every instrument of American power to break the backs
    of these organizations.
        But a true victory requires us to fight this war on two
    equally important fronts; relentlessly attacking the supply of
    these poisons, while systematically reducing the demand from
    them here at home through robust prevention, treatment, and
    recovery support. That means mobilizing every asset, enlisting
    educators, faith leaders, community leaders, and law
    enforcement, in a national effort to prevent drug use before it
    starts.
        We will work to create a culture of resilience where
    staying drug free is the norm. We must teach our children that
    these substances are not recreation, they are poisoned,
    deployed by an enemy. We will defend the next generation from
    this chemical assault.
        This mission is urgent. We are losing over 300 Americans
    every single day. To put this into perspective, we have lost
    more Americans to elicit fentanyl in the past 5 years than all
    U.S. troops killed in combat since World War II. We, as a
    Nation, would never tolerate foreign actions that kill our
    people on this scale. We are under attack, and we will respond
    accordingly.
        My life's journey has prepared me to lead this fight. I am
    committed to working with this Committee, with law enforcement,
    with the families who know this pain firsthand.
        Let me end with this. The chemical poison being pushed into
    our country does not care if you are Republican or a Democrat.
    The terrorists profiting from this death do not care about our
    politics. This cannot be a partisan issue. It must be an
    American mission, one that requires all of us united to defend
    our children and the future of this Nation. Our objective is
    not mitigation, it is victory, Senators.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you, Ms. Carter. I had the
    opportunity to meet with a number of the nominees in my office
    beforehand, and I told them all to go and watch the game tape
    of Senator Kennedy. I also went to Senator Kennedy and told him
    he gets to open up in my place. I'll be speaking last. So,
    Senator Kennedy.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.--I'm sorry, I
    can't see that far.
        Senator Tillis. Bragdon?
        Senator Kennedy. Who wants to volunteer?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Kennedy. Let's just start in the middle and we'll
    work to the end. Mr. Orso?
        Mr. Orso. Orso.
        Senator Kennedy. Yes, thank you. I'm sorry. I really
    can't--I guess I need to get new glasses. Mr. Orso, let's
    suppose, imagine this situation; small printing company and
    manufacturer of envelopes, stationary like that, that sort of
    thing. Twenty employees, small operation. They take customer
    orders, go in the back, print the stuff. They wear uniforms
    because the owner wants to promote his company logo. Employee
    shows up one day in uniform, but she's wearing a burka. And the
    owner says, ``You can't wear a burka here.'' And the employee
    says, ``Yes, I can.'' And the owner says, ``You're fired.''
        Tell me how you'd analyze that case. What questions you
    need to know. Who would win? Who would lose according to
    Supreme Court precedent?
        Mr. Orso. Sure. I would likely look first to Title VII of
    the Civil Rights Act in 1964, since----
        Senator Kennedy. That's correct.
        Mr. Orso [continuing]. It's an employment case.
        Senator Kennedy. And what does Title VII say?
        Mr. Orso. It says that a person cannot be discriminated
    against in employment on the basis of race, color, national
    origin, religion, right, gender. And then, I would apply the
    facts of that case pursuant to any----
        Senator Kennedy. What facts would you have to know?
        Mr. Orso. I'd have to know if the wearing of that burka was
    indicative of any potential religious closely, sincerely held
    religious belief. And then, if so, would analyze it from there.
        Senator Kennedy. What if the employer said my customers
    won't like it. Is that a justification?
        Mr. Orso. I don't believe that would be sufficient
    justification to discriminate against someone based on
    religious belief. I think you'd have to take into account
    whether the employee's employer is providing any type of
    accommodation that that allows for that person to----
        Senator Kennedy. What if this small business owner said
    it's dangerous. The employee might get the burka caught in the
    manufacturing apparatus.
        Mr. Orso. I think I would have to look at the case law if
    there's anything similar in that. But my instinct is that in
    terms of protecting the safety of employees, is a valid concern
    of an employer.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Fair enough. David--I'm really--
    can't see. I need to do something.
        Mr. Bragdon. It's Mr. Bragdon. David Bragdon.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you. Mr. Bragdon, tell me about
    supplemental jurisdiction.
        Mr. Bragdon. Supplemental jurisdiction, I am having trouble
    remembering that term because it, it does not come up in
    criminal practice very much, but I believe it----
        Senator Kennedy. It'll come up in Federal district court--
    --
        Mr. Bragdon. Absolutely.
        Senator Kennedy [continuing]. Every other Thursday.
