Hearings to examine protecting American citizenship

Good morning. Welcome everyone. Today's hearing will involve Sheria Clarke, District of South Carolina; Kathleen Lane, District of Montana; Evan Rikhye, District of Virgin Islands; and Kara Westercamp to the Court of International Trade. Today's nominees boast a diverse set of backgrounds. Each has extensive litigation experience, but their career paths reflect varying practices that are uniquely tailored to the courts for which they've been nominated. Before we turn to our visitors to introduce Ms. Lane and Ms. Clarke, I'll introduce two of our nominees. Their nominations are to the court that this committee does not consider too frequently, like the District of Virgin Islands and the Court of International Trade. Mr. Rikhye earned his law degree from American University, working with the Federal Election Commission before spending the bulk of his career with the Justice Department. In 2004, Mr. Rikhye began as an attorney advisor with the Office of Legal Policy. He helped prepare federal judicial nominees through confirmation, including Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. In 2006, he transitioned into a litigation role. He spent two years as a trial attorney with the criminal section of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Thereafter, he spent a decade and a half as a federal prosecutor in a pair of U.S. Attorney's Offices, including the District of Virgin Islands. He investigated and prosecuted a wide array of criminal offenses and diligently protected victims of fraud, drug trafficking, and violent crimes. He also briefly worked on detail as an attorney advisor to two U.S. embassies. In 2024, Mr. Rikhye has since then has served as senior counsel with Walmart, leading the company's internal investigations. Mr. Rikhye is an accomplished attorney with significant experience protecting the people of the Virgin Islands, and I look forward to hearing from him today. Now, I am fortunate to have a native Iowan with me, Ms. Westercamp. She received her undergraduate and law degrees, University of Iowa. After law school, Ms. Westercamp clerked for Judge John Garvey on the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa. 2011, she went into private practice at Jones Day. She litigated insurance recovery, security regulation, and financial disputes. Since 2014, Ms. Westercamp transitioned to public service as a trial attorney with the National Court Section of the Justice Department's Civil Division. In that role, she defended federal agencies in lawsuits before and appeals arising out of the United States Court of International Trade. Her expertise in matters before the court is unparalleled. Ms. Westercamp litigated trade disputes until late last year when she transitioned into the White House Counsel's Office. Needless to say, Ms. Westercamp is highly qualified to serve as a judge on the Court of International Trade, and I look forward from hearing her today. I'd ask everyone to keep their questions limited to five minutes allotted to keep the hearing on schedule. Senator Durbin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And before I make a statement about this morning's business, I want to call the attention of the Judiciary Committee to a ruling yesterday in New Mexico, where the Attorney General there filed a lawsuit, civil lawsuit under New Mexico law against Meta, Facebook, and Instagram for endangering children with their content on social media. There isn't a parent or grandparent alive who isn't fearful of what the hell these kids are looking at all day long and what's happening to them as a result. We have had lengthy hearings in this committee with the victims and the families of victims of these practices, promises by the industry to clean up their act and protect children, and failure after failure. This decision, which involved a verdict, a civil verdict of almost $400 million against Meta, Facebook, and Instagram, is an indication that Section 230 is not impregnable. That section has protected these social media vendors for a decade or more, and it should be brought down. I bring that to the attention of the committee because this is one of the few issues where we universally agree on a bipartisan basis that we should act. We have voted for that over and over again and failed to be bringing it to the floor. This ought to be a call to action to this committee to respond on the Senate floor and actually legislate for a change instead of what we do day after day, legislate for the benefit of these children and our grandchildren. I commend Raul Torrez, the Attorney General of New Mexico, for his leadership on this issue. He points the way, and I think we ought to follow through. And now to address the business of the day before this committee, I want to congratulate the nominees and their families. Today's hearing serves an important purpose. As members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, it's our responsibility to determine if nominees before us have the experience, independence, and temperament, and temperament for lifetime appointment to the bench. We evaluate each of these nominees with the first basic question: will they follow the rule of law? That is all the more crucial now with a president who is constantly trying to break the law and defy court orders. In his second term, President Trump has accelerated a pattern from his first term: put in place a patently illegal policy, dare the courts to strike it down, and when the courts uphold the rule of law, respond by personally attacking the judges. President Trump's tariff policy is a perfect illustration of this. Just two weeks after he returned to office last year, he invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, also known as IEEPA, to impose tariffs. This law gives the president authority to impose sanctions or freeze assets in response to certain emergencies. IEEPA never mentions the word tariffs, and it had never been used before to impose tariffs. President Trump announced, quote, "reciprocal tariffs" on almost every country in the world, claiming without evidence that trade deficits were an unusual and extraordinary threat to our national security. Immediately, American small businesses challenged these tariff taxes as exceeding the scope of the president's legal powers. Lower courts disagreed with the president and agreed with the plaintiffs, the business community, finding that only the Congress had the power to impose tariffs, not the president. Just a few weeks ago, a six-to-three decision in the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's position and held that IEEPA does not authorize President Trump to impose these illegal and costly tariff taxes. Right on cue, President Trump went on the attack, ranting on social media that the Supreme Court, quote, "unnecessarily ransacked the United States" by ruling against him. He took special aim at the three conservative justices in the majority, calling them, quote, "disloyal, unpatriotic fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and their radical left Democrats." While the Supreme Court struck down the tariffs, major questions remain with respect to how American businesses will receive the refunds for tens of billions of dollars they lost to President Trump's illegal tariff taxes. The Court of International Trade, or CIT, a specialized court that hears international trade cases, will hear many of the suits filed by the plaintiffs seeking to recoup their losses. So President Trump is resorting to his typical, usual, normal practice for him. After losing before the Supreme Court, he wants to stack the courts, including the CIT, with MAGA loyalists who will rule in his favor and not give the refunds back to businesses and individuals. Today, the committee will consider the nomination of Kara Westercamp for a lifetime appointment to this court. Based on her record, it appears she will be faithful to the president. How about her faithfulness to the rule of law? Ms. Westercamp's social media account reads like a Trump fan fiction, questioning the outcome of the 2020 election, whitewashing the January 6 attack on the Capitol, and attacking Chief Justice Roberts for not being sufficiently conservative. For example, on election day in 2020, Ms. Westercamp tweeted, and I quote, "If you cheat, you will win." On January 6, 2021, she claimed that Democrats are perfecting the art of cheating. And she has attacked senators on both sides of the aisle if they dare to cross the president. For example, one member of this committee she spoke of, Senator Graham, she said is true to no one but his own self-preservation. She repeatedly called Senator Mitch McConnell, quote, "Cocaine Mitch," close quote, and retweeted posts accusing him of, quote, "betraying Trump," unquote. She has also accused Senator Collins, Republican member of the Senate, of prioritizing, quote, "her own personal political power over loyalty to Trump." This shameless display of extreme rhetoric does not reflect independence or judicial temperament required for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. I look forward to hearing from her personally when we ask our questions. I yield.

