Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., to be Solicitor General of the United States
Monday, June 6, 2011 

Mr. President:

I will vote to confirm Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., to be Solicitor General of the United States, but I do so with little enthusiasm.  Mr. Verrilli has impressive credentials and noteworthy accomplishments.  In addition to his government service in the White House Counsel's Office and at the Department of Justice, he has been a litigator in private practice for more than 20 years. He has argued twelve cases, and participated in more than 100 cases, before the Supreme Court of the United States.  Mr. Verrilli served for over fifteen years as an adjunct professor of constitutional law at the Georgetown University Law Center.  He clerked for Associate Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., of the United States Supreme Court, and Judge J. Skelly Wright of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

My concern with this nomination is whether or not the nominee will demonstrate appropriate independence in the office.  His testimony at his hearing raised doubts about his ability and commitment to uphold that principle. Mr. Verrilli seemed to buy into the notion that he was still the President's lawyer.  He gave lip service to the two traditional exceptions to the Solicitor General defending a statute - first, if the statute violates separation of powers by infringing on the President's constitutional authority; and second, if there is no reasonable argument that can be advanced in defense of the statute.  Mr. Verrilli then appeared to create a third exception - one that is not supported by practice or tradition.  He stated he would defend a statute's constitutionality "unless instructed by my superior not to do so."

This position advocated by the nominee - that interference in the rule of law, by the President or by the Attorney General, is an appropriate reason not to defend statutes - was extremely troubling to me and other members of the Committee.  That position is not the standard of the office.  It is not what the nation expects from its Solicitor General. His response gave me great pause about supporting his nomination.

Following his hearing, I gave Mr. Verrilli ample opportunity to address my concerns.  In extensive written questions I asked the nominee to review and comment on testimony given by previous Solicitor General nominees.  In particular, I asked many questions regarding statements by prior Solicitors General regarding the independence of the office.  I asked him to review cases where the Department of Justice had made a determination not to defend a statute.  I asked him to analyze those cases as to the rationale for not defending the statute.  In addition, I asked him to review and comment on a number of Supreme Court cases that address serious constitutional issues.

I reviewed his answers to my written questions for the record.  I commend Mr. Verrilli for his serious approach to the task of providing responses.  In most cases he gave thoughtful answers.  In many instances he declined to provide his views on the topic, but gave general assertions that he would follow the law. In other instances he claimed confidentiality.  I do not agree with his assertion of confidentiality in most of the instances where he raised that as a basis for not responding.  In other circumstances, such a response would be unacceptable.  In the past, such responses, or allegations of similar responses, have resulted in a failed confirmation or withdrawal of the nomination.

Based upon my review of his responses, I am more comfortable with the notion that Mr. Verrilli understands the duty of the Solicitor General. I believe, because of my questions and the time he spent contemplating the issues, he will be a better Solicitor General than he otherwise would have been.  Mr. Verrilli has been exposed to decades of thought and experience by this review.  On the whole, I concluded that Mr. Verrilli now has a greater sensitivity to the necessity of independence in the office.  In numerous answers he provided a much better response than he did at his hearing.  He indicated he would not lend his name or that of the office to carry out any order which he believed to be based on partisan political consideration or other illegitimate reasons.  Rather than do so, he said he would resign from office.  I will hold him to that pledge.

I want to be clear about my tepid support for Mr. Verrilli.  He is nominated to an executive branch position, not a lifetime appointment.  My lukewarm support is based largely on the nature of the office to which he will be appointed, if confirmed.

I will put the administration on notice, as well as Mr. Verrilli, the Senate, the media, and any other interested party.  My less than enthusiastic vote for Mr. Verrilli to be Solicitor General of the United States is limited to that office alone.  No entity or individual should presume my support for Mr. Verrilli for any other future office to which he may aspire or to which he may be nominated - be it in the executive, judicial, or legislative branch of government.

-30-

Get ready for Ames!
The Ames Straw Poll is right around the corner

The rise in both temperature and humidity coupled with increasingly frequent visits from Presidential candidates can only mean one thing, the Iowa GOP's Ames Straw Poll is quickly approaching. I am excited to report that we are working tirelessly to make sure this year's Straw Poll is the most successful, fair and fun straw poll to date.