        Mr. Bragdon. And I'll certainly carefully research any
    issue that were to come before me, if I'm----
        Senator Kennedy. It used to be called pendant jurisdiction,
    does that help?
        Mr. Bragdon. But I think it's jurisdiction that builds on
    jurisdiction. I'm thinking it builds on jurisdiction of another
    party who's already properly before the court. But I don't
    specifically remember, Senator Kennedy.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Do you know?
        Ms. Freeman. Senator, I would say that that is my
    understanding as well, and I don't have too much to add. In my
    years as an AUSA, I haven't been working on that recently.
        Senator Kennedy. Who knows the answer?
        Judge Rodriguez. This is Judge Rodriguez, and so I'm a
    sitting U.S. magistrate judge right now, so I think that I'll
    step in for the panel. There was a recent Supreme Court case on
    this. So, supplemental jurisdiction is when the court would
    have original jurisdiction over some sort of Federal question,
    but then there is a State question, and so that's where the
    court can exercise its discretion over supplemental
    jurisdiction.
        A lot of times where that comes up is if something gets
    kicked and there's only State law claims. Does the court
    exercise jurisdiction otherwise over those State law claims?
    And there was a recent Supreme Court decision on this that
    basically said that the court could get divested of its
    jurisdiction if a plaintiff dismissed everything, all of the
    Federal claims. And so, it goes back to a jurisdiction issue.
    And that's what you would be normally looking at.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Let me go back to Mr. Orso. So, how
    do you amend the Constitution?
        Mr. Orso. Senator, I think you'd look to Article V of the
    Constitution and follow the instructions for two-thirds of the
    legislature, or two thirds of the States.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Fair enough. Let me move to the
    gentleman to your right. What's the difference between a
    preliminary and a permanent injunction, and how you decide
    them, Counselor?
        Mr. Bragdon. A preliminary injunction--well, let me start
    with a permanent injunction. Would be a final judgment in the
    case that occurs after the completion of all the litigation.
        Senator Kennedy. What do you have to--let's start with the
    preliminary. What do you have to prove to a judge?
        Mr. Bragdon. For preliminary injunction, there's several
    standards the court looks at. You're looking at irreparable
    harm. You're looking at the likelihood of success in the merits
    and the ultimate case as it goes through court. You're looking
    at balancing the equities of the parties. So, those are some of
    the factors the court considers and whether to grant that. And
    it's essentially, the idea is can you keep things in place
    while that litigation is pending?
        Senator Kennedy. What factors do you look at for permanent
    injunction?
        Mr. Bragdon. Well, the permanent injunction would depend on
    the relevant law or action that's being considered.
        Senator Kennedy. But what factors do you look at for a
    permanent injunction?
        Mr. Bragdon. So you, for a permanent injunction----
        Senator Kennedy. You look at the same factors, don't you?
        Mr. Bragdon. I think that in my mind, a permanent
    injunction depends on the underlying statute or relief that
    you're taking. And it can vary based on the kind of case.
        Senator Kennedy. Well, on a preliminary injunction, you're
    asking is the plaintiff or the move likely to succeed on the
    merits. And so, and a permanent injunction, you're asking has
    the party succeeded on the merits. Right?
        Mr. Bragdon. Correct. My only point is what the merits are
    is going to vary based on the kind of case.
        Senator Kennedy. Fair enough. Counsel, tell me about class
    actions. What are they, and what are the elements of you have
    to prove?
        Ms. Freeman. Senator, I believe you're referring to Rule
    23. So, in order to have a class action, you're allowing one
    plaintiff or just a few plaintiffs to stand in for a class of a
    larger number of individuals to bring that class action. You
    have to meet the factors that are set out, the elements that
    are set out in Rule 23. So, we're looking at numerosity,
    typicality, representation, commonality, I believe. But those
    are some of the factors.
        Senator Kennedy. I didn't realize I'd gone this far over.
    I'm sorry.
        Senator Tillis. This concludes the entrance exam.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Kennedy. I really apologize. I didn't mean to go
    this far.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. I appreciate
    you asking the questions. Senator Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Carter, I hope
    we can agree that the HIDTA grants are valuable to fighting the
    drug crisis in America? Do we? Turn your mic on.
        Ms. Bailey. Absolutely, Senator Durbin. HIDTA is a very
    important part of fighting.
        Senator Durbin. So, last year, the 33 HIDTAs, which are
    high intensity drug trafficking areas, the 33 areas identified
    by that program seized 4.1 million pounds of fentanyl and other
    drugs, and denied drug traffickers $17.7 billion in illicit
    profits. Proof positive of what we both agree on. HIDTA grant's
    work, right?
