Prepared
Statement by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Chairman,
Senate Judiciary Committee
Executive
Business Meeting
November 2,
2017
Good
morning. Today, we have a number of nominees on the agenda, all of whom are on
the agenda for the first time and the minority has requested that they be held
over, so they’ll be held over. They are:
- Greg
Katsas, DC Circuit
- Jeffrey
Beaverstock, Southern District of Alabama
- Emily
Marks, Middle District of Alabama
- Brett
Talley, Middle District of Alabama
- Holly
Teeter, District of Kansas
There
are also 2 US Attorney nominees on today’s agenda we’ll vote on.
I
want to acknowledge that I received a letter from the Ranking Member asking
that I not put nominees on hearing or markup agendas who have not yet received
a rating from the American Bar Association. Two nominees on today’s agenda have
not yet received ABA ratings, so I wanted to address this request.
Both
nominees have had their materials in to the Committee for many weeks, one came
in August 28th and the other came in September 18th. It’s
now November 2nd. According to what the ABA themselves have told us,
this is enough time to provide a rating.
Furthermore,
I hear a lot from the other side about outside groups influencing the
nominations process. I think letting the ABA—an outside group—influence when
the Senate Judiciary Committee considers nominees lets outside groups hold
nominees hostage. We’re not going to allow any outside group to have the power
to determine our schedule.
Finally,
as I’ve said on the Floor this week, it doesn’t appear to me that ABA ratings
actually matter in practice to many in to the minority. They regularly and
continually vote against “Well Qualified” and “Qualified” nominees. Sometimes
they even argue that a nominee who received a “Well Qualified” rating doesn’t
have enough experience and use that as a reason to vote against her.
So,
I received and considered the minority’s request, but I don’t believe it’s good
practice to allow this outside group to dictate the Committee’s schedule, so
that’s why I put the nominees on today’s agenda without ABA ratings. We’ll have
a lot more to say about the ABA and its process, or lack thereof, at our next
nominations hearing where the ABA will be represented.
Turning
to the legislation on today’s agenda, we’re ready to consider S. 807, the
Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act of 2017. As I said last week, this is
an important bill, which Senator Leahy and I have worked on for several years.
Too
often, whistleblowers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse are treated like
second-class citizens. Many times they risk their careers simply by telling the
truth. It happens in both the federal government and in private business. This
legislation will protect criminal antitrust whistleblowers from workplace retaliation.
In
2004, Congress passed the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform
Act. The goal of that bill was to encourage self-reporting of criminal
antitrust activity. However, the bill didn’t provide any protections for
innocent third-parties who blow the whistle on criminal antitrust
activity.
In
2011, the Government Accountability Office issued a report recommending
Congress consider adding a civil remedy for antitrust whistleblowers who have
been subjected to retaliation. And that’s what this bill does.
Since
we’re willing to incentivize folks to report their own bad behavior, then we
ought to protect whistleblowers who report on the bad behavior of others. In
this case, that bad behavior harms businesses, consumers, and our economy.
Over
the years we’ve worked with members, stakeholders, and the Department of
Justice to iron out concerns and improve the bill. This is a narrowly focused
bill that will strengthen the enforcement of our criminal antitrust laws. Let
me remind my colleagues that the Senate unanimously passed similar legislation
in each of the last two Congresses. Let’s do so again and get this bill across
the goal line and onto the President’s desk for his signature. I appreciate
Senator Leahy’s work on this legislation, and urge my colleagues to support it.
I’ll
now turn to Senator Feinstein for her remarks.
-30-