Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Hearing Regarding the Nomination of:

David Jeremiah Barron, to be United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Mr. Chairman,

Today, we are holding the 17^th judicial nominations hearing of the year, during which we will have considered a total of 58 judicial nominees.  I would note this is the fourth nominations hearing in four weeks.   So anyone who says Republicans are engaging in "unprecedented" obstruction is ignoring the cooperation I have shown as Ranking Member of this committee.

Compare the record on hearings for President Obama this year with how President Bush was treated during the fifth year of his Presidency.

In 2005, the final judicial nomination hearing was held on November 15^th.  That wasn't the 17^th hearing of the year, but only the sixth hearing on lower court judges.  During those six hearings we heard from not 58 judicial nominees, but only 15 district and circuit nominees.

How are we doing this year compared to last year?  2012 was a very productive year for judicial nominations.  In fact, in the 112^th Congress, President Obama had more district judges confirmed than were confirmed in any of the previous 8 Congresses.  Our work in Committee last year contributed to that accomplishment when we held 10 hearings for 41 judicial nominees.

In addition, let me remind everyone that we have now confirmed 38 lower court Article 3 judicial nominees this year.  That is more than two and a half times the number confirmed at a similar stage in President Bush's second term, when only 14 district and circuit nominees had been confirmed.

In total, the Senate has confirmed 209 lower court Article 3 judges.  This includes a significant number of women and minority nominees.  We could have confirmed more judges over the last couple of weeks.  But the Senate majority decided to take precious Senate floor time for a diversionary political exercise, rather than confirming additional judges.

Now, as I explained earlier this week, the other side has been working diligently to manufacture a crisis on the D.C. Circuit.  And in order to support their claim that Republicans are "obstructing" nominees, it appears the other side is doing a sleight-of-hand on the data as well.

Recently, one of my colleagues stated that Senate Republicans have filibustered 34 of President Obama's nominees.  Anyone who pays attention to these things knows that Republicans have "filibustered" only a handful of nominees.  So what is going on here?  How does the other side get to 34?

To begin with, fully one-half of these cloture petitions were filed by the Majority on one day, as a procedural gimmick and were totally unnecessary.  None of those 17 cloture petitions required a vote - every cloture petition was withdrawn.  And, every single one of those nominees was confirmed.    So that was just another manufactured crisis.

That leaves 17.  But Republicans haven't filibustered anywhere close to 17 nominees.  So again, what is the real story here?

Of the remaining 17 cloture petitions, six of those were also withdrawn.  That leaves only 11 nominees who have actually faced a cloture vote.  One of those nominees had 2 cloture votes, for a total of 12 cloture votes.

Yet, six of those 11 nominees were confirmed.  That leaves only 5 nominees who have failed to achieve cloture.

So to sum up, the Majority claimed earlier this week, with great fanfare, that Republicans had "filibustered" 34 nominees, when we've actually stopped 5 nominees.  And of those 5, three are still pending in the Senate, leaving only 2 nominees actually defeated by filibuster.

I suppose that's what one is required to do in order to try to overstate the record established during this administration with the record the Democrats established during the Bush years.

During the Bush administration, Senate Democrats truly were unprecedented in their use of cloture against judicial nominees.   In fact, they forced 30 cloture votes on judicial nominees, including a Supreme Court nominee.

So that is the factual record - 30 cloture votes during the Bush Administration, 12 cloture votes during President Obama's term.

Of those 30 cloture votes faced by President Bush's nominees, Senate Democrats obstructed nominees 20 times.

Let me emphasize this point - during the Bush administration, 20 cloture motions failed.  Senate Democrats continued to obstruct judicial nominees twenty times.

So I think it is clear which party holds the record on delaying or obstructing the confirmation of judges.  The number of cloture votes demanded by Senate Democrats on President Bush's nominees is 2 and a half times the number of cloture votes on President Obama's nominees.  The number of times Senate Democrats refused to end debate is nearly 3 times what Republicans have done.  Democrats clearly hold the record on delaying and obstructing judges.

I think we have treated President Obama in a fair manner, and he enjoys an outstanding record for his judicial nominees.

One final point on this baseless charge that Republican obstruction has left the federal judiciary with high vacancies.  The fact is, President Obama's initial delay in nominations was the primary factor in the lower number of confirmations during his first term, resulting in the high number of vacancies.

Even now, 42 of 93 vacancies have no nominee.  That is 45 percent of vacancies with no pending nomination before the Senate.  While this percentage recently has been reduced, it was the case for most of the Obama presidency that the majority of vacancies had no nominee.  Of the 38 "Judicial Emergencies", 18 have no nominee.  That is 47 percent.

The Senate can't be held responsible for these vacancies, where almost half the seats have no nominee.

Having set the record straight let me now address today's nomination.  I welcome the nominee, his family and guests.  This nomination has been pending before the Senate just 55 calendar days.    I would note that President Bush's Circuit nominees waited, on average, 246 days for a hearing, more than four times the wait for this nominee.

Mr. Barron has an extensive record as an academic.  He has written on a wide range of subjects.  I think it would be fair to say that I probably don't agree with much of what he has written.  But that isn't necessarily the standard for my review of his qualifications to sit on the federal bench.

Churches United of the Quad City Area is extremely proud and thankful to announce the award of a grant in the amount of $1,000.00 from the Potter Family Foundation, to be utilized for our shelter ministry at Winnie's Place.

Winnies's Place has served our community as a shelter for women, homeless or victims of domestic violence, with or without children, since 2006. Winnie's Place stands for Women In Need - Nurtured Into Excellence.