        Ms. Bailey. Absolutely.
        Senator Durbin. So, let me ask you to please explain why
    the HIDTA program is subject to a 34 percent cut by the Trump
    budget from $300 million to $200 million. Have we won this war
    on narcotics and don't need this anymore?
        Ms. Bailey. First, let me begin by stating that I
    absolutely support the President's budget. Secondly, I do and
    absolutely support our high intensity drug trafficking. HIDTA
    aide groups. I was actually just recently in Alaska. I made a
    trip to the furthermost part of the United States in an effort
    to meet with the HIDTA director there and an effort to see the
    fight that we are continuing to fight against the drug cartels.
    I figured it's already--we've seen the supply pouring across
    the southern border. We've come across----
        Senator Durbin. I'm going to have to slow you down a little
    bit. We have a limited amount of time if we follow the rules of
    the Committee, and I would like you to answer my question. How
    would you justify a 34 percent cut in HIDTA grants if we
    haven't won the war on drugs?
        Ms. Bailey. The Big Beautiful Bill also supplements that
    funding. We continue to access this administration continues to
    assess those grants, and HIDTA is absolutely supported by the
    Office of National Drug Control Policy, which it falls under.
        Senator Durbin. 34 percent cut is not support.
        Ms. Bailey. Right behind me, I have HIDTA Director Michael
    McDaniels and Deputy Director Rick Goss.
        Senator Durbin. That's good. I'm glad they're here. But
    that doesn't help to cut the program by 34 percent. Let me go
    into the Mexican drug cartels because you said you have some
    personal knowledge of those. Are you aware that these drug
    cartels are heavily armed?
        Ms. Bailey. Absolutely.
        Senator Durbin. Do you know their weapon of choice?
        Ms. Bailey. Yes. I mean, they use assault rifles, they use
    grenades. They use quite an array of weapons. Sometimes, they
    out resource even our own law enforcement.
        Senator Durbin. And the Mexican police and military forces
    as well, correct?
        Ms. Bailey. That is correct.
        Senator Durbin. And one of the most common weapons they use
    is a 50-caliber rifle?
        Ms. Bailey. That is correct.
        Senator Durbin. I'm not an expert on firearms by any means,
    but I understand that that is a military-style weapon that is
    so powerful that it can penetrate a vehicle.
        Ms. Bailey. These are lethal weapons. Yes, that is correct.
        Senator Durbin. You also know that the Mexican government
    has done an analysis of where these crime guns come from for
    the drug cartels and find that 70 percent come from the United
    States. Are you aware that?
        Ms. Bailey. Yes, of course, Senator. We are assessing both
    sides of this horrific situation that our country is facing.
        Senator Durbin. So, if you're dealing with a drug crisis
    that you'd characterize as a chemical war being waged against
    the American people, and 70 percent of the weapons are coming
    from the United States to these terrorist cartels, do you
    believe we have any obligation to try to stop that flow of
    weapons?
        Ms. Bailey. We're assessing both sides of this issue.
    Absolutely. We're working with our partners both in Mexico, and
    here in the United States, as well as law enforcement to assess
    this and mitigate those threats?
        Senator Durbin. What do you suggest we do?
        Ms. Bailey. We're continuing to work with both sides----
        Senator Durbin. You've got to get beyond assessment. You
    got to do something to stop the flow of deadly weapons to the
    cartels.
        Ms. Bailey. Well Senator, I believe shutting down the
    border has effectively stopped the flow, both going south and
    coming north.
        Senator Durbin. We stopped the flow of weapons from the
    United States and Mexico. Is that what you're testifying?
        Ms. Bailey. I believe by shutting down the border and
    working with our partners in Mexico, who are as responsible for
    the crisis that we are facing, we have significantly reduced
    the flow going south as well as coming north.
        Senator Durbin. I want to see that in writing. Can you
    produce it?
        Ms. Bailey. I will absolutely work with you on this,
    Senator.
        Senator Durbin. Well, I think it's very important that you
    do that.
        Ms. Bailey. Absolutely.
        Senator Durbin. The drug crisis is serious. You want to
    take on drug crisis for America. You don't have a background in
    this other than an interest in the subject. And I would just
    say that they trust you with that responsibility when we're
    cutting the budget of this agency by 34 percent the HIDTA
    grants by 34 percent really gives a lot of us pause. I'm not
    sure why you were chosen, you're articulate, but that doesn't
    mean you're expert enough to manage this job. So, let's see
    what you produce for me.
