Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Executive Business Meeting
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Mr. Chairman,
On the agenda today are five nominations. I have comments to make regarding some of these nominees before we vote. I believe we can voice vote Mr. Hillman’s nomination as well as that of Mr. Harrigan. It is my understanding roll call votes will be required for the other nominees – Shwartz, Helmick and Lewis.
With regard to the Helmick and Lewis nominations, I cannot support these nominations.
Another nomination on today’s agenda is that of Patty Shwartz, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit. At her hearing I inquired as to circumstances reported by the press on her meetings with Senator Mendendez. Her responses to my questions made during, and following, her hearing leave me troubled and dissatisfied.
Her version of her interviews with Sen. Menendez cannot be reconciled with Sen. Menendez’s own public statements. Her response to questions submitted for the record contradicted her hearing testimony.
Because of the ambiguity of the details of these interviews, questions remain as to what assurances, understandings, or clarifications were made that persuaded Sen. Menendez to end his opposition and support the nominee.
I have additional concerns, including her unresponsive answers, her misapplication of law, and lack of appellate experience.
Based on these concerns, I am not inclined to support this nomination, particularly given the changed circumstances created by the President’s so-called recess appointments.
It would be my preference to hold her in Committee until we resolve the ambiguities which remain and obtain responses to unanswered questions. Whether we hold her in committee or on the floor matters less than having these issues are resolved.
With regard to the one legislative item on the agenda, I’d like to start by saying that I plan to vote for the Safe Doses Act. I’d also like to thank Senator Schumer and his staff who were willing to work with me, my staff, and others on this Committee to make improvements.
None of us condone organized theft of medical products, including prescription drugs by the truckload, and then unlawfully reselling those products to unsuspecting consumers, who are being harmed.
The bill creates five new criminal offenses. The previous version of this bill had insufficient criminal intent requirements in two of them. I raised this issue and I appreciate Senator Schumer understanding that concern and making some changes.
As members of the Committee on the Judiciary, we have a responsibility to legislate to the best of our ability. And our drafting should clearly state our legislative intent.
While I intend to vote for this bill, I feel obligated to note that it relies on the common law to fill in the criminal intent where we‘re not explicit. By relying on common law, we’re doing half our job and leaving the other half to the courts. We should be codifying the common law as we go. I circulated an amendment that would do this, but I’m not going to offer my amendment today.
I think a lot of work has gone into this bill, but I disagree with leaving it to the courts to flush out intent requirements we don’t expressly state. I think this is a missed opportunity and going forward we have a duty to be more clear.
Finally, I want to point out to Committee Members what I think should be required reading for us all, especially before we reauthorize another grant program at the Justice Department. On February 28, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued its second annual report to Congress identifying federal programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives which have duplicative or overlapping goals. This report discusses 51 areas where programs may be able to achieve greater efficiencies or savings. Among those 51 areas were grant programs authorized by this Committee and managed at the Justice Department.
My staff, along with Chairman Leahy’s, were briefed last week about GAO’s findings. GAO indicated it will release a larger, more detailed report at the end of April, specific to Justice Department grants. While those more detailed findings will be of great interest to us all, this current report points out: “Justice’s granting agencies had awarded funds from different grant programs to the same applicants whose applications described similar—and in some cases, the same—purposes for using the grant funds.” GAO also found “evidence of overlap in the justice areas that Justice’s grant programs aim to support.”
Further, GAO informed our staff that some employees at the Justice Department didn’t even know that websites, like federalspending.gov, could track individual grants to see if they were awarding duplicative grants. Ultimately, GAO recommends that the Department conduct an assessment, to determine where programs overlap and outline statutory obstacles to consolidating grant programs.
All of us should read this 10 page highlight of the forthcoming report. Given the government’s current fiscal situation, we should take GAO’s advice. We have moved some reauthorization bills through Committee this year, but all of those bills—along with any future grant reauthorizations—should be reviewed in accordance with the upcoming report to see where we can reduce the duplication, eliminate overlap, and prevent waste of taxpayer dollars. Thank you.