Senator Tim Scott to introduce his nominee from his state.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the members of the Judiciary Committee. I am proud to introduce and strongly support the nomination of Sheria Clarke to serve as a United States Senate United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina. Her background is not typical for judicial candidates. She was homeschooled, and as I think of it, that's a great way to be valedictorian. And she attended Liberty University, majoring in psychology and graduating with honors. She worked her way through law school at the University of North Carolina and clerked for judges before finding her way to Washington. Sheria has built a distinguished legal career rooted in service, both in the courtroom and in her community. She has held several roles with increasing responsibility from her time at the Ethics Committee to eventually leading one of the most high-profile and consequential committees in Congress as a staff director for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Her experience also includes serving as an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of South Carolina, where she worked as a federal prosecutor focused on upholding the rule of law. Today, she continues her legal career as a partner at Nelson Mullins in Greenville, South Carolina. Her commitment to serve extends into the community, where she serves on the board of directors of Jasmine Road, supporting women recovering from trafficking, addiction, and exploitation. She also serves as chair of the Miriam Foundation and as board organizations like the Phillis Wheatley Community Center and the Governor's School for Science and Mathematics Foundation. These roles are clear evidence of her deep and consistent commitment to strengthening communities across South Carolina. Sheria's faith is central to who she is and is reflected in her approach to justice, her respect for others, and her commitment to fairness. She understands that the law requires not just intellect, but sound judgment, restraint, and a deep awareness of how decisions impact people's lives, and she brings those qualities to the bench. Beyond her professional accomplishments, Sheria is a devoted wife and mother, balancing family life with an exceptional career in public service. I met Sheria Clarke nearly 15 years ago through a mutual friend, Trey Gowdy, who was a Congressman in the House at the time, and she is one of the most outstanding people of character I have ever met. She brings a rare combination of humility and conviction to her work, with a clear understanding of the responsibility and trust required by a federal judge. In the decade plus since we've met, I have never heard her utter a single negative word about anyone at all, not even about my bad singing voice the one time a bunch of us called and tried to sing Happy Birthday to her. She has a quick mind, she picks up complex concepts with remarkable speed and ease. She is modest and never seeks attention or accolades. To the contrary, she deflects them in a genuine way. I cannot say she is slow to anger because in more than a decade, I have never seen her angry. And trust me, in this town and with the friends that I have, she's had plenty of opportunities to show it. What I can say is that she was a frequent dinner guest when she was in Washington, joining an often bipartisan table of friends, and she earned the respect and affection of everyone there. The ranking member of the committee she worked on had as much respect for her as the chairman who employed her. I am very proud to support her nomination without hesitation and am confident she will be an outstanding addition to the judiciary. And most importantly, I am proud to call her my friend. If more people were like Sheria Clarke, the world would be a better place.

history. And most importantly, I am proud to call her my friend. If more people were like Sheria Clarke, the world would be a better place.

I didn't mean to...

No problem, you're the chairman, we do whatever you say. Thank you very much.

Yeah, and you're free to go or stay, whatever you want to do.

I might go ahead and depart.

Senator Daines.

Chairman Grassley, thank you. I want to thank Ranking Member Durbin as well. It is my honor to introduce Katie Lane in support of her nomination to serve as the next judge of the United States District Court for the District of Montana. Katie's distinguished record of public service and experience in the federal and state judiciary makes her well-qualified to serve on the federal bench. I appreciate Ranking Member Durbin's comments about temperament, and I will tell you, Katie Lane has the right temperament as well to serve as United States District Court judge. She grew up in Montana, in fact, she grew up in Bozeman, my hometown. She attended kindergarten through 12th grade as I did in Bozeman, although I went a little before her, and graduated from my alma mater, Bozeman High School. She spent her summers during those formative years skiing, camping, hiking in Montana, which instilled in her a deep love of the Treasure State and the values that make Montana the last best place. Although we both went to the same high school, Katie's a lot smarter than me because she graduated magna cum laude from George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School. Katie clerked at both the trial and appellate levels of the federal judiciary for two federal judges. She then returned to Montana to serve as the Deputy Solicitor General under our current Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen from 2021 to 2023. In fact, during that time in our state capital, Helena, Katie worked zealously to defend Montana's laws and challenge federal overreach. She litigated cases in both state and federal courts on issues important to Montanans, including defending the Second Amendment, multiple land use and grazing rights cases, as well as defending Montana's coal industry. As Montanans know very well, federal judges play a critical role in our daily lives. For many years, we've dealt with an activist judiciary that repeatedly ruled against the interests of Montana. And that's why it's essential we pick principled jurists who are committed to upholding the Constitution and making decisions based on the rule of law, not personal politics or viewpoints. With this in mind, Senator Tim Sheehy and I are confident that Katie is the right choice to serve Montana as our next federal judge. Katie's values, and by the way, I've known her family since she was a little girl, Katie's values are rooted in Montana and grounded in the Constitution. I'm confident she'll be fair-minded, principled, and bring honor, decency, and integrity to the bench. I cannot recommend Katie highly enough and urge the committee to approve her nomination and for the Senate to confirm her without delay. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Thank you. We'll ask our nominees to come. Senator Graham is going to speak about Ms. Clarke, but he's not here yet, and when he comes, I will interrupt the hearing to hear from Senator Graham. The nominees please come to the table. And before you get seated, I'd like to swear... Raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

I do.

They all have answered affirmatively. We'll start with, I think we'll start with Sheria. Ms. Clarke. And you, besides your opening statement, if you've got guests and friends you want to introduce, for all of you, that's very appropriate.

Thank you, Chairman Grassley. Good morning. Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, members of this committee, thank you for convening this hearing and for considering my nomination to be a district court judge for the District of South Carolina. I am truly honored for this opportunity and I appreciate you considering my nomination. I'd also like to thank the President, President Trump, for nominating me to this position, it is an honor of my lifetime. I'd like to thank Senator Scott, I believe he's already left, but I want to thank him for such a kind welcome. He's one of my dearest friends and I appreciate all the support that he has given me over the last 15 years. I do have some people that I'd like to introduce today. Today with me are my parents, Wayne and Deborah Akins, who will be celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary this fall. And I'm so proud of them. [Applause.] Also with me is my wonderful husband, Jevon Clarke. He has been my rock for almost 17 years and I don't deserve him. We have three beautiful children. I know my middle son will not like me calling him beautiful, but they are beautiful to me. My oldest is 14, my second is 11, and my baby girl is eight. Also with me is my mother-in-law, and she keeps the Clarke household running. And so I appreciate everything that she's done. There are so many friends here today, I won't take the time to introduce them, but I do want to highlight the Hamiltons who came up from South Carolina and their son Asa, my friend from law school, Adrienne Delorme Finkley, I still want to call her maiden name, who flew all the way from Texas. And then there's a number of people that came today and took time out of their busy schedules from the House Ethics Committee, from the Oversight Committee, and from the Benghazi Committee, and so I just thank them for their time. I look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you, Ms. Lane.

Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, and members of this committee for considering my nomination. I also want to thank President Trump for nominating me and both Senator Daines and Senator Sheehy for their support. Senator Daines especially has been a tremendous supporter of my career, and I thank him for his kind words today. I'll take a moment to introduce my family in the room. My wonderful husband, who has been my biggest champion, so much so that he took a red-eye from a conference in California last night to come straight to this hearing. I appreciate him being here. My parents and one of my brothers are here from Montana. And there's really not enough time to thank my parents for everything they've given me, but suffice it to say, I am here today because of the example they set and the sacrifices they made. I also have my husband's wonderful family here from Missouri, including my two sisters-in-law who are graduating law school themselves in a few short weeks, one from Southern Methodist University and the other from Loyola Chicago. I have a great many friends and colleagues in the room here as well, and many watching online, including the two judges for whom I clerked. I can't fully express my gratitude for their mentorship throughout my career and for the example they set of what it means to be a federal judge. It's a privilege to sit before this committee. It's a privilege to be considered for this role. And if I have the honor of being confirmed, I will spend the rest of my life faithfully upholding my solemn duty under Article III and Article VI and living up to the standards set by my judicial mentors and those with whom I will share the bench on the District of Montana. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lane. Now Mr. Rikhye.