Earlier this month, the State Central Committee passed draft rules that will help ensure the integrity of the voting process and will be consistent with the procedures followed by your local County Auditors. Additionally, we will be reducing the price of admission for the event. I view the Straw Poll as an asset for Presidential campaigns to measure their organizational strength and as a party building event. Through offering discounted prices, more families and political newcomers will attend the event and help our party grow.

Demand Accountability from Senate Democrats
Call Senator Gronstal and ask that he get serious about the budget

Last week, Senate Democrats lead by Mike Gronstal launched a budget campaign tour in the middle of the legislative session. To think that Senate Democrats can speak with any credibility on the state budget is laughable. Senator Gronstal's use of budget gimmickry created a $900 million dollar hole in state budget last year. In calling for a compromise, he is pushing for business as usual which Iowans rejected last November. Governor Branstad and Legislative Republicans are working on a transparent and common-sense budget and will not compromise our state's fiscal future in order maintain Senate Democrats appetite for deficit spending.

Senate Democrats have willingly ignored the mandate of last November. I encourage you to remind them of the message you sent with your ballot by calling Gronstal at 515-281-4610 and asking him to get serious about the budget.

Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the following statement after the President announced that he would seek a two-year extension to the term of FBI Director Robert Mueller.  The Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over the FBI.

"This is an unusual step by the President, and is somewhat of a risky precedent to set.  Thirty-five years ago Congress limited the FBI director's term to one, 10-year appointment as an important safeguard against improper political influence and abuses of the past.   There's no question that Director Mueller has proven his ability to run the FBI. And, we live in extraordinary times.  So, I'm open to the President's idea, but I will need to know more about his plan to ensure that this is not a more permanent extension that would undermine the purposes of the term limit."

Washington, DC - As millions of Americans pay their 2010 taxes today, the Populist Caucus is leading the charge to make sure big corporations do the same. Populist Caucus Chair Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Vice Chairs Rosa DeLauro (CT-03), Peter DeFazio (OR-04), Betty Sutton (OH-13) and Donna Edwards (MD-04) wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to close corporate tax loopholes and make sure big companies like General Electric pay their fair share of U.S. taxes.

According to a recent New York Times article, General Electric (GE) reported billions of dollars in profit in the U.S. but paid no federal taxes for 2010 and claimed a $3.2 billion tax benefit - all while GE Chairman and Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt heads the President's Jobs Council and advises the President on tax reform.

Rep. Bruce Braley, Chair of the Populist Caucus, said: "Corporations who don't pay U.S. taxes have no place advising the President on corporate tax reform. We've heard a lot of talk about shared responsibility and shared sacrifice, but so far that's amounted to middle class families paying more while giant corporations like GE hire armies of experts to avoid paying any federal taxes. That's just not right, and I strongly urge the President to reconsider taking tax advise from corporations that don't pay their fair share of taxes."

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Vice Chair, said: "I urge President Obama to pursue corporate tax reform that puts an end to the practice that allows multinational corporations to avoid paying U.S. taxes and requires them to act as responsible corporate citizens. For this reform to be a success, it is critical that we create a tax system that is both fair and addresses our nation's high level of unemployment. I do not believe that asking for tax advice from heads of corporations that do not pay taxes is in our best interest, and that relying on such leaders will prevent the Jobs and Competitiveness Council from reaching its full potential to strengthen the economy, create jobs, opportunity, and prosperity for Americans."

Rep. Peter DeFazio, Vice Chair, said: "Many of the largest corporations, while making huge profits and shipping American jobs overseas, pay little to nothing in taxes. The deck is stacked against American consumers, American taxpayers and American workers while these multinational corporations lay off U.S. workers, pay huge bonuses to executives, and avoid U.S. taxes. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make huge, profitable corporations pay their fair share and I hope the administration advocates for tax policies that treat small businesses as well as it treats corporations like GE."

Rep. Donna Edwards, Vice Chair, said: "I agree with President Obama and the Jobs Council that it is time to redesign the corporate tax code in an effort to create jobs, strengthen our economy, and improve the competitiveness of U.S. companies. It's unacceptable for corporations that reap enormous benefits from the current system, like GE, to be at the table assisting the Administration in this process."

Rep. Betty Sutton, Vice Chair, said: "In evaluating ways to move America forward, including overhaul of our corporate tax system, it is disturbing that Administration is being advised by the same multinational corporations that hire expensive lawyers and accountants to avoid paying taxes and pursue loopholes to ship jobs overseas. We must pursue policies that ensure our economy is working for all Americans, putting people back to work, and leveling the playing field."

###