Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Executive Business Meeting
Nominations:
Cheryl Ann Krause, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit
Richard Franklin Boulware II, to be United States District Judge for the District of Nevada
Salvador Mendoza, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington
Staci Michelle Yandle, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Illinois
Leon Rodriguez, to be Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security
Damon Paul Martinez, to be United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico
Bills:
S.1720, Patent Transparency and Improvements Act of 2013 (Leahy, Lee, Klobuchar, Whitehouse)
Thursday, April 3, 2014

Mr. Chairman,

Today, we are considering four judicial nominees and two executive branch nominees.  I believe we can consider the Circuit Court nominee, Ms. Krause, by voice vote.
I believe Mr. Martinez, the nominee for U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico, can be considered by voice vote as well.  We may require a roll call vote on one or more of the district court nominees.  

I’d like to discuss several of the nominees, but before I do, I’d like to mention S. 1720.  

S. 1720 is on the agenda for the second time.  We’re still working on language we can agree on, and I think that things are moving in the right direction - but we’re not quite there yet.  There are several important provisions, like fee shifting and heightened pleadings, that will make a big difference in deterring bad behavior by patent trolls.  Getting the bill right is just as important as moving it.  I hope that we can come together and produce language that a large majority of us can support.  

Again, I understand that our staff discussions have been productive.  I appreciate your willingness to work with me, Senator Cornyn, Senator Hatch and Senator Lee to make improvements to the bill.

Now let me turn to the nominees on the agenda.  Before we vote, I’d like to share several concerns.  

As an initial matter, I’d note that two out of the three district court nominees we will consider today received a partially “not qualified” rating from the ABA (American Bar Association).  Now, some of us on this side of the aisle have raised concerns over the years with what we view as an inconsistent application of the ABA’s rating system.  I suspect the Chairman may disagree with me on this, but I’ve viewed the ABA’s ratings with suspicion for many years.  They always seemed to be harder on Republican presidents than Democrats.  Because of that, I tend to consider their ratings with a grain of salt.

On the other hand, given their history, in my view, of treating Republican nominees more harshly, it gives me pause when I see a partial “Not Qualified” rating from the ABA for a nominee from an administration the ABA has been so aligned with on many issues.  
With that background, I’d like to mention a couple concerns I have with these nominees.

Ms. Yandle is the President’s nominee for the Southern District of Illinois.  
While I recognize that Ms. Yandle has been a litigator for quite a few years, she has virtually no criminal law experience.   And the majority of her experience has been at the state level.  She has tried only two cases in federal court.

Likewise, Judge Mendoza has limited experience in the federal system.  Most of his experience as a practicing attorney, and all of his experience as a judge, has been in the state system. He has tried only two cases in federal court.

Judge Mendoza also wrote an article criticizing the Supreme Court’s decision in Hernandez v. New York.  In that case, the Supreme Court held it was NOT a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to strike bilingual jurors from jury pools based on a concern that they wouldn’t follow the official English translation.

I recognize Judge Mendoza wrote this while in law school.  I asked him about it, and he assured me that “any opinions I may have had when I was a law student, will have no bearing on the decisions I will make as a U.S. District Court judge.”  

Notwithstanding these concerns, I also recognize that Ms. Yandle enjoys strong support from a Member of this Committee, Senator Durbin, the Majority Whip.  And Judge Mendoza enjoys strong support from his home state Senators.  That matters to me, particularly on District Court nominations.  

With that in mind, I’m willing to give both Judge Mendoza and Ms. Yandle the benefit of the doubt and vote to move their nominations out of committee.  I’ll reserve final judgment until they are considered by the full Senate.

With respect to Mr. Boulware’s nomination, I’ll reluctantly vote No.  First, I’d note that he received a partial “Not Qualified” ABA rating.  As I’ve already said, I make an independent assessment, regardless of what the ABA says.  But it is a factor.  Second, he has only been practicing law since 2002, if you include his clerkship.  Third, according to his questionnaire, 99 percent of his practice has been in criminal law.  He has no experience in civil matters.  Finally, over the course of his career, he has taken very aggressive policy positions, on a number of different issues, in testimony before the Nevada legislature.  

If it weren’t for Mr. Boulware’s relative lack of experience, it would be easier to give him the benefit of the doubt.  But when I consider the entirety of his record, it’s with reluctance that I’ll vote no.

Finally, I’d like to discuss the nomination of Leon Rodriguez to be the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service.  I will vote no on this nomination.  I will not list all the reasons today, but will highlight several of those I find most troubling.

First and foremost, Mr. Rodriguez lacks adequate immigration experience to lead this agency, especially on the heels of potential sweeping immigration reform legislation.  When you read his responses to my questions, it becomes clear he has little appreciation for what his job will entail.  He basically says he has a lot of studying to do.  We need to do better than that.

Second, his previous experience with Casa de Maryland is also a concern.  This organization is openly against any deportation of individuals in the country illegally and aids the undocumented population through day labor centers and by providing legal services – at times, with taxpayer dollars.  These activities are in direct conflict with the mission of USCIS.  
So, it’s disconcerting that he would bring that same philosophy to an agency whose mission is to “oversee legal immigration” in the United States.

Third, I am concerned about Mr. Rodriguez’s commitment to responding to Congressional oversight.  Despite assurances given during his hearing, Mr. Rodriguez repeatedly failed to provide responsive answers to many of my questions.

One issue he dodged is the President’s directive involving childhood arrivals -- known as DACA.  In his hearing, and twice afterward in questions for the record, I asked about his plans with DACA and whether he’d expand the program.  

I couldn’t get a straightforward answer.  

The Director of USCIS will be busy in the coming months on this program --- whether in simply renewing the program or expanding it, as many would believe is the plan.  It’s important to know where the next Director stands on this program.

But it isn’t just his non-responsive answers that give me pause about his respect for congressional oversight.  Mr. Rodriguez personally admitted to this committee that he was aware of emails between political employees and career prosecutors discussing the decision to decline to prosecute the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case.  

This appears to contradict official testimony provided by Mr. Perez.  Of course, Mr. Rodriguez was serving as Mr. Perez’s Chief of Staff at the time and personally assisted in preparing him for his testimony.  Furthermore, he made no effort to correct that testimony after the fact.

That concerns me a great deal.  And it’s another reason to doubt Mr. Rodriguez’s managerial judgment in heading an agency of 18,000 federal employees, and his sincerity in working with Congress on oversight requests.  For these reasons and others, I oppose Mr. Rodriguez’s nomination.  

-30-