Chairman Grassley, good morning. Thank you so much for your generous introduction earlier today. Ranking Member Durbin, thank you as well, and thank you to all members of the committee for the careful consideration that you have given to my nomination. I'm truly humbled and truly grateful for this opportunity. I also want to take a moment to thank President Trump for nominating me to serve as a district judge in the District of the Virgin Islands. The President has done me the singular honor of my professional career by nominating me to serve in this capacity, and I'm truly humbled by the trust and the confidence that he has shown in me. I'm joined today by my family and I'd like to just take a moment to introduce them to the members of the committee. First and foremost, my wife of 28 years, Annalisa, who has steadfastly supported and taken care of our family as my career has taken us around the country, around the globe, and back again. Very grateful to her. Joined by my eldest daughter, Sheila, who graduated from Georgetown last year and she's now pursuing a career on Wall Street in New York. And then my two younger children, Mira and Evan, they're both in school and this is spring break week for them, so they're getting a real-life civics lesson and truly grateful to have them here. And with that, Chairman Grassley, I look forward to answering any questions that the members of the committee have, and again, thank you all so much for this opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Rikhye. Now, Ms. Westercamp.

Thank you, Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Durbin, and thank you members of the committee for considering my nomination. I want to begin today by thanking President Trump for the great honor of this nomination to the United States Court of International Trade. And thank you again, Chairman Grassley, for that very kind introduction and for your support. With me today from Iowa, the Hawkeye State, is my family. My mother, Barbara Westercamp, and she said this morning she shouldn't have worn such a bright color, red, but she's a retired kindergarten teacher. And my father, Keith Westercamp, passed away seven years ago, but I know he is with me today in spirit. I couldn't have asked for better role models growing up, and I am very grateful for the love of education, hard work, and public service that they both instilled in me and my siblings. I'm joined as well by my brother, Jonathan, and my sisters, Laura and Jerilyn, and I know they are very happy to see that the cherry blossoms are nearly at peak bloom. My sister-in-law, Jessica, and my nieces, Isabel and Olivia, are supporting me from my hometown of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. My life has been blessed by the generosity of so many mentors, colleagues, and friends who have shared their knowledge, experience, and time over the years. I would like to give special thanks to Judge John Jarvey of the Southern District of Iowa, for whom I clerked. My two-year clerkship was a foundational experience where I had the opportunity to see judicial integrity in action, and I strive to model myself after him if I am so fortunate to be confirmed. Although he passed away two years ago, I would be remiss if I didn't mention Professor William "Buck" Buss of the University of Iowa College of Law for his support and encouragement throughout my career. I also thank my many colleagues over the past 12 years at the National Court Section of the Department of Justice for their support. About a decade ago, the first trade case I was assigned to was honey from China because I was the 2003 American Honey Princess. I never could have imagined that that honey case would set me on a path to where I would specialize in international trade and be sitting before you today. Thank you also to my colleagues at the White House Counsel's Office and to my many friends and extended family who are here today or watching from afar. I am so honored to be here, and I look forward to the committee's questions.

Yeah. We will have five-minute rounds, and I ask the members for a second time to stay within the five minutes, and I'll set, hope I set a good standard for that. I'm going to go to Westercamp. You were born in Iowa, you were educated in Iowa, and your, I assume your first job was with Judge Jarvey of the Southern District. Tell me how the Court of International Trade is so important to the average person in Iowa.

Senator, I think the Court of International Trade is important ...

Just a minute. You want me to ... Go ahead, go ahead. Okay. Please start your answer over again.

Senator, I think the Court of International Trade is important to this great state of Iowa because Iowa is an agricultural state, soybeans, corn, but it also has manufacturing. Again, I grew up in Cedar Rapids, and my dad could tell which cereal Quaker Oats or General Mills was making on any particular day. But more importantly, in the context of the court itself, the court hears disputes arising from the international trade laws, and it also considers anti-dumping and countervailing duties that the Department of Commerce assesses, as well as certain determinations by CBP. And in addition, the court also reviews certain executive actions or proclamations by the president. But importantly, the international trade, it's an ecosystem that is incredibly connected, and again, for an agricultural and manufacturing state like Iowa, it's very important.

Now, you've had more than 130 appearances before the International or Court of International Trade. How did preparing for cases before that court differ from the more traditional federal courts?

Senator, the Court of International Trade is primarily one of record review, and these records are voluminous. And so you're examining the record and making sure that any decisions that again Commerce or CBP did or other agencies are supported by substantial evidence or otherwise not in accordance with law. And there are no jury trials, so there's only bench trials, Senator, Chairman, and I've also had, you know, multiple, argued multiple motions before the court. And it's a very collegial court as well because from day to day, I could have, it could be opposing counsel, but then the very next week, it might be defendant-intervenor in a case. And so I enjoy that about the court as well where the bar is so congenial. day-to-day. I could have, it could be opposing counsel, but then the very next week it might be defendant-intervenor in a case. And so I enjoy that about the court as well where the bar is so congenial.

Ms. Clarke, during your decade on Hill, you developed a reputation for working well with people on both sides of the aisle. Former Representative Gowdy stated that Democrats like then-Chairman Cummings respected your work as much as Republican did, Republican did. How did you learn from working, what did you learn from working with people that held different viewpoints that you're going to bring to the bench?

Chairman, first I have to thank Mr. Gowdy for all of his support, and so I want to make sure I said that today. Throughout my career on the Hill, I try to treat everyone with humility and respect. I try to be fair and impartial in my dealings with everyone, and I try to continue that throughout my career. And so I hope that my experience on the Hill building relationships and being kind to those will carry with me if I am so fortunate as to be confirmed.

Okay, and for Ms. Lane, you spent years working as Solicitor General in Montana for that person. During your career, you also litigated many cases that arise from rural jurisdictions involving land use, grazing rights, and coal mining leases. How will these experiences prepare you for arriving and serving as a federal judge in Montana?

The cases that I had the opportunity and privilege to work on in Montana often involved really complicated regulatory schemes. In those cases, the facts were often very complicated. We were dealing with large administrative records and of course very complicated and complex regulatory schemes. And oftentimes those cases were moving on very fast timelines. And so as a representative of the state of Montana, I had to get up to speed very quickly on both the legal and factual issues. And if I have the privilege of being confirmed to the District of Montana, I would take that same diligence with me, working very hard to get up to speed on the cases before me, understanding both the facts and the law and deciding the cases before me.

Senator Graham to introduce.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being late. The Budget Committee's doing a hearing on trying to shore up Social Security, which was a worthy topic. Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity. Ms. Sheria Clarke, we're very proud of you, Sheria. Your friend of Trey, and in spite of that, I think you're going to make it. Graduated from Liberty University, JD from the University of North Carolina School of Law. You've introduced your wonderful family already. Law clerk on the Court of Appeals in North Carolina. Served for a decade on Capitol Hill, first as counsel to the House Ethics Committee, which you probably learned a lot about bipartisanship there. And then as counsel to the Select Committee on Benghazi before returning to the Ethics Committee, and that's where you met Trey. From 2017 to 2019, she served as staff director for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reforms. She has served as Assistant US Attorney in the US Attorney's Office for the District of South Carolina, where she handled both civil and criminal cases. She is currently a partner at Nelson Mullins, which is one of the bigger, more prestigious firms in the state. She's been described by her colleagues as someone who's highly intelligent, even-keeled, and humble. You're going to make it in spite of being humble. I believe of all the people we could have picked to serve at the district court, federal district judge in South Carolina, we could not have done better than you. Trey, thank you very much for pointing her distinguished career out. And to the colleagues on the committee, we've tried to make sure our judges are going to stand the test of time and reason, and you are an absolutely lived a stellar life. You deserve this nomination, and the people of South Carolina will benefit from the fact, from your ability to be a fair-minded judge if you get on that court. And I'm hoping you will, and to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, thank you for paying attention to this nominee. I hope and pray we can get a good bipartisan vote for her just to reaffirm that the committee can function that way. Thank you.

Senator Durbin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Westercamp, throughout your prolific, inflammatory social media career, you launched personal attacks on multiple members of the Senate. You repeatedly referred to Senator Mitch McConnell as quote "Cocaine Mitch." You also retweeted a post which accused him of quote "embodying everything that's wrong with politics." You once told Senator Graham that he is quote "true to no one but your own self-preservation." You accused Senator Collins of prioritizing her own personal political power over the president's priorities. Would you like to apologize to those senators and others that you've referred to in your social media today?

