Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley
Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
On the Nomination of
Sri Srinivasan, to be United States Circuit Court Judge for the
D.C. Circuit
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Mr. President,
Before we vote on today’s nominee for the D.C. Circuit, I would like to review for my colleagues the shenanigans that occurred here on the floor over the last couple days.
Today’s nominee for the D.C. Circuit was voted out of Committee one week ago, on May 16th.
It was a unanimous vote of 18-0.
He was placed on the Executive Calendar 3 days ago, on Monday, May 20th.
One day later, on May 21st, Republicans cleared the nominee to have an up and down vote when we return from the Memorial Day recess.
But the Majority Leader was not content to take “Yes” for an answer.
One day after this nominee was placed on the Executive Calendar, and AFTER Republicans agreed to an up and down vote, the Majority Leader chose to file cloture.
Why? Why would the Majority Leader file cloture on a nominee that Republicans were ready and willing to vote on?
There is only one plausible explanation: This is part of the Majority’s attempt to create the appearance of “obstruction” where none exists.
It is nonsense.
It is a transparent attempt to manufacture a “crisis.”
The fact of the matter is that there is no “obstruction,” and the other side knows it.
This morning, in his opening remarks, the Majority Leader tried to argue that he has had to file cloture 58 times.
But what the Majority Leader did this week illustrates precisely what the Majority Leader is trying to do.
That’s the Democrats’ playbook: File cloture for no apparent reason. None. And then immediately turn around and claim: “See, we had to file cloture.”
The fact of the matter is that we are confirming the President’s nominees at a near record pace. After today, the Senate will have confirmed 193 lower court nominees; we have defeated two. That’s 193-2; which is a .990 batting average. That is an outstanding record.
Who can complain about achieving 99 percent?
After today, this year alone, the Senate will have confirmed 22 judicial nominees.
As of this date in 2005, which was the first year of President Bush’s second term, the Senate had confirmed only 4 nominees.
That’s a record of 22 to 4.
If we were treating this President the same way Senate Democrats treated President Bush in 2005, we wouldn’t be confirming the 22nd nominee, we’d be confirming the 4th.
Based on that record, how can the President or Senate Democrats possibly complain?
The bottom line is that they can’t complain. At least they can’t complain based on the record.
That is why the other side needs to manufacture a “crisis.”
That’s why the other side filed cloture on this nomination one day after it appeared on the Executive Calendar.
Yesterday, when the Majority Leader was pressed on why he chose to file cloture one day after his nomination appeared on the Executive Calendar, he pointed to the fact the nominee was first nominated in 2012.
But apparently the Majority Leader was unaware that the Chairman of the Committee made no effort to schedule a hearing for this nominee until late last year.
Apparently the Majority Leader was unaware that by January of this year, we learned the nominee was potentially involved in the Quid Pro Quo that Mr. Perez – the President’s nominee for Labor Secretary – orchestrated between the Department of Justice and the city of St. Paul.
I spoke on the floor last week regarding the deal Mr. Perez struck, where he agreed the Department would decline two False Claims Act cases in exchange for the city of St. Paul withdrawing a case from the Supreme Court.
I won’t go into the details here, but that is a very serious issue. The Department – and as it turns out Mr. Perez in particular – bartered away a case worth up to $200 million in taxpayer dollars in order to get a case withdrawn from the Supreme Court.
As it turns out, the nominee before us today was the lawyer in the Solicitor General’s office who handled the case Mr. Perez desperately wanted withdrawn from the Supreme Court.
So as you would expect, our side needed to know what the nominee knew about the Quid Pro Quo, and what Mr. Perez told the nominee about the deal.
We needed the documents about this issue, and we needed to speak with the witnesses involved.
But the Department was desperate to keep those documents from Congress. They were desperate to keep the witnesses from being interviewed.
The bottom line is that the Department of Justice dragged its feet for months.
If the Department of Justice had turned over the documents and made the witnesses available when we asked for them, the hearing for this nominee could have been one of the first of the year.
But instead, the Department chose to try their best to keep Congress from getting to the bottom of the Quid Pro Quo, and frankly, Mr. Perez’s involvement in the matter.
So if the Majority wishes to complain because the nominee had his hearing in April, rather than February, they should pick up the phone and call those in charge of the Department of Justice.
It wasn’t Senate Republicans who withheld documents. It was the Department of Justice.
It wasn’t Senate Republicans who held up the nominee’s hearing. It was the Department of Justice.
Mr. President, the bottom line is that the Senate is processing the President’s nominees exceptionally fairly. He is being treated much more fairly than Senate Democrats treated President Bush in 2005.
The fact of the matter is this: filing cloture on this nominee was nothing but a transparent attempt to create the appearance of “obstruction.”
I intend to support the nominee, just as I did in Committee. And I encourage my colleagues to support the nomination as well.
But as we move forward on these nominees, I wish we could stop all of these shenanigans.
I wish the other side would stop shedding these crocodile tears.
I yield the floor.