        Ms. Bailey. Absolutely, Senator. Thank you so much.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you, Senator Durbin. I'd like to
    enter into the record three letters from Families Against
    Fentanyl, Parent Collective, and Lost Voices of Fentanyl. These
    nonprofits represent thousands of families deeply impacted by
    the drug crisis in our Nation.
        These organizations strongly support Ms. Carter's
    nomination and believe that she is the, ``hands-on, data-driven
    leader who will work to end the fentanyl poisoning crisis.''
        Without objection, I'd like to have these entered into the
    record.
        Senator Tillis. Senator Hirono.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I always ask these
    initial questions of all nominees before any of the Committees
    on which I sit to ascertain fitness to serve. So, I'll ask the
    questions, and we'll start with Ms. Freeman and 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? Ms.
    Freeman, then we'll go down the line.
        Ms. Freeman. No, Senator.
        Mr. Brandon. No, Senator.
        Mr. Orso. No, Senator.
        Judge Rodriguez. No, Senator.
        Ms. Carter. No, Senator.
        Senator Hirono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered
    into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
        Ms. Freeman. I have not.
        Mr. Brandon. I have not.
        Mr. Orso. No, Senator.
        Judge Rodriguez. No, Senator.
        Ms. Carter. No. Senator.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you. One of my concerns with many of
    President Trump's nominees is their lack of qualifications and
    relevant experience for the positions to which they have been
    nominated. And I want to note for the record that Ms. Carter
    Bailey, who has been nominated to be director of the Office of
    National Drug Control Policy up until 3 months ago had never
    worked in this environment or in this space. And so, before 3
    months ago, she had never even worked in government. She has no
    background in drug policy, no experience in public health. So,
    I have concerns as to the lack of relevant qualifications,
    experience of this nominee.
        I have a question for Mr. Orso. Mr. Orso, what does the
    Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut stand for?
        Mr. Orso. Senator, the Supreme Court in Griswold held that
    there was a constitutional right to contraception I believe.
        Senator Hirono. So, Mr. Orso as a district court judge,
    you'll follow that precedent and the cases that that relate to
    contraception, use of contraception?
        Mr. Orso. Yes, Senator Hirono, I would to follow all
    Supreme Court precedent, if fortunate enough to be confirmed as
    a district court judge.
        Senator Hirono. And basically, you would follow Supreme
    Court precedent in all cases----
        Mr. Orso. Absolutely.
        Senator Hirono [continuing]. Until the Supreme Court
    decides otherwise? Which by the way, this Supreme Court, as you
    well know, has been overturning decades of precedent in many,
    many areas, and this is possibly one of them going forward.
        So, I did want to also note Judge Courtwright Rodriguez,
    that since becoming a magistrate judge, you've presided over at
    least two naturalization ceremoneys. Can you share with the
    Committee what those experiences meant to you?
        Judge Rodriguez. Yes. Those are very near and dear to my
    heart. You may have read my comments that I typically make at
    the naturalization ceremoneys. I have my father-in-law and my
    mother-in-law who both immigrated from Cuba. Castro, came to
    power and literally took everything from my mother-in-law's
    family. And she came here to the United States, and they're
    very grateful. So, because they naturalized, I am lucky enough
    to be married to my husband here. So, those are near and dear
    to my heart.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you. And I want to note for the
    record that you commented that the United States has been
    referred to as a great melting pot where everyone brings their
    culture and history, and we are all the more enriched because
    of that. I completely agree with you as a naturalized citizen
    myself, and as we have a regime that is very much against
    diversity, equity, and inclusion, which is really reflective of
    the diversity of our country.
        I am very glad to know that you considered the
    naturalization ceremoneys where we are welcoming people from
    all over the world to be part of our great basically the mix of
    culture and the history in our country that en enables our
    country to be strong and great. I commend you for that
    attitude, because it's one that I share. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you, Senator Hirono. Senator Kenny.
    Do you have any intention of asking any other questions?
        Senator Kennedy. No, sir. I'm happy a happy camper.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Tillis. Ms. Carter, I think we have Senator Moody
    coming. I have a couple of questions for you.
        Ms. Carter. Yes.
        Senator Tillis. I've been down to the border multiple
    times, and I am thrilled with the results of this
    administration in shutting down the border. I think it's a
    great disservice to people who immigrate legally. And it also
    has made our country less safe. In the time that I've been down
    there, I've had numerous briefings with Customs and Border
    Patrol, and I don't know if the statistic is right anymore.