Yes, Senator. And if I may, any comments I made were in my personal capacity as a private citizen, but in hindsight, I think that using Twitter is not the right platform, especially retweets from someone I don't know regarding political opinions, controversial topics, or even characterizations of people. And so I do sincerely apologize for those posts, and if confirmed, Senator, I would faithfully uphold the judicial canons, which include avoiding any appearance of any appearance of impropriety, and that would include social media. And I've also seriously considered, Ranking Member Durbin, just completely deactivating Twitter.

Let me ask you about your tweets beyond personal references to members of the Senate, and I just focused on what you had to say about Republicans. You used social media to spread conspiracy theories as well regarding the attempted insurrection of the Capitol on January 6, including you said that law enforcement was complicit in the violence. You appeared to agree with a tweet that stated the attack was quote "orchestrated by members of the Senate and members of the Capitol Police." And you have elevated a claim that those storming the House chamber were quote "Antifa in disguise." In addition, you downplayed the violence of the day, including assaults on law enforcement, by retweeting and posting quote "we're all supposed to be sending thoughts and prayers to traumatized members of Congress whose workday was interrupted for a couple of hours." Ms. Westercamp, are you willing to denounce here and now the violence perpetrated on January 6 in this Capitol building?

Senator, I condemn all violence that occurred on January 6. And in addition, I think for what you quoted, Senator, I think that is endemic of how it is not proper to use retweets from someone or from people I don't know regarding such a controversial topic.

Will you apologize to the law enforcement officers for spreading the conspiracy theory that they were somehow complicit in the violence of January 6?

Senator, again, I think that gets to how retweeting posts from people I don't know on controversial topics is, I regret doing, and again, I condemn all of the violence that occurred on that day.

What we're trying to get to is whether you have the temperament for a lifetime appointment as a judge with extraordinary authority and power in that appointment. We don't know as we vote and send off judges to do their duty whether they're going to keep their word before us. We look at their background, we look at their values, and try to draw a conclusion as to whether they are stable and dependable and whether or not they should have the authority and power for a lifetime on the federal bench. What would you like to say today about what you have put in your social media post in the past about events and about members of the Senate as to whether or not we should say that's an accurate reflection of your values?

Senator, I am a native Iowan, and I think that if you speak to any of my many colleagues and friends that are sitting behind me, that they would tell you that I live a life of integrity and credibility. And I regret any of those retweets about what occurred on January 6, and again, I do condemn all of the violence that happened on that day. And if I am confirmed would...

Last question. If you're confirmed to the Court of International Trade and later decide to rule against the executive branch, this one or a future one, would executive branch officials be required to comply with your decision?

Yes.

Without exception?

Senator, yes, and there are appeal mechanisms but otherwise any party appearing before the Court of International Trade, I would expect them to comply with any court order.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yeah. Before Senator Kennedy, just a little commentary on what his questioning. We're here to assess your qualifications. You have extensive legal advocacy and by all accounts, I think Ms. Westercamp has been diligent, capable attorney throughout her career. Politically charged statements by nominees or their organizations aren't unheard of in this committee and I think that both sides of the aisle know that this has happened whether we have Republican or Democrat presidents, Republican or Democrat nominees. My Democrat colleagues in those occasions did not object when President Biden's nominees like Vanita Gupta and Nancy Abudu made inflammatory partisan statements, criticized members of this committee or were members of openly partisan organizations and they supported Dale Ho, a nominee, even though he described himself as a quote-unquote wild-eyed liberal. Senator Kennedy, I'm going to go up to the Budget Committee for questions. Can you stay here for about 15 minutes?

Yes, sir. I can.

Go with your questions.

Thank you. Does this mean I get extra time?

You're running the committee now.

All right. I can feel the power coursing through my veins. Ms. Westercamp, can we agree that social media quite often is just a cesspool of snark?

Unequivocally, yes.

When you made these comments about Senator McConnell and Senator Graham and Senator Collins, what job were you in at the time?

Senator, I made the comments in my personal capacity as a private citizen but I was at the Department of Justice.

You're in White House Counsel's Office now, right?

Since May of last year, yes.

But you didn't make them while you were working for President Trump?

No.

You were at Justice?

Well, technically Department of Justice is an executive agency but I was at the Department of Justice.

Yeah. I try not to read social media too much. One of my colleagues in my office one time, they know to bring to me any really cool cuts that somebody said about me on social media. Probably the coolest one they've brought to me, somebody said one time, Kennedy, you look exactly like my second wife. I thought that was a very cool cut. You are an expert in international trade law?

Yes.

Okay. Tell me about the Supreme Court opinion in Learning Resources v. Trump.

Yes, Senator, that's the commonly referred to as the IEEPA Supreme Court case and it came out I think now we're coming up on about a month ago. In that opinion, the Supreme Court held that President Trump did not have the authority to use IEEPA using the words regulate ellipses importation to impose tariffs and the Supreme Court declared that the tariffs that the president had imposed under IEEPA were unlawful.

And what is the major legal doctrine that underpins the decision?

Well, the president had used IEEPA during peacetime but in terms of the doctrine itself, he'd relied on IEEPA for the authority to impose tariffs but the majority had said that essentially the clear text said that the president did not have that authority.

It was the major questions doctrine, was it not? That's the major questions doctrine, right?

Yes, Senator.

All right. I've got a minute or so left here. We can cover it in a minute. Mr. Rikhye, is that how you say your name, sir?

Yes, Senator.

Tell me about the war powers clauses.

Well, Senator, the war powers clauses require...

Which clauses are they? Or which articles of the Constitution are they?

Well, the war powers act was an act of Congress...

I'm sorry. Bad, I didn't phrase my question right. Not the War Powers Act. The war powers clauses. Let's start with which articles of the Constitution are involved.

That would be in Article 1 giving Congress the authority to declare war.

And what else?

Well, and then Congress also has the authority or the responsibility to fund whatever military actions are being...

And the president has a role to play, doesn't he?

He does. The president is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

Under what article?

That would be Article 2.

Okay. In 24 seconds, how do you reconcile that only Congress can declare war? Doesn't say make war, says declare war, but the president is Commander in Chief. What did our founders intend?

I think it goes along with the whole concept kind of underpinning the entire constitutional system we have of divided government, powers split between the different branches and so I think there was an inherent tension built into that just as there is in many different areas of our federal government.

Okay. Ladies, I'm sorry I didn't get to you. Senator Blumenthal, I believe you're up.

Thank you, Senator Kennedy. Welcome everyone. Thank you for your service. Ms. Westercamp, who won the 2020 election?

Senator, under our Constitution, the Electoral College votes for the president and then that is certified by Congress and in 2020, President Biden was certified by the electoral...

No, that's not my question. Who won the election?

And again, Senator, under our Constitution and it's actually...

You know, I know who was certified and I know what you think of certification because you tweeted on January 6 in a post saying in reference to the 2020 election results, a certify lie is still a lie. I'm asking you who won the 2020 election. Let me make it more specific. Who won the popular vote?

Again, Senator, under our Constitution what matters is who the Electoral College votes as...

But I'm not asking you for what the Constitution says. I'm asking you for your view factually and frankly, we've received this kind of canned ridiculous answer before, as you know, because you were instructed to give this answer, right?

Senator, I am speaking to what the Constitution under our Constitution again and that is actually Article 2 as well as...

Let me ask you this. Who won the 2024 election?

In the 2024 election, again the Electoral College certified or voted for President Trump and then the Congress also certified President Trump as the winner.

Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?

Senator, that goes back again to under our Constitution the methodology is set forth in Article 2.

