Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Executive Business Meeting
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Mr. Chairman,
First, we request that Mr. Delery be held over.
Regarding Mr. Jones, I want to renew my objection to listing his nomination on the agenda for today’s mark up. It is premature to move forward on this nominee when there is staff investigation underway, and of course the OSC complaint remains open, even though it is presently in mediation.
I thought it was outside of the normal Committee practice to move forward with the Jones hearing at all until that open complaint was resolved.
We don’t know the results of that investigation. The Committee obviously doesn’t have the full information about the nominee.
So it appears with this nomination, we are proceeding in a manner that indicates a pre-determined outcome and schedule rather than following the normal Committee process.
Members of the committee are entitled to a complete record. I do not believe we should simply rubberstamp this nomination, and sweep the alarming allegations under the rug. I would hope that further action on the nomination be paused until these matters are closed.
I have plenty more to say about this nomination and the irregular procedures we have been following. However, I know the Chairman doesn’t want to have that debate today and I am trying to be accommodating. But I do want to register my objection and express my concern that we are proceeding in this fashion.
Having said that, if the Chairman is going to proceed with consideration of the agenda, I request Mr. Jones be held over as well.
Finally, I would like to comment on the staff investigation into this matter because I’m quite concerned by the direction it has taken.
I have been informed that part of the justification for moving forward with the Jones nomination is based on the fact that the whistleblower has been unwilling to provide his personnel file to the Committee.
By all accounts, Mr. Paulson has been an exemplary public servant for three decades. So it is quite alarming to me that the staff investigation of a whistleblower’s complaint would be twisted around into an apparent attempt to investigate the whistleblower.
I’ve worked with many federal government whistleblowers over the years and this is exactly the type of treatment that whistleblowers fear.
It’s one of the main reasons they are afraid to come forward. This type of treatment raises serious concerns.
A whistleblower who has the guts to come forward should not face intimidation.
It is starting to look like some want to turn this inquiry into an investigation of the whistleblower, rather than get to the bottom of the complaint against the nominee.
I have come to expect that out of the federal government agencies. I’ve seen it over and over again. But this sort of inquiry shouldn’t be the way the Committee deals with whistleblowers.
This is not the way whistleblowers have been treated by the Committee in the past and this sets a dangerous precedent that could greatly hinder the Committee’s ability to obtain cooperation from whistleblowers in the future.
-30-