        You made a comment about effectively shutting down the
    border. I agree that we've done a good job with that, but these
    cartels do an amazing job of getting around. I've been on the
    Rio Grande at midnight or 1 o'clock, and I've heard the
    coyotes, the human traffickers, the drug traffickers, literally
    across the Rio Grande shouting to us, ``We are coming.''
        And they always would set a pick. What they would do is
    take about 40 or 50 persons trying to come into the country
    illegally, attract the border patrol there so that they could
    send their poison or human trafficking to another area where
    the Border Patrol is just too involved. They can't get to them.
    I think a lot of that play has been pretty much shut down
    because the President's done an extraordinary job of enforcing
    policies that the Biden administration didn't.
        But the concern that I have is you still have what they
    call the Sinaloa Cartel. So, they're flying ultra lights over
    and dropping off drugs. They're very difficult to detect
    because we don't have the situational awareness that we should
    at the border. And we also see a lot of the poison. And in my
    last briefing about a year ago, according to Border Patrol,
    that still the majority of the illegal drugs that come through
    this country come through a legal entry point, hidden in
    trucks, hidden in bodies.
        I mean what are we going to do to really combat that, and
    get this Congress to understand that people, technology, and
    infrastructure at the legal ports of entry so that we can
    increase commerce and legal entry and exit? What's going to be
    the priority there?
        How do we get that done balance between maximizing the flow
    between two nations that have very important economic and other
    ties, but do it in a way that's really plusing-up the resources
    that Border Patrol needs to get the job done and keep our
    country safer.
        Ms. Bailey. Well, thank you so much for that question,
    Senator Tillis. I think that's a vitally important question
    because it's such a complex question. We have nearly 2,000
    miles of border with Mexico. You're absolutely correct, our law
    enforcement assesses that the majority of the narcotics
    continue to pour through our border, and the cartels are very
    savvy. For decades, they have been working to figure out ways
    to work around us, to find those loopholes, to bring that
    poison into our Nation.
        Not only are we dealing with the cartels, but we are
    dealing with adversaries who are taking advantage of those
    loopholes as well. President Trump did a phenomenal job coming
    in and shutting down that border. The cartels were operating
    with impunity, and we saw that under the last administration,
    the flow of human trafficking, the horrors of human
    trafficking. I saw it with my own eyes.
        I was at the border almost 24/7, monitoring the situation.
    I, too, would see, and I can attest to what you saw, sir,
    across the Rio Grande. Even late at night, looking through my
    nods, which were my night vision camera, you could see the
    cartels moving across with 75, sometimes 100 people every hour
    on the hour.
        Senator Tillis. Yes. I want to be respectful of Senator
    Moody's time, but I think one thing I look forward to speaking
    with you after confirmation, to really listen to the voices of
    Border Patrol who say we do need walls in some places. But what
    we need is a law enforcement-driven strategy for securing the
    border, not only from human crossings, but all of this poison
    that's coming across the border. And that means that we have to
    get the mix right between people, technology, and
    infrastructure.
        I don't want to spend a dime more on a wall if it's not
    what's going to make this country safer. And, you know, the
    problem with a 30-foot wall is a 40-foot ladder. And if we do
    not have situational awareness, operational awareness on the
    ground, then all these good works are going to be for naught
    when a future administration comes. That, I think, de-
    emphasizes one of the most important things that we need to do
    for Homeland Security. So, I appreciate you being here today.
    I'm going to turn to Senator Moody.
        Ms. Bailey. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Moody. Thank you, Senator Tillis. And thank you for
    all of our nominees for giving up so much of your time and your
    families for being here today. Thank you for supporting them.
    Life of public service is not easy, especially these days. And
    oftentimes, I find that it is harder on our families than it's
    sometimes on us. So, thank you to the families that are here
    with you.
        You know, as Florida's attorney general, I fought very hard
    against the opioid and then synthetic opioid epidemic. It is
    something our country has never seen. We are losing more
    Americans working and fighting age Americans to the drug
    epidemic than any other cause of death. It's frightening when
    you put into perspective how it compares to when we thought we
    were dealing with this crisis in the 1980's, when Nancy Reagan
    first said, ``Just say no.'' We were losing about 3,000
    Americans a year. We now lose over 100,000 Americans a year to
    drug overdose.