Let's try another question, Ms. Westercamp. Was the United States Capitol attacked on January 6, 2021?

Senator, again, I condemn all of the violence that occurred on January 6.

Okay. We're not going to get an answer from you and let me try Ms. Clarke. Ms. Clarke, who won the 2020 election?

Senator, under our Constitution the mechanism for electing a president is...

I am amazed. I am just amazed by the insult to this committee of witness after witness seeking to be a federal judge subverting our Constitution and showing how you have no independence, which is essential to a federal judge. Ms. Lane, who won the 2020 election?

Again, Senator, the Constitution... Apologies. Again, Senator, the Constitution outlines the process and as a judicial nominee, I'm here to talk about what the Constitution requires, which is an electoral vote and certification by Congress and in 2020...

Who won the election?

In 2020, President Biden.

Mr. Rikhye, who won the 2020 election?

Senator, as my colleagues have stated, the process we have in our under the Constitution is a vote by the Electoral College followed by certification.

Was the Capitol attacked, Mr. Rikhye, on January 6?

There was violence that occurred here on January 6, Senator.

Was the Capitol attacked?

I would just say, Senator, there was violence that occurred here on that date.

You've seen videos of what happened.

Yes, Senator, I have.

Was the Capitol attacked?

Again, Senator, I would say violence...

Ms. Lane, was the Capitol attacked?

Senator, the characterization of January 6 is subject to ongoing controversy and debate, and as a nominee, it would be inappropriate for me to characterize it.

Ms. Clarke, who won the 2020 election?

Senator, under the process set out by the Constitution, the Electoral College elects the President and the President is certified.

Can you pull that mic a little closer, please?

And the Electoral College elects the President.

You know, the answers here, which obviously are canned, they're pre-rehearsed, they're Orwellian in their denial of reality, and they are a subversion of this process. They're an insult to this committee, but they also fundamentally show a complete lack of independence and backbone and impartiality, which are the fundamental requirements of a United States District Court judge or a judge on any panel, Ms. Westercamp. And I'm a little bit disappointed that you're not more original, that you can't think of a few different words. I'm just amazed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just to finish Senator Blumenthal's point, I hope you realize how ridiculous the four of you look spouting these preposterous canned answers in a forum in which, A, you're supposed to tell the truth, and B, you're supposed to demonstrate the judicial capacity to make independent factual decisions in hard cases. If you can't even sit here and say that Joe Biden won that election or that the Capitol was attacked, what's left? What's left if a hard case comes your way as a judge, and let's say the Trump administration is bearing down on that? Why would we ever believe that you would give the litigants a fair hearing and a fair decision if the executive branch was leaning in on you, when we can't get a reasonable answer out of any of you with the executive branch leaning in on you to give these ridiculous answers today? I'm really sorry to have to go through this and that you have to go through this, but it would be nice if you could tell your executive branch handlers, for instance, Ms. Clarke, I'm supported by Lindsey Graham. He's a friend of President Trump. He's the second senior person on the Republican side in the Judiciary Committee. He's likely to be the next Judiciary Committee chair. I think I'll be okay. I don't need to make myself ridiculous at your direction. It would be great if you could have said that, and it would be great if your answers were simple and honest here today. It's really disappointing. Let me ask a different question, a legal question. A judge, you want to be judges. A judge gets a threat, a threat to the judge's life or to the judge's family. Can you imagine a scenario in which liability may attach to individuals beyond the utterer of that threat? Ms. Clarke?

Senator, as a prosecutor, there are instances where there's some responsibility that is assigned to someone who is not the utterer of a threat to an individual. And so to answer your question, yes, I could imagine.

And you agree?

Yes, Senator, and if confirmed to the bench, I would follow all Supreme Court precedent and Ninth Circuit precedent.

Mr. Rikhye, you agree?

Yes, Senator, I would agree with that.

I don't know that I care what you think, Ms. Westercamp, because you're going to International Trade and you're probably not going to see much of this, but do you agree?

Yes, Senator.

Yeah, and those doctrines that would provide the legal basis for investigation in those scenarios would include doctrines like, name one, Ms. Clarke.

Senator, doctrines that are... if someone is essentially carrying out...

Solicitation, would that be one? Solicitation of a threat?

Yes.

Or a conspiracy out of which the threat emerged, would that be another one?

Yes.

How about it's the product of an enterprise under the racketeering statutes? Would that also be another way that liability could extend beyond the utterer?

That is correct, Senator.

Can you think of any others, Ms. Lane, where liability extends beyond the utterer of the threat? What are some of the legal theories that would support that kind of investigation and prosecution?

Senator, the doctrines you mentioned I would agree with, and I would just look always to federal law and federal statutes guiding that.

Mr. Rikhye?

Senator, I would agree with that. I think you covered the major ones: conspiracy, RICO. There may be other avenues of potential legal liability, but I think you covered the three big ones in that scenario.

Ms. Westercamp, you agree?

Senator, I'm not aware if there are any more with my practice before the Court of International Trade and Court of Federal Claims that doesn't touch on criminal law.

So here is why I asked you these questions. I asked you these questions because right now federal judges are under the worst shadow of physical threat in my lifetime and perhaps in the history of this country. And in responding to those threats, we have the United States Marshal Service, which reports to the Department of Justice. And I have now over a dozen times asked the Marshal Service, will you investigate behind the utterer of a threat if the evidence justifies it? That's a super easy question. The answer is, yeah, of course we will. They won't answer that. They won't answer that. And I point this out because judges across the country need to pay attention to the fact that the Marshal Service won't confirm that it will investigate behind the utterer of a threat if the evidence supports that. And why would that be the case? That would be the case because when you get behind the utterer of a lot of these threats, you run into right-wing conspiracies. And this MAGA Department of Justice would rather not go there. And so they leave judges exposed with investigations in which they aren't doing investigative 101 work that you've all identified as plausible legal theories. And we need to fix that. We need to fix that.

Okay, I start all of my questioning by asking a fundamental question of all of the nominees to any of the committees on which I sit. So I'll ask this panel and we'll start with Ms. Clarke and go 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?

Senator, I have not.

No, Senator.

No, Senator.

No, Senator.

Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement relating to this kind of conduct?

No, Senator.

No, Senator.

No, Senator.

No, Senator.

A question for Mr. Rikhye. On social media, you liked an article in which Mike Davis said, and I quote Mike Davis, "I have no problem with President Trump pardoning almost all of those January 6 defenders because they've suffered enough." Now you posted that you liked that, so I want to ask you, do you agree with those pardons? Do you agree with the sentiment that they've suffered enough?

Senator, I don't recall liking that particular article. I do know the article that you are referring to, however, and what I would say on that is that the Constitution gives the President plenary authority to issue pardons.

Oh no, I'm not asking about what powers the President has. I'm asking whether... you're telling me that you don't recall liking this post by Mike Davis?

That's correct, Senator, I don't.

Well, you made the post, so now as you sit here, I'm telling you that this is the information I have, that this is factual, that you liked that post. Well, do you agree with the pardons?

Senator, when it comes to the pardons, the point I was making is that given that the President has this plenary authority...

I know that, you don't need to sit there and lecture me about the powers of the President. I would just like to know whether you agree with those pardons.

As a nominee to serve on the court, I believe it would be contrary to the canon of judicial ethics for me to comment on the President's pardon power, and so I'll respectfully...

Well, you are... as a judge, you will not be having any pardon power, so if confirmed, will you hold all criminal defendants accountable under the law regardless of their political affiliation?

Yes, Senator, if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, any criminal defendant who comes before me...

It's pretty clear that the President pardoned 1,500 of the January 6 defenders based on ideological reasons. And yes, the President has very wide-ranging pardon powers, but he pardoned 1,500 people, many of whom beat up Capitol Police. It's just amazing to me. Ms. Westercamp, you did not hold back and you were asked by my colleague about some of the posts that you put out regarding various members of the Senate. You did not hold back. Now you would consider those posts opinions, not fact, I hope.

