Opening Statement of
Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Ranking Member,
Senate Judiciary Committee
Hearing on
Nominations
May 26, 2021
Today, we’re hearing from 6 nominees, one for
the circuit, one for the district, and four executive nominees. The nominee for
the Federal Circuit, Tiffany Cunningham, seems well qualified. The Federal
Circuit is a specialty court that mostly hears patent cases. It does also hear
some other appeals too, though, including federal takings. I will have some
questions for Ms. Cunningham on that.
The district nominee, Margaret Strickland, is
another of President Biden’s criminal-defense judges. This is the fourth
criminal-defense judge we’ve considered. I want to be clear, there’s nothing
necessarily wrong with being a criminal-defense attorney. Some of President
Trump’s excellent judges—like Paul Matey on the Third Circuit, Raag Singhal in
Florida, and Clifton Corker in Tennessee—were criminal-defense attorneys. They
were out to protect their clients’ constitutional rights—all of them.
Groups like Demand Justice have made it clear that’s
not what they want. They seem to think these criminal-defense judges will
defund the police from the bench. I think we should try to find out what kind
of criminal-defense judge we’re getting: a Bill of Rights Judge or a Demand
Justice Judge.
We also have some executive nominees. Former
Attorney General Milgram and Mr. Polite seem to have relatively broad support.
Mr. Polite in particular has received strong letters of support from
Republicans like Brian Benczkowski and Alice Fisher, who aren’t the usual
suspects supporting Democrat nominees. That’s pretty impressive.
I have concerns regarding Ms. Jaddou’s nomination to
be Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). During her
time as Chief Counsel at USCIS during the last several years of the Obama
Administration, the agency created various parole programs that are not
consistent with the language or intent of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Should she be confirmed, I have concerns about her willingness to further
stretch the limits of parole authority. I hope to get some clarification of her
views during today’s hearing. I’m also troubled by statements she has made on other
issues such as the use of Title 42 expulsion authority at the southern border,
funding for immigration enforcement agencies and asylum law.
I believe all of these issues are worthy of thorough
questioning and examination before the Committee. I regret that the format of
today’s hearing will hinder our ability to explore each of those topics in more
detail. Ms. Jaddou should expect more on these topics in written questions.
Lastly, we have Mr. Chipman. Ever since Mr. Chipman
was announced I have been hearing from alarmed constituents who care about
their rights under the Second Amendment. Mr. Chipman seems to have worked for
every prominent gun control group in the country. He’s been described by CNN as
“a fierce advocate for gun control.” There isn’t a liberal hobbyhorse on guns
that he hasn’t ridden—whether it’s misleading the public about modern sport
rifles, arguing against popular magazine sizes or advocating for universal
background checks. Of particular concern is the contempt with which he seems to
view ordinary Americans who buy or carry firearms. To pick just one example, he
said last year, “If you keep [the gun store] open, there’s the risk of
first-time buyers who are largely buying out of fear and panic and untrained.”
ATF is a significant law-enforcement agency. We
mostly hear about it when it messes up, whether it’s Waco, Operation Fast and
Furious or the Chicago stash-house scandals. But day-to-day ATF plays a
significant role in the legal trade of firearms in this country. Many see putting
a committed gun control proponent like Mr. Chipman in charge of ATF is like
putting a Tobacco executive in charge of the Department of Health and Human
Services or Antifa in charge of the Portland Police Department. I hope he can
alleviate those fears.
-30-