        And so, from holding pharmaceutical companies,
    distributors, manufacturers accountable in court, or working
    with law enforcement to step up interdiction efforts, or making
    sure that we were getting that message to our children, or
    equipping our first responders with naloxone, I was very
    focused on this as attorney general.
        And one of the things I found was that the message wasn't
    getting to the kids. And we were losing unsuspecting kids that
    did have no reason to believe that they were about to ingest a
    fatal dose of fentanyl. They were dying. The fastest growing
    age category for overdose on fentanyl is under 14.
        And so, I have been very vocal commending this
    administration for thinking outside the box on how we tackle
    our greatest challenges. And that goes from where we're putting
    our current resources. Shifting not only monetary resources,
    but human resources to different agencies or responsibilities,
    and then the people he's appointing.
        As it pertains to the Nation's ``drug czar,'' that has
    looked very differently for many different administrations. I
    believe under Biden, he had a physician. Some people have
    former Governors, some people have law enforcement. I think it
    is very unique that we have a mom of six.
        Ms. Bailey. I've got six beautiful children. I think I left
    one of them out. Luke, I am so sorry. I was thinking about that
    the whole time.
        Senator Moody. Ah, I set you up for that.
        Ms. Bailey. I've got Luke, Sophia, Analiese, there's
    Parker, her husband, there's Benjamin, my grandson. So, we've
    got six children, six grandchildren, all together. And nothing
    is more formidable, you are right, Senator, than a mama bear.
        Senator Moody. So, we were together recently speaking on
    the efforts of this administration to not only interdict, shut
    down the border, which they've done with no new laws. They've
    shut down the border, interdict this flooding into our country
    killing Americans, but also how do we get through to parents in
    terms of warning kids and kids that anywhere from 5-to-7 out of
    10 pills contain a lethal dose of fentanyl, the counterfeit
    pills.
        And I was with the nominee and the sheriff in Miami-Dade
    County who is also a mom and dealing with these every
    struggles, coming up with ideas of how as ``drug czar'' you can
    get that word out. I was just hoping, because, you know, and I
    want to make sure everybody knows.
        To fulfill the responsibilities of this job, it has looked
    different depending on the administration and what they're
    trying to accomplish. But certainly, I think you bring a very
    unique on-the-ground perspective. Not just personally--although
    man, you should be given a trophy for six kids and having such
    an accomplished career, but professionally.
        And what do you think is unique about your background and
    your current, and your current work that that sets you apart
    from prior nominees, and you bring a fresh perspective and zeal
    about the responsibilities of this position?
        Ms. Bailey. Well, I think you already mentioned one of
    them, Senator Moody, and it's my family. But you're right, I'm
    not a doctor. I'm not a general, I'm not a lawyer. What I am
    was a more than two-decade investigative journalist who was on
    the ground, in the field witnessing firsthand what these
    cartels and what these terrorist organizations have not only
    done to our Nation and to the rest of the world, but to our
    children.
        And you mentioned something very important. You talked
    about the 1980's when we were losing 3,000. I think the number
    I got was at one point, it was 6,300 when we thought it was
    really in 1980, when we really thought that was a terrible sign
    of where our Nation was heading, you know, for drug overdose.
    And now we're looking at over 100,000.
        I have angel families sitting behind me who will never,
    never see their children again, because poison came across our
    border, and their children unknowingly took either a pill--even
    I say now, as Mike Gland who is sitting behind me has said. You
    know, he lost his son, Preston, but he said, ``One try, you
    die.'' Not one pill can kill anymore. It's one try, you die.
        You think about this, one of my son-in-law's closest
    friends from high school lost his life in Miami at a party, you
    know doing drugs, not expecting that to contain fentanyl, and
    immediately, immediately lost his life. I don't want to see
    that happen ever again. I am committed with all of my heart and
    all of my soul to working for every single American, every
    single family.
        As I said in my own statement, these drugs, these cartels
    are adversaries. They don't care if we're Republican or
    Democrat. They don't care if we're a member of the Green Party,
    or if we're of no party at all. They are making hundreds of
    billions of dollars off of the death of Americans, and off of
    the deaths of people all over the world.
        I have someone here as well, Rosie, who works with the
    Kaleido Foundation. And I can't tell you how many times Rosie
    and I have been in Mexico together. Human trafficking victims
    that I have interviewed, that I have spoken with. These cartels
    are taking lives with impunity. They were operating with
    impunity, now they know that we mean business.
