Can i alert my colleagues that are here to introduce individuals normally we would turn to you and let you do that. But this meeting is has some more controversy than most hearings have so this is the way were going to handle it. Im going to make an Opening Statement, a little longer than usual. Senator feinstein will make a statement thats longer than usual. Then because of the two states that are involved, and for different reasons, but coming to the same conclusion, normally we dont have members speak, but i felt i ought to give the courtesy to both senator kennedy and senator said he wanted to speak about the controversy and his nominee. Then im going to turn to senator franken and senator franken will have up to five minutes s that okay . Youre going to introduce people, but i would like to get the controversial statements out of the way first. That makes sense. Okay. Congratulations to all the nominees and to your families and everybodys welcome at the committee. Two weeks ago, i announced in a speech on the senate floor that i would hold a hearing for Minnesota Supreme CourtJustice David strauss and former louisiana solicitor general kyle duncan. Despite not receiving two positive blue slips from home state senators. I explained that nearly all Judiciary Committee chairman, they number 18 over the last 100 years, allowed for hearings in such circumstances. And i guess i should have been more explicit and say there were two that didnt confiorm to tha. And i explained that i too would treat blue slips, wouldnt treat them as a single senator veto. Some of my colleagues and liberal outside groups have accused me of abolishing the 100yearold blue slip tradition, thats simply not true. Im choosing to apply the blue slip policy, that most of my predecessors had for the vast majority of this 100year history. My critics seem to believe the blue slip history started with senator leahy, 16 years ago, but as i explained in those speeches, history is longer than that. Critics also claim that i selectively applied senator leahys strict blue slip policy in the last two years of the obama administration. They point to nine nominees who were supposedly denied hearings because of the lack of two positive blue slips. This also is not true and ill explain. First of all, five of these nominees were District Court nominees. I have already said District Court nominees, typically, maybe not always, because the first blue slip was returned in 1917 from a georgia senator and it involved a wasnt returned and it involved a district georgia District Court nominee at that time. So ill start over with my sentence. I have already said that District Court nominees typically require the return of two positive blue slips before the hearing. That one exception ei gave you, there may be a lot of other exceptions, but this one applies to President Trumps nominees as it did to president obamas. The four circuit Court Nominees, on the other hand werent nominated until a president ial election year. As you know, i gave members this year, nearly seven months to return blue slips on Justice Strauss. I hoped they would both be returned to avoid the situation we have today. I recognize that my policy differs somewhat, so i gave my colleagues from minnesota ample time before proceeding. And i wouldnt have given my colleagues the same courtesy in 2016, but they werent we wouldnt have held hearings until july at the earliest. When we were already into the political conventions and under the well, its probably only 3 37yearold leahythurmon rule on both sides. The committee doesnt usually so the nominations simply came too late to proceed without home state senators support. Moreover, it was very apparent, that even nominees with the support of home state senators, and who were processed through the committee, werent getting votes on the floor. Senator derbin on several occasions questioned the wisdom of processing any nominees in such a circumstance. Despite this, i held hearings for nearly as many judicial nominees as senator leahy did in a comparable period of time of his chairmanship 2007 to 2008. All in all, it would have been a waste of time of the committees and our resources to hold hearings on the four circuit Court Nominees nominated in 2016 without two blue slips. Senator leahy knows as well as anyone that there are multiple reasons we dont hold hearings for some nominees. In fact senator leahy declined to schedule hearings for six of president bushs circuit Court Nominees, for reasons besides lack of positive blue slips, he denied hearings for three of the the nominees for the Fourth Circuit. These nominees had two positive blue slips from their home state senators and two were nominated more than a year before the 2008 president ial elections. Senator leahy also refused to act on the nomination of peter kiesler, president bushs nominee to the d. C. Circuit who was nominated in 2006, obviously blue slips were not the reason for my predecessors decision to stall mr. Kieslers nomination for almost two years. Senator leahy also declined to hold hearings for two sixth circuit nominees, even though both ohio senators returned positive blue slips, the two Democratic Senators from michigan, asked senator leahy to halt proceedings on all sixth circuit nominees. In other words the senators from one state held up the productive consideration of people from the other states in the same circuit. Senator leahy honored the request and denied a hearing to the two nominees for the ohio seats. This was the first time in history as far as i know that a chairman