Senator, I believe some of what Ranking Member Durbin referred to were retweets, and again, I think retweeting from other people who I might not know about people or controversial topics is improper to do.

Okay, my question is that, so you posted things of people you didn't know, including me, by the way. And so I'm just asking whether you understand the difference between these posts, which were not facts, but opinions. Were they your opinions? You're entitled to an opinion, so are you.

Senator, I do understand the difference between an opinion and a fact.

Okay, so those were opinions.

Senator, again, using social media as Senator Kennedy has said...

Yes or no, you cannot sit there and tell me whether the posts that where you put out posts relating to members of the Senate, that whether those were facts or opinions, you can't tell me that?

Senator, I should not have retweeted, and again, retweeting from other people, I should not have done that, and if confirmed, would avoid doing that in the future.

I think I'm asking, excuse me, I am asking a yes or no answer, and the fact that you can't... to me, those are opinions. And of course, judges are supposed to be the finder of fact, they are supposed to be the people who should distinguish between fact and fiction. I do have a question regarding when you were... I believe you were... you advised the President on trade matters, including tariffs, I take it.

Chairman Grassley, I'm out of time, but would you like...

I'm sorry, I didn't hear you, yes?

She asked the question before her time was up, so whatever time it takes for you to answer, you've got.

Oh, I'm so sorry, I was just on a roll here.

No, you properly answered.

So I will submit, I will submit for the record a question I have about her role in providing advice on trade policy, which the Supreme Court has said that President Trump's tariffs are illegal.

Senator Britt.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations to each of you on your respective nominations and welcome to your family. I know that this is a proud day for all of you. I'm glad we're examining a nomination to the U.S. Court of International Trade, which obviously plays an important role in trade and customs law and trade-related litigation. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the fact that this hearing is being held against a backdrop of what I believe to be a reckless shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. The agencies there include things like Customs and Border Protection that are tasked with enforcing our trade and customs law and facilitating lawful trade. We must find a pathway forward to fully fund CBP, which, like the Court of International Trade, plays a central role in maintaining the fairness and integrity of the international trade ecosystem. With that being said, Mrs. Westercamp, I will turn to you with my first question. The Court of International Trade is, of course, a court with limited subject matter jurisdiction. It requires judges with a specialized knowledge of trade-related issues. And Mrs. Westercamp, I know in your case that you have appeared before the court more than 130 times. Can you discuss your experience practicing in front of the court and how that experience will inform your work on the court as a judge and why the court's expertise is so vital to our nation?

Yes, Senator. Again, it's a very highly specialized area of law. And with mentioning CBP, I was actually honored by Attorney General Merrick Garland for my work on the Enforce and Protect Act, which defends CBP determinations regarding transshipment. Transshipment is when, in order for perhaps a company to evade anti-dumping or countervailing duties in one country, they basically transship to another country in order to avoid those duties. And I think my experience before the court is important because, clearly, I'm familiar arguing before the court. I know the various statutes and regulations. And I would also say what I've enjoyed again is just the collegiality of the trade bar. And I've found it very helpful where some of the judges issue questions in advance for the parties to answer, sometimes written questions or at oral argument. And I think that helps all of the parties gain a deeper understanding of the particular issues or facts that the judge may believe is not supported by substantial evidence.

Thank you, Mrs. Westercamp, I appreciate that. Mr. Rikhye, turning to you, you've been nominated to a court that's unique in a number of respects, one of which is geographic. As you know and are well aware, the Virgin Islands, along with Puerto Rico, have been designated as a high-intensity drug trafficking area. And the location of the Virgin Islands makes drug trafficking an issue of particular concern. That same is true when it comes to issues like illegal immigration. Can you speak to some of those unique aspects of the district and how your previous work there as Assistant U.S. Attorney has better prepared you to assume the bench there?

Thank you, Senator. In the Virgin Islands, the problem of drug trafficking and controlled substances takes two different forms. One aspect is... Do you mind? I can't... Your microphone. The problem of drug trafficking takes two distinct forms. One area relates to sort of trafficking within the islands, people selling to users on the island. The other aspect of it is the interdiction on the high seas of narcotics trafficking. So we had the experience at the Virgin Islands of dealing with very large seizures that occurred either on the high seas or within the territorial waters of the Virgin Islands. And these are very different types of cases that have to be handled differently because, of course, when the interdictions are done at sea, those are prosecuted under the MDLEA, whereas the prosecutions that happen on land within the territory, those are handled through the more traditional tools of investigating and prosecuting drug offenses. So I've had experience dealing with both, the drug boats that get interdicted on the high seas as well as drug trafficking organizations within the islands who sometimes are just dealing with their customers on the islands, but also as a transshipment point where large quantities of drugs get essentially broken down into smaller retail quantities and then transshipped further north. So I've handled both types of cases. On the immigration front, I would say we're very close to the British Virgin Islands, so quite often illegal immigrants come through the BVIs into St. John and St. Thomas. The one unusual thing is that even though it's very vulnerable to illegal immigration, we're dealing with a relatively low volume because there's not a land border. So typically it's a few people at a time, unlike what we see on our southern border with hundreds or thousands of people. So those are some of the differences, and again, I've dealt with all of these cases as a prosecutor, and I feel as though I'd be well-equipped to handle them if I'm fortunate to be confirmed.

I appreciate that, and I think that your experience will lend itself well on the bench. And I have more follow-up questions for all of you. I am out of time, so I will submit those for the record, but thank you for your willingness to serve.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Schiff.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a few questions. Mrs. Westercamp, are you familiar with the term performance improvement plan, sometimes referred to as a PIP?

Yes.

Would you agree that employees subject to a PIP are essentially being notified that some aspect of their performance is unacceptable?

Yes.

Have you ever been subject to a performance improvement plan in your time at the Department of Justice?

No, Senator, I have received excellent ratings.

So there's never been any issue your superiors or supervisors have had that required anything like a performance improvement plan?

No, Senator.

Thank you. Ms. Lane, I wanted to ask you about your experience trying cases. Have you ever tried a case to a verdict before a jury?

Senator, I've worked on a bench trial, and as a federal law clerk, I handled seven trials.

I was a federal law clerk as well. I wouldn't say that I handled the trials, I think the judge handled the trials. But let me ask you about your experience with the bench trial. Were you the lead counsel in that case?

No, Senator, I was part of a small team of attorneys.

And were you the senior associate counsel on the case?

Yes, Senator, I was an associate on the case. There were four attorneys on the case. I was responsible for helping prepare witnesses, help second-chair depositions. I also took a deposition myself. I cross-examined a witness at trial, and I was responsible for all the pre-trial and post-trial briefing, findings of facts, conclusions of law.

Of the four attorneys, how many were more senior to you on that team?

Senator, I believe two. There were several people who came in to assist, but again, my responsibilities, I was the primary drafter for all the briefing.

No, I heard that. I just want to understand. So your trial experience consists of being the second or third senior lawyer on a bench trial.

Senator, yes, it was a week-long trial involving complicated constitutional issues, and my role, again, was I helped draft and prepare all the briefing.

But you've never done jury selection, never done voir dire, for example.

When I was a law clerk, Senator, five of the trials before the judge who I clerked for were jury trials, and so I had the opportunity...

Again, I was a law clerk, it was a great experience, but I didn't pick the jury when I was a law clerk. I didn't question the jurors, I didn't seek to use a peremptory or other challenge for cause for a juror. That's really not the role of a law clerk. You observe it, but you don't do it yourself. And so, apart from the bench trial, have you cross-examined witnesses in any kind of other jury trial or any jury trial?

