Grassley Opens Executive Business Meeting to Consider Police Week Legislation, Judicial and Executive Nominations

Prepared Opening Statement by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
Executive Business Meeting
Thursday, May 14, 2026

Good morning. On today's agenda, we have 12 nominations and seven bills.

We'll vote on Justin Smith, who is nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Eighth Circuit.

We'll also vote on three nominees to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas: Jeffrey Kuhlman, Anthony Mattivi and Anthony Powell.

We'll also vote on Timothy VerHey to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Michigan and three nominees to serve as U.S. Marshals: James Arnott, Western District of Missouri; Jack Chambers, Southern District of West Virginia; and Jason Holt, Northern District of Oklahoma.

After that, we're voting on seven bills:

• S. 3966, TREY's Law;
• S. 736, the Lieutenant Osvaldo Albarati Stopping Prison Contraband Act;
• S. 825, the Fighting Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Act of 2025;
• S. 4394, the Promoting Police Leadership Act;
• S. 3897, the Officer John Barnes and Chief Michael Ansbro Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program Expansion Act of 2026;
• S. 1890, the Carla Walker Act;
• S. 3041, the Tribal Warrant Fairness Act;

The remaining nominations will be held over for future consideration. Before we turn to today's agenda, I'd like to say a few words.

My Democrat colleagues often criticize this committee's judicial nominees for being overly political.

They