        Their designation by the President as foreign terrorist
    organizations; Sinaloa Cartel, Nueva Generacion, El Mencho, the
    ghost who tries to hide from all of us, will no longer be
    sleeping restfully anymore. All of these cartel leaders, all of
    these terrorist organizations, and even our adversaries are on
    call right now, and especially the cartel leaders.
        Senator Tillis. Senator Booker.
        Senator Moody. Thank you.
        Senator Booker. Chairman, Thank you very much. I had a
    great exchange with the Chairman earlier, and we talked about
    the State of North Carolina. I've done years in service with
    this man, and he made it very clear to me, lay off my judges,
    Booker.
        So, let me just say simply this to all those who are
    nominated for positions in North Carolina, I'm a Jersey boy
    through and through, but I'm the son of a North Carolinian. And
    my dad grew up in Hendersonville, up in the mountains. And
    North Carolina was his pathway to progress. He went to North
    Carolina Central University. I know my dad is now in heaven. He
    died 6 days before I was elected to this office. But he was a
    North Carolinian through and through.
        So, congratulations on your nomination. You're representing
    a great State, and I know especially seeing a lot of the faces
    of your family behind you, that you take this nomination
    seriously. And I wish you Godspeed.
        I really thank you, Ms. Carter, for the passion. And I just
    would love to explore an area in which there's been tremendous
    bipartisan work, not just here in the Congress but all over
    America right now. We're seeing such wisdom from red States and
    blue States learning from the mistakes in the 1990's with that
    led to an explosion of incarceration, but no reduction in drug
    use. And it's something that I've leaned on. Everybody from
    Right On Crime to the Manhattan Institute have been invaluable
    in my journey in helping me shape policy, especially in my days
    as a mayor.
        I am this strange guy. I used to get joked by with by Mitt
    Romney. I'm not Mormon, but I've never drank. I've never
    smoked. I am a pretty boring guy as my fiance tells me. But I
    do have some frustrations with marijuana policy based on
    science, and I'd like to focus there first.
        On your podcast in 2023, Ms. Carter, you talked about
    cannabis and you said, ``I don't have any problem if it's
    legalized and monitored.'' You supported the use of cannabis
    for medical purposes, and we had bipartisan hearings here with
    military personnel talking about the transformative impact it's
    had on their PTSD.
        I just believe that we have a moment now where 40 States
    have made cannabis legal for medical purposes. Unfortunately,
    Federal law is lagging behind State law and behind popular
    opinion on all across the political spectrum. In fact, under
    Federal law, cannabis is still a Schedule 1 drug, the category
    that's really reserved for some of the most dangerous drugs,
    some of which I think I came in on a conversation that you were
    talking about.
        They say that cannabis has no medical value. That's what
    Schedule 1 says. In essence, cannabis is considered just as
    dangerous as heroin in the Federal system. In 2022, President
    Biden directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
    just review how cannabis is scheduled on their Federal law. And
    after its scientific review, Health and Human Services
    recommended rescheduling cannabis at Schedule 3.
        I think that's a step in the right direction, and that
    would finally, at least, recognize that we would not only have
    medical benefits, but it would allow scientists to study the
    short-and long-term health impacts. It would open up the door
    to more scientific study.
        And so, I'm wondering if you were confirmed, how would you
    advise the American President about the ongoing rescheduling
    process?
        Ms. Bailey. First, thank you so much, Senator, for your
    comments. You're right, I am very passionate. I could see that
    you are very passionate as well. This is a bipartisan issue,
    and I look forward to working with you as well as all the
    Republicans here on the Committee and other Democrats.
        So, first, thank you very much, and I extend an invitation
    to speak with you at any time of your choosing. If confirmed,
    as director, I will comply with all Federal laws and fulfill
    all statutory responsibilities of the ONDCP. However, we will
    continue to work extensively with research and data. We will
    continue to do that and explore all options.
        I've already met with Secretary Collins with the Veterans
    Administration. All of us are discussing, you know, these
    continued research and data that we will be delivering, and
    based on that research and data we can continue to assess. I
    think that is vitally important.
        Senator Booker. So, I know the Federal law prohibits the
    Office of National Drug Control Policy from funding any study
    or contract relating to legalization, including for medical
    use. It's unfortunate, but that makes the study of Schedule 1
    drugs, including cannabis, really difficult. And so, I'm hoping
    as we work together across the aisle on legislation that would
    simply allow the ONDCP to study the impacts that this might be
    something that you would support.
        Ms. Bailey. Absolutely. We'll continue to study the impacts
    of that.
