Grassley Opens Committee Markup on Pam Bondi’s Nomination to be Attorney General

 

Good morning and welcome to our first markup of the 119th Congress. I’d again welcome Senator Durbin as our new Ranking Member, as well as our new members, Senators Schmitt, Britt and Schiff. I’d also like to particularly welcome our newest Senator from the state of Florida, Senator Ashley Moody. 

 

Today, the only item on our agenda is the vote on Pam Bondi’s nomination to serve as Attorney General. Last week, Committee Democrats exercised their right under the Committee rules to hold her nomination for seven days. We honored this hold last week, and so today is the day for the vote.

 

Two weeks ago, Ms. Bondi testified before this Committee for more than five hours, giving us the chance to learn more about her and her priorities.

 

What we learned is that she is a tough but fair career prosecutor who built her reputation by enforcing the rule of law. She spent eighteen years serving as a prosecutor before being elected to two terms as Florida’s Attorney General. Her record shows that she’s willing to tackle and solve some of the hardest problems facing our nation. As Florida’s Attorney General, Ms. Bondi focused on human trafficking, led the fight against opioid pill mills, protected consumers, and sought justice for victims of violent criminals. Her record and her testimony showed the American people that she will follow and enforce the law fairly, without fear or favor.

 

On the second day of her hearing, we heard from witnesses who praised Ms. Bondi’s character, her fairness, and her willingness to work with members of both parties to solve hard problems.

 

We heard from an elected Democrat who’s never voted for President Trump. He told us that Ms. Bondi was fair, tethered to the rule of law, and could work with both Democrats and Republicans to serve the American people.

 

We heard from Florida’s statewide prosecutor, who praised her competence running the legal department of the third largest state in the Union.

 

We heard from a Florida Sherriff, who testified about her commitment to law and order and to her partnership with law enforcement to keep Floridians safe.

 

These witnesses have worked with Ms. Bondi for decades, and they all vouch for her capability and character.

 

Ms. Bondi’s nomination has received a flood of support from all across America. Law enforcement groups representing more than 650,000 officers wrote to the Committee and urged us to support Ms. Bondi’s nomination. A few of these groups include the National Association of Police Organizations, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriff’s Association, Major County Sheriffs, National Narcotic Officers Associations, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and others. This support is a testament to Ms. Bondi’s history of backing law enforcement.

 

We also received letters from more than 100 former senior DOJ officials, scores of former United States Attorneys, dozens of state Attorneys General, women’s rights groups, Second Amendment groups, and others who all strongly support Ms. Bondi’s nomination.

 

I’d like to take a few minutes and address some of the attacks against Ms. Bondi.  

 

Several members of this Committee tried to characterize Ms. Bondi as an election denier. This is inconsistent with her own statements. On multiple occasions throughout her hearing, Ms. Bondi stated that President Biden was the president and that she “accepted the results.”

 

As I said during the hearing, questioning the results of an election does not make one an election denier. If that is the criteria by which we judge public figures, scores of Democrats, including some on this Committee, are similarly situated. Minority Leader Schumer cast doubt on Senator Casey’s loss in Pennsylvania just a few months ago. Hillary Clinton and elected Democrats have called President Trump an illegitimate president, and suggested the 2016 election was stolen. Stacey Abrams, and even some members of this Committee, suggested the 2018 Georgia Governor’s election was “stolen.” The attacks against Ms. Bondi on this point reek of a partisan double standard.

 

Some of my colleagues also implied that Ms. Bondi’s lobbying career should be disqualifying. This too, was unfair. Ms. Bondi disclosed her lobbying work and clients to this Committee beyond what she was even required to do. She’s been more transparent than other recent nominees. And there is no reason to think that she would not follow the law and recuse herself from conflicts of interest.

 

Democrats didn’t voice concern when one of President Biden’s DOJ nominees worked for China and Huawei during his time in private practice. Nor did we hear concern about former Attorney General Holder’s lobbying activity.

 

When Senator Tillis pressed Democrat witness Ms. Jennifer Gilbert to articulate specific concerns with Ms. Bondi’s lobbying career—she was unable to point to anything specific. She just kept repeating that Ms. Bondi’s former clients would give the “appearance of impropriety.” Vague assertions of potential conflicts of interest are not a reason to oppose a nominee who’s pledged to follow established procedure regarding conflicts.

 

Some of my colleagues also suggested that Ms. Bondi’s loyalty to President Trump is somehow disqualifying. It wasn’t persuasive. There’s nothing wrong about President Trump appointing someone who has fiercely defended him to a high position.

Ms. Bondi publicly supports President Trump, just like 77 million Americans who voted him back into office in November. This is not a disqualifying attribute. The President has the right to choose an Attorney General who is loyal and will faithfully carry out the vision for America he ran on. I note that Democrats did not voice concerns about loyalty when Attorney General Eric Holder described himself as President Obama’s “wingman.” And of course, we all remember that President John F. Kennedy appointed his own brother to serve as his Attorney General.

 

Many of my colleagues also suggested that Ms. Bondi was too partisan for a role at DOJ. This is surprising to me, considering that my colleagues routinely voted for highly partisan DOJ officials and judicial nominees over the last four years. A few examples include:

 

Vanita Gupta, who, on the opening night of the Republican National Convention in 2020, tweeted, “Don’t know if I can take three more nights of racism, xenophobia, and outrageous lies.”

 

Matt Olsen, the Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division, who penned an op-ed for Time Magazine in 2016 entitled “Why ISIS Supports Donald Trump.”

 

Judge Dale Ho, who suggested that his work was motivated by “hate for conservatives” and who described himself as a “wild-eyed sort of leftist.”

 

These openly partisan statements didn’t bother my colleagues. So, if they’re fair, they shouldn’t be bothered by Ms. Bondi’s support for President Trump.

 

Finally, I want to address a smear from the legacy media who claimed that I was repeating a “discredited myth” when I said that “the FBI opened dozens of investigations into parents who voiced concerns at school board meetings regarding curriculum choices and Covid-19 mandates.”

 

To set the record straight, these are the facts. On October 4, 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a Memorandum directing law enforcement to address “threats” against school administrators and board members. This was in response to a letter request from the National School Boards Association to President Biden that they later apologized for.

 

That organization said, “there was no justification for some of the language included in the letter.”

 

But, that apology was too little, too late. By October 20, 2021, the FBI Counterterrorism Division had acted on Attorney General Garland’s directive and announced a new threat tag to use against parents voicing concerns. That threat tag was “E-D-U Officials” as in education officials.

 

FBI whistleblowers came forward stating that “at least dozens of investigations into parents” had been started using the new threat tag. At an October 27, 2021, Senate Judiciary Oversight hearing, I directly asked Attorney General Garland to retract his memo. He refused. On February 3, 2023, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan subpoenaed FBI Director Wray for documents related to the “misuse of federal and counterterrorism resources” to target parents.

 

In response to the subpoena, the FBI acknowledged for the first that time that it opened 25 “Guardian assessments,” including six that were run by the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division.

 

These government funded and resourced investigations didn’t identify any legitimate threats.

 

I believe then and believe now that it was inappropriate to devote government resources to investigate parents who were upset about curriculum choices or COVID policies that impacted their children. And I believe that, under Ms. Bondi’s watch, misguided efforts like these will end.

 

With that, I turn to Ranking Member Durbin for his opening remarks.