Senator, in that case, I cross-examined a lay witness. I also deposed an expert, and I was...

But never before a jury. Have you ever filed or argued a motion in limine?

Yes, Senator, I in that matter handled several motions in limine as well as in other matters, particularly at preliminary injunction stage. Some of the litigation I've been involved with has had extensive evidentiary records at the preliminary injunction stage, so I've filed and handled several motions in many motions in limine, Senator.

Many motions in limine in that one bench trial.

Yes, Senator, in that one bench trial, I handled several motions in limine, but I've also handled motions in limine in other litigation, again, more at the preliminary injunction stage, seeking to establish a clear record going into a preliminary injunction hearing where there may be live witnesses, evidentiary issues kind of at that initial stage.

Okay. Thank you. I'm not trying to denigrate your experience as a law clerk. I think it's a great experience and I highly encourage those graduating from law school to pursue clerkships. But having tried cases as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, it's not the same thing to observe them and to do them yourself, I'm sure you would agree. But thank you, I appreciate it, and Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you. Before Senator Blackburn, I'd like to enter into the record a letter supporting Ms. Lane's nomination from 24 state attorneys general. They endorse Ms. Lane's nomination and stated, quote, "Through our offices' work on complex, high-stake litigation, we've had the opportunity to observe firsthand the caliber of lawyers best suited for the federal bench. Ms. Lane stands out among them, her experience, judgment, and temperament make her superbly well-suited to serve as U.S. federal district judge." Without objection, that'll be entered in the record. Ms. Blackburn.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Ms. Lane, Judge Varlan sends his regards. He reached out yesterday, he is really proud of you and the work that you did, and is, I have no doubt he's watching this morning. So he does send his regards. I want to talk with you for just a minute about some of the cases you've had the opportunity to work on that include national security and constitutional law. And according to ten partners at the law firm Consovoy McCarthy, work never phased you. And that is a statement that has been made about you, that you were able to work under pressure, that you were able to stay level-headed, and of course, I've heard the same thing from Judge Varlan in your work there. So talk for a minute about that skill set that you have developed in the private sector and how you would take that to the bench.

In my practice, I've had the privilege of litigating at every single level of state and federal court, including the United States Supreme Court. I've filed over 100 briefs and motions, I've argued in federal and state trial courts, I've gone to trial, I've argued appeals, I've handled numerous other appeals. And in many of those cases, these they involved complicated administrative law issues, constitutional law issues, and they were often moving on a very fast timeline. And so as an attorney representing my client's interests, I had to get up to speed very quickly on both the facts and the law and grasp really complicated issues quickly. And if I have the privilege of being confirmed to the District of Montana, I would take that same diligence with me and not only work really hard to get it right, but also to manage my docket efficiently and to understand all the different legal and factual issues that come before me. Thank you.

Ms. Clarke, good to see you on this side of the hill.

Thank you, Senator.

And I want you to talk a little bit about you've done a lot of work in the human trafficking vein as a volunteer. And this is something we are seeing more of these cases, many of them are embedded in connections that are made on social media and young people that are being human trafficked, sex trafficked, and these predators, pedophiles, groomers ending up in court. We've done a lot of work with NCMEC and other agencies on these protections. So you have experience in that space and also a broad-based experience in policy. And I think this is something that should help shape your opinion as a judge. So talk with me how you would use that experience as you move to the bench.

Senator Blackburn, that experience that I've had working with Jasmine Road and then also my experience as a prosecutor, I got to see both sides of what is happening when it comes to human trafficking. And as you mentioned, there is a lot of grooming that takes place through social media, through games that have access to the internet. And so I think having that experience will allow me, if I'm so fortunate as to be confirmed, to be able to jump into cases that involve those issues with...

I think after the New Mexico decision yesterday, that verdict against Meta, we are going to see more of these that will come forward in the protection of our children. Mr. Rikhye, you come from an area that I think the Virgin Islands, it's a different district, if you will, and your work as an attorney there, how do you carry that to the bench and some of the challenges, a different set of challenges really, that come before that district?

Yes, Senator. The Virgin Islands is unique in terms of its geography as well as its culture. It's also a very small place, the entire territory has about 85,000 people there. And what one of the things I remember from my experience is that every single federal case, even if we as prosecutors didn't think that it was very significant case, it had a measurable significant impact, positive impact on the community. And so I know firsthand how the work that was done in the U.S. Attorney's Office there and continues to be done has a positive impact on the community, on people's lives. I found that to be very rewarding and I look forward to the opportunity to serving in a different capacity in the Virgin Islands.

Sounds good. Ms. Westercamp, they've kind of had their arrows pointed at you today. And sometimes I think that is done in a very unfair mindset. They're not happy right now, but is there anything you would like to clarify that you've been asked today and were not able to give a full explanation?

If I may, Chairman.

Go ahead.

I appreciate that question, Senator. The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune have definitely rained down on me this morning. And I would just like to reiterate to the entire committee, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, that I am a woman of integrity and I have and fidelity to the law and for the past 12 years at the Department of Justice have devoted myself already to a life of public service. And if I were confirmed to be a judge on the Court of International Trade, I would faithfully adhere to the judicial canons, both with impartiality and all that that entails for any party that would appear before me. Thank you.

Senator Coons.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe am I the last Senator to question?

No, Senator Welch.

Would you like me to defer to you, Senator? I am happy to.

I'm happy to yield.

Yes, I'm also willing to defer to you.

I'll defer to you.

Thank you, sir. Congratulations to each of you and to your families. I appreciate your willingness to step forward and serve. I have just first just a general question that I've been working on with one of my colleagues. The amount in controversy that creates diversity jurisdiction has been set since 1996. The amount that is at issue in most cases and the volume of cases has gone up dramatically. Could each of you just briefly tell me something about why you think we should or should not increase the amount in controversy required to create diversity jurisdiction and why that would be an appropriate thing for this Congress to do or not, briefly. Ms. Clarke.

Senator Coons, as you pointed out, the amount in controversy in diversity jurisdiction is $75,000 and at this stage that's a very low bar, especially when it comes to civil litigation, to allow a potential plaintiff or even a defendant to remove a case from state court into federal court. I have not thought thoroughly about what that number should be, but I do recognize that that is a low number.

Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Lane, forgive me.

Senator, I think that that would go to kind of an ongoing debate about what's appropriate and as a nominee I wouldn't want to get too far out over my skis on that one. But I would just say that as a federal judge sitting in diversity jurisdiction, I would follow the $75,000 threshold until Congress changes it.

Sir.

Thank you, Senator. My practice has been almost exclusively in criminal law, but I'm certainly aware of this low threshold that exists. I think again in terms of Congress increasing that threshold, I'm hesitant to kind of comment on potential legislation that this body might take up and support it or be against it, but I definitely understand the concern. This is not so much of an issue that we've seen in the District of the Virgin Islands, but I do understand it's a nationwide problem.

And does the elevation of cases from territorial court to federal district court have the same dynamics and impact on volume as it might in the other districts being represented?

I think I don't have metrics for the other districts. I think this is less of a problem in the District of the Virgin Islands, but it's certainly it's an issue that's there and it is something that's been debated in the bar. And again, I just think it would be I'd just be hesitant to comment on potential legislation as a nominee.

Ma'am, Ms. Westercamp.

Senator, the Court of International Trade is a court of limited jurisdiction and so it doesn't really apply.

So maybe I'll move on to questioning you about something directly in your bailiwick. Ms. Westercamp, just if you'd briefly tell me what's your role been in advising President Trump on the tariffs that he issued under IEEPA, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act?

Senator, so consistent with past precedent for nominees who have appeared before this committee who worked in the executive branch and cognizant of the various privileges that the executive branch enjoys, I can talk about specific matters and so but not the advice given or to whom the advice was given.

So did you discuss with President Trump how CIT should or might rule on the legality of these tariffs?