        Senator Booker. Thank you. I'm going to give some other
    questions for the record, but I just want to--one quick last
    question. We're seeing this overdose crisis, and we're seeing
    communities I think we're talking about tragically affected by
    fentanyl.
        I believe we need to make sure that people who use drugs or
    are in recovery have access to naloxone, which is proven to
    reduce overdose deaths. I'm going to put some questions in the
    record on that.
        But I am very concerned, and I've seen such bipartisan work
    in this area. I have a bipartisan bill on this that the ONDCP
    issued its drug control strategy of 2026, the top priority to
    reduce the number of fatal overdose. This is scientists saying
    the top priority, and this is what it reads, I'm going to quote
    it here, ``We will encourage State and local jurisdictions to
    increase the availability of drug test strips and naloxone to
    mitigate the impact of deadly drugs on communities across the
    country.''
        I have seen study after study that show that test strips
    can save lives, that even addicts when they have access to test
    strips will test the drugs they're using before they're taking
    them. And so, I just will hope, and I'll put these questions in
    the record, that if confirmed, you'll ensure that ONDCP
    increases the availability of fentanyl test strips and
    naloxone.
        That we can work together as we have bipartisan legislation
    here with you to get it passed and done right. And that the
    tragedy that we have right now for test strips causing people
    who are trying to save lives, put them in criminal
    jurisdiction, criminal jeopardy is really bad.
        So, I know we don't have any time left. I look forward to
    those questions on the record. I just want to say one more
    time, these are wrote hearings, and often they're the Senators
    on both sides of the aisle are so busy, we're running to
    different hearings.
        I just want the people who are up for nomination to know,
    and the families especially that we take this very seriously.
    That there's a nobility. Everybody sitting at that panel who
    wants to serve their country in the best way possible. Most of
    you are giving up more lucrative positions to do what you're
    doing, and you're not doing it alone. It's also a family
    sacrifice.
        There's a lot of talk about our divides here in Congress,
    but I can say this for every, every Senator, thank you for
    stepping forward to serve your Nation, and thank you to every
    family person that's represented here as well. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you, Senator Booker. And Senator
    Booker, your points on cannabis, I think are very well taken in
    many respects. I think Congress is not doing its job by
    recognizing that that bell has been rung. And unless we get
    serious about regulatory regimens and other--Matt, we've talked
    about the fentanyl crisis.
        Now, we all know that at some point in the race for
    potency, that these subproducts that are being purchased,
    technically illegally in 40 different States, either for
    medical purposes or several dozen for recreational purposes,
    Congress needs to step up and try to figure out how we can
    manage this, exploit its efficacy in areas that are helpful,
    particularly for the treatment of persons with PTSD, a number
    of other studies out there, pain. But we've got to step up. And
    I appreciate you making those comments. And in my remaining
    time here, hopefully we can get something done.
        Well, this is going to conclude our hearing today. I had
    the privilege of being able to vet the district nominee, so I
    didn't feel like I had to ask you other questions after we put
    you through hours of discussion between my office and Senator
    Budd's. And Ms. Carter.
        Also want to congratulate you-all on your nominations. This
    is a unique opportunity here with four judges and a couple of
    dozen kids. So, I'm going to ask the North Carolina delegation
    to maybe stay behind so we can get a quick picture, and I can
    figure out how I can get some of these other kids some tablets
    that they may not have otherwise gotten.
        And I do want to especially recognize Judge Conrad, Judge
    Whitney, and Judge Numbers in the audience. They are people
    that I know and I admire, and I appreciate you being here. I'm
    going to adjourn the meeting shortly, but written questions for
    the record may be submitted no later than September the 24 at 5
    p.m.
        Senator Tillis. Thanks again to all the nominees, and
    congratulations to you and your families.
        This Committee hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:46 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-119shrg62461/pdf/CHRG-
        119shrg
        62461-add1.pdf

    Submitted by Ranking Member Durbin:

     Bragdon, David A., Alliance for Justice (AFJ), Opposition letter.     2

     Bragdon, David A., People For the American Way (PFAW), Opposition
        letter........................................................     4

     Rodriguez, Susan Courtwright, Alliance for Justice (AFJ),
        Opposition letter.............................................     7

     Taibleson, Rebecca L., AFA Action, Opposition letter.............     9

     Taibleson, Rebecca L., Alliance for Justice (AFJ), Opposition
        letter........................................................    13

     Taibleson, Rebecca L., Conservative Action Project (CAP),
        Opposition letter.............................................    15

                                     [all]