We thank the Potter Family Foundation for its support in this endeavor.

###

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

I would like to reiterate my strong support for Senator Gillibrand's reforms to the Military Justice System.  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Military Justice Improvement Act and I should add that it has been a pleasure working with Senator Gillibrand on this issue.  Her passion and commitment to rooting out sexual assault in the military is inspiring.  I should also add that I appreciate the work of the Armed Services Committee, which added a large number of common sense reforms to the underlying bill.  In fact, some of them are so common sense that you have to wonder why the military hasn't adopted them or asked for legislation to do so before now.  For instance, the bill before us provides that people convicted of certain sexual assault offenses may not join the armed forces, requires the mandatory discharge from the armed forces of any member convicted of certain sexual assault offenses, and directs a comprehensive review of the adequacy of training pertaining to sexual assault prevention and response.

The bill also has a number of provisions to address concerns about commanding officers not handling sexual assault charges properly, but still keeps the judicial process in the chain of command.  We feel that this is inappropriate.  We've tried working within the current system.  This isn't a new issue.  Military leaders have been making emphatic promises about tackling the problem of sexual assault for years and years, but the problem only seems to be getting worse.  What's more, the current system appears to be part of the problem.

According to a recent Defense Department report, 50 percent of female victims stated they did not report the crime because they believed that nothing would be done with their report.  Seventy-four percent of females and 60 percent of males perceived one or more barriers to reporting sexual assault.  Sixty-two percent of victims who reported a sexual assault indicated they perceived some form of professional, social, and/or administrative retaliation.  This acts as a terrible deterrent to reporting sexual assault.  If sexual assault cases are not reported, they cannot be prosecuted.  If sexual assault isn't prosecuted, it leads to predators remaining in the military and a perception that it is tolerated.  By allowing this situation to continue, we are putting at risk the men and women who have volunteered to place their lives on the line.  We are also seriously damaging military morale and readiness.  Taking prosecutions out of the hands of commanders and giving them to professional prosecutors who are independent of the chain of command will help ensure impartial justice for the men and women of our armed forces.

I know some senators will be nervous about the fact that the military is lobbying against this legislation.  We are being asked once again to wait and see if the latest attempts to reform the current system will do the trick.  I would respond that the time for trying tweaks to the current system and waiting for another report or study has long since passed.  We also hear that this measure will affect the ability of commanders to retain "good order and discipline."  I would like to be clear that we in no way take away the ability of commanders to punish troops under their command for military infractions.  Commanders also can and should be held accountable for the climate under their command.  But, the point here is the sexual assault is a law enforcement matter - not a military one.  If anyone wants official assurances that we are on the right track, we can take confidence in the fact that an advisory committee appointed by the Secretary of Defense himself supports our reforms.  On September 27, 2013, the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) voted overwhelmingly in support of each of the components of the Military Justice Improvement Act Amendment.

DACOWITS was created in 1951 by then Secretary of Defense, George C.  Marshall. The Committee is composed of civilian and retired military women and men who are appointed by the Secretary of Defense to provide advice and recommendations on matters and policies relating to the recruitment and retention, treatment, employment, integration, and well-being of highly qualified professional women in the Armed Forces. Historically, DACOWITS' recommendations have been very instrumental in effecting changes to laws and policies pertaining to military women.  The bottom line is, this isn't an advocacy group or fly by night panel.  It's a longstanding advisory committee handpicked by the Secretary of Defense and it supports the substance of our amendment to a tee.

Iowa RFS Coalition Event to Urge Iowans to Take Action on RFS Proposal

(DES MONIES) - The Iowa RFS Coalition will host a "Defend the RFS" event at Lincolnway Energy to highlight the negative impact of EPA's proposal to radically reduce Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) levels for 2014. Iowa consumers, farmers and renewable fuels producers will be harmed if the proposal moves forward.  Iowans will be urged to demand the EPA modify the proposal to uphold the letter and spirit of the bipartisan RFS law.

"Why the Obama administration would side with the big oil companies over Iowa's homegrown renewable fuels is baffling," said Iowa Governor Terry Branstad. "The EPA has turned its back on rural America, and our economy and family farms will suffer as a result. Corn prices have already dropped to the cost of production, and this will likely further squeeze corn producers and negatively impact income growth in rural America. We have more than 50 ethanol and biodiesel plants in Iowa, and these EPA reductions would negatively impact thousands of Iowa jobs. This debate isn't over. I will lock arms with our agricultural groups, our family farmers, leaders from both parties, and Iowans in fighting for Iowa's homegrown, reliable, and safe renewable fuels. I encourage Iowans to officially comment to the EPA."

WHAT: "Defend the RFS" Event

WHEN: Friday, November 22, 2013

TIME: 1:00 - 2:00 PM CST

WHERE: Lincolnway Energy, 59511 W. Lincoln Highway, Nevada, Iowa

WHO:  Governor Terry Branstad

Congressman Steve King

IDALS Secretary Bill Northey

Lincolnway Energy CEO Erik Hakmiller

Absolute Energy CEO Rick Schwarck

REG VP of Sales and Marketing Gary Haer

DuPont Industrial Biosciences Regional Business Leader for Americas Troy Wilson

Iowa Corn Growers President and Lynnville farmer Roger Zylstra

NOTE: A bus will provide speakers and media a brief driving tour of Lincolnway Energy and the neighboring DuPont Nevada Site Cellulosic Ethanol facility (under construction).