Senator, that gets again into areas that I can't discuss, but I can tell you that I did work on various executive orders citing IEEPA and since the Learning Resources decision, I have not had further work related to that and I'm also not working on any of the the ongoing litigation that's currently back before the CIT.

Given that the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against the administration's position and declared these tariffs illegal, have you discussed with the President his views on what should be done to refund $160 billion now that the Supreme Court has invalidated those tariffs?

Senator, again, that is a matter of active litigation before the CIT and it's a matter of public debate too with different economists as to how to tackle that question. And so as a judicial nominee...

For you, you wrote in your Senate Judiciary questionnaire you would recuse in any case touching upon work you performed while in the Counsel's Office. Would that cover everything that relates to IEEPA or tariffs?

Senator, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455, which is the statute governing recusal, I would take any recusal matter very seriously, discuss the matter with my colleagues and determine whether recusal would be appropriate. And I think with the various subject matter that I have worked on at White House Counsel's Office, I would very seriously consider whether recusal would be appropriate.

Your answer in the questionnaire was not as carefully cabined or constructed. It was you would recuse in any case touching upon work you performed in the Counsel's Office. Was that not accurate?

No, Senator, that is accurate.

Last if I might to Ms. Lane, I'm deeply concerned by the lack of legal experience you'd bring to a lifetime position. Senator Schiff probed a number of questions. My understanding is you graduated in 2017, have been out of law school about nine years. Putting aside your two clerkships, how many years have you actually practiced law?

I've been very fortunate to have practiced law since graduating law school and after my clerkships and I have worked on over 50 cases, I've filed over 100 motions in federal and state court at every level and I currently manage a litigation docket of over 100 cases. And I'm very grateful for the wealth of experience that I have had.

So you mentioned in your questionnaire that while at Consovoy McCarthy you drafted outlines for direct and cross-examinations and cross-examined a witness. You only mention one cross-examination. You've certainly conducted more than one cross-examination in federal court, is that correct?

I conducted that one cross-examination, Senator, but I've been very involved in the preparation of witnesses...

Conducted one cross-examination in federal court, is that correct?

I have, Senator, and I have also worked extensively with preparing experts, helping prepare I also took a deposition...

In your questionnaire you took a deposition of an expert witness. You've certainly taken more than one deposition in your legal career, is that correct?

Senator, I've taken a deposition of an expert, but I've also been deeply engaged in...

Deposition. And you've taken one deposition.

Yes, Senator, and I've also had the opportunity...

You said in response in your questionnaire that you've drafted outlines for direct examinations. How many direct examinations have you conducted?

Senator, I have like I said drafted outlines for direct examinations and helped prepare prepare witnesses and second chair depositions.

Chairman is doing his best to draw my attention and get me to end, I'll simply comment in closing that you've been held in contempt for flagrant disregard of a court order, the legal team of which you are part to be specific. I think the combination of your lack of experience and that weighs heavily against your nomination. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to enter into the record before Senator Welch speaks, supporting Ms. Lane's nomination from 33 current and former state solicitors general and other members of their senior staff. They happen to praise Ms. Lane for her, quote, rare combination of intellectual rigor, practical insight, careful attention to details, qualities essential for a federal district judge, end of quote. They also highlighted her, quote, ability to manage demanding caseloads, develop persuasive legal arguments, and engage effectively with courts and opposing counsels. Without objection, that will be entered into the record. Senator Welch.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow up on Ms. Westercamp on this conflict or this conflict of interest question and recusal. I mean, you worked, of course, in the White House and you worked on the trade policies and the tariffs. Is that correct?

Senator, I worked on, as I disclosed in my Senate Judiciary questionnaire, various executive orders and proclamations.

You had nothing to do with the tariffs?

Senator, some of the executive orders related, as I said, executive orders related to trade and tariffs.

Right. So, and that was obviously an enormous pillar of the Trump policy. Tariffs were really, really important to the administration, as you know. The court that you'll be serving on, should you be confirmed, found that those were unconstitutional, correct?

The CIT with a three-judge panel, yes, held that it was unconstitutional.

Right. And the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that decision and said the CIT decided correctly, correct?

That is correct, Senator.

All right. So just explain to me how there's any question about whether you should recuse yourself. You worked in the White House where a major policy of the White House was the promotion of tariffs. And now you'd be sitting on a court where they found those tariffs unconstitutional. And should there be further litigation about these tariffs, you cannot tell us today whether you would recuse yourself in view of the fact that you were an advocate for the tariffs in one case and now you'd be on a court that found those tariffs to be unconstitutional?

Again, Senator, I would take recusal very seriously. In terms of recusing for any matters, executive orders that I worked on, I believe the President had actually revoked those executive orders via another executive order after the Supreme Court's AIEPA decision.

It's impossible for me to understand this. I mean, you worked for a client on a policy that has been determined to be unconstitutional. You had a right to do that, obviously. The President made his decision, you were his advocate. But now you're on a court where that court and the Supreme Court has said those are unconstitutional and there's going to be questions about refunding those tariffs. In fact, there are questions about that right now. And you can't just make a clear expression to us about whether you would or would not recuse yourself when you were on both sides of the issue?

Senator, I think it would not be appropriate to grade my own work, so to speak. And so, yes, I would, for specific matters that I worked on in the White House, would recuse myself. And I would add that the refund litigation is actively before, I think it's Judge Eaton in the Court of International Trade, and so it would be inappropriate for me to comment on how that is proceeding.

All right. I want to ask you about a couple of tweets. George Papadopoulos, who tweeted out that there are but two parties now, traitors and patriots. And as you know, he's a former advisor to President Trump. And my understanding is you retweeted that out. Did you do that?

Senator, I don't have Twitter in front of me right now. I take you at your word that I had tweeted that. And as I stated previously, I think that retweeting from people that I don't know, including the gentleman you just mentioned, is an inappropriate way to express oneself on any controversial political or just matter.

Retweeting is an indication that you want to amplify what you read in the tweet, right? That's why people retweet. Correct?

Senator, I believe so.

Well, who are the traitors and who are the patriots?

Senator, again, I think that this as a judicial nominee, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the topic of controversial subject matter. And I have apologized for...

Unbelievable. I mean, I'm asking you, you retweeted something. All right? You made an active decision to amplify a tweet. You thought other people should see it. That tweet included patriots and traitors. So I'm asking you, when you retweeted that, who in your mind were the patriots and who in your mind were the traitors?

Senator, I don't have any context for that and I have apologized for retweeting.

I'm not asking you for context. You did this. You did it. You hit send. So who are the patriots and who are the traitors?

And Senator, I don't have an answer for you.

Unbelievable. On November 14th, you retweeted a post by an account Cam @CamVTV. The tweet read in part, quote, big distinction between us and the party of hate. Who is the party of hate?

Senator, again, first of all, I'm out of time, but I also, as I said, don't agree with everything that has been retweeted in the past.

Do you agree with anything you did in the past?

Senator, as to your specific question, I don't have an answer for you.

My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Lane, when she was asked this last question, so I would give you an opportunity to respond to Senator Coons's comments if you want to take advantage of it.

Thank you, Chairman Grassley. At no point in any of my representation in any litigation that I've been involved in have I ever been held in contempt, sanctioned, or formally rebuked by a judge. In the a letter that was submitted to this committee, it referenced litigation that I was involved in and that was in a state trial court. I was an attorney tasked with defending the state of Montana. And the judge, the trial judge went out of his way to say that the attorneys in the case had done nothing wrong and had complied with all of our legal and ethical obligations. And I appreciate the opportunity to clear the record.

Okay. Now the meeting is over. I thank the nominees for their testimony today. And I would expect you to answer written questions and for written questions the record may be submitted until April, the questions may be submitted until April 1st, 5:00 PM. Meeting adjourned.