allowed out of state senators to halt Committee Proceedings on nominees. What my predecessors actions show is that there are numerous reasons for a chairman not to hold a hearing on nominees besides blue slip problems. I myself did not proceed on several District Court nominees, who had two positive blue slips because it would have been a waste of committees resources Going Forward because these nominations werent going to be consid considered confirmed anyway. Its simply false to say any decision i made not to hold a hearing for president obamas judicial nominees was based solely on blue slips. Additionally, critics have argued that only three nominees in recent decades have been confirmed over blue slip objections. But the question is not whether the nominees before us today will be confirmed, the question is whether they should receive a hearing, home state senators are entitled to lobby against confirmation, but they cant deny a nominee a hearing for political or ideological reasons. But the democrats abolished an important rule for confirmation of judges who do not have support of their home state senators because in 2013, that party abolished the filibuster for nominees for the court. The filibuster is what allowed senators to fulfill the preferences of home state senators on the senate floor. For example democrats filibustered carolyn cool, harry saad and other nominees of president bushs who did not have the required two blue slips. And there was a letter sent to president obama by the republican senator conference in 2009 which said, we expected to be consulted and i prove of all home state judicial nominees. That letter wasnt just about the blue slip, it was meant to show president obama that the republican conference was united, that we had collectively filibustered nominees for whom there was not a consensus. But th we also believe the democrats need to hold obama nominees to the same standard they forced on president bush. Its also worth mentioning that my democratic colleagues in recent years have a record of using the blue slip aggressively to block highly qualified nominees. Yet they accuse republicans of blocking 18 of president obamas nominees through the blue slip, leaving aside that many of these nominees didnt receive hearings for reasons besides the blue slip, democrats used the blue slip to try to block hearings for 2007 for president bushs nominees, republicans blocked none of president obamas nominees via the blue slip during the first two years of his presidency. We are less than a year into President Trumps first term and already my democratic colleagues have tried to block a number of his highly qualified nominees. This brings me to my final point, some of my colleagues and outside groups have criticized me for allegedly abolishing a senator tradition, as i explained, twice last two weeks ago, thats not true. Im restoring the traditional policy and practice of the vast majority of my predecessors over the past two years, and i think i have pointed out that two of the 118 chairman in 118 years have had a district rule and only a strict rule on blue slips. But its also revealing that these same colleagues and groups supported abolishing the fi filibuster for lower Court Nominees in 2017, a rule not just a practice that was more long standing and established than my immediate predecessors strict blue slip policy. Im going to ive got some more statement here, but it deals with another nominee. And so now i turn to senator feinstein. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I think this is going to be difficult but i think these words that i say have to be said. As you know, when my staff first learned of the plan for this hearing, i wrote a letter to you, that letter is dated november the 16th. I just read it yesterday. In my letter, i raised concerns that there would be two Circuit Court judges at a single hearing and that there would be a possible change to how blue slips were going to be treated by the committee. I ask that you reconsider and the democrats be treated the same way as republicans have been treated. I did not and do not ask for special treatment or unique consideration. Rather, i simply asked that the committee follow the same traditions and accommodations that have been in place for over a century. Id like to enter into the record the letter i sent to you, mr. Chairman, on november 16, and the letter that all Committee Democrats signed and sent to you the following day, november 17. There shouldnt be any objection to receiving them. Unfortunately, the decision was made to change the committees blue slip policy. Although i had asked in writing about this hearing, and possible changes to blue slips on multiple occasions, i was not alerted in any way about your decision to end a 100year policy without any notice to this side of the committee. Specifically, on thursday november 16, in the late afternoon, when i and most members were heading for planes home for thanksgiving holiday, the announcement was made on the floor of the senate. That very morning, within this committee, we discussed how the committee was going to handle fbi background investigations. Perhaps as a gesture, you could have announced your decision then so that the move could have been discussed and debated here in the committee. But we were not given a chance to respond until now. So today, i need to say the following. As each member of the senate recognizes, the states we represent are diverse, the blue slip was instituted to ensure that those nominated for Lifetime Appointments reflect our home states particular needs as well as a legal bar in our communities. Whats more, the blue slip encourages meaningful collaboration and consultation between the white house and a states senators. All Senate Republicans wrote a letter in march 2009 just two months into the obama administration, which stated, and i quote, if we are not consulted on and approve of a nominee from our states, the republican conference will be unable to support moving forward on that nominee, end quote. The only difference between then and now is who sits in the white house. In fact, when senator leahy was chairman of this committee, under both president bush and president obama, the blue slip was honored equally. If a judicial nominee did not have two blue slips from their home state senators, that nominee did not move forward. The nominee never received a hearing. This was also the policy the first two years when chairman grassley took over the committee. In 2015, and 2016, there were nine judicial nominees, four circuit Court Nominees, and five District Court nominees who did not have blue slips from home state senators. None of them received a hearing. Again, whats troubling is that the only difference is who sits in the white house. There is no pattern of obstruction. The Trump Administration has been in office for less than one year. No president has had as many circuit Court Nominees confirmed in their first year since Richard Nixon and that is fact. Of the nine circuit Court Nominees that have been confirmed, all had their blue slips returned and five were from Democratic Senators. The democrats on this committee are simply asking for blue slips to be respected, just as they were for republican senators. Or said another way, all we ask is to be treated the same way in the Trump Administration as republican senators were treated by the obama administration. No more, no less. Now let me return to the nominees being considered at todays hearing. Justice Davis Strauss is a justice on the Minnesota Supreme Court. I would note last year, there were two state Supreme Court justices, elizabeth taylorhughes from the kentucky Supreme Court, and myra selby from the 9th Circuit Court. Two nominees who were never before this committee because one or both of their home state senators did not return blue slips. In addition the committee is considering kyle duncans nomination to the fifth circuit. My understanding is that mr. Duncan has worked for a significant number of high profile cases, for example, as the counsel general for the beckett fund for religious liberty, mr. Duncan worked to undo a provision of the Affordable Care act that requires employers to provide Health Insurance with contraceptive coverage for their employees. Specifically he was the lead lawyer for the Hobby Lobby Company and argued that corporations had the same First Amendment rights that individuals did. The corporations could impose their religious beliefs on employees by denying female employees access to Preventative Health care, Insurance Coverage for contraception. Mr. Duncan also filed a brief in favor of texas laws restricting Abortion Access, one law would have required doctors that provide abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles, and another law would have required any clinic that provides abortions to meet the the American Mental Association and the American College of obstetricians and gynecologists oppose these laws as medically unnecessary. Additionally, these law us would have cause ed 75 of abortion clinics in texas to close. The Supreme Court rejected these laws and held and i quote, constitute an undue burden on Abortion Access and each violates the federal constitution, end quote. Mr. Duncan also argued against Marriage Equality and represented a Virginia Court clerk who refused to issue a marriage license to a samesex couple. Mr. Duncan defended North Carolina and texas laws and made it more difficult for eligible citizens to vote. In fact, the Fourth Circuit held that the North Carolina law targeted africanamerican voters. Quote, with almost surgical precision. End quote. What is telling about mr. Duncans record is how he has been a zell louse advocate for many, many social issues. I think his record raises questions as to whether he can be impartial and follow support precedent, even when he disagrees. The committee has already received letters from several groups regarding mr. Duncans nominations, including a letter of opposition from 35 l xwrks bt groups who argued quote, in light of his words and actions, it is quite unfathomable that mr. Duncan will administer j justice equally to litigants of various racial backgrounds and all genders and sexual orientations. End quote. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I hope i can get people to read the two speeches i gave two weeks ago on the senate floor beside what i said now, but i think ive made it very cloear. P i dont think people list p well, but it soupds like were doing away with the blue slip policy. I want to make it very clear that were keeping the traditional blue slip policy as its been practiced by at least 16 out of 18 chairmen in the last 100 years. Senator kennedy and then senator franken then to the introduction by our members of their works. Senator kennedy. Mr. Chairman, since my Opening Statement is both an Opening Statement about the blue slip policy, as well as an introduction of mr. Duncan, would you mind if i deferred to senator franken, who i think is going to talk exclusively about blue slips then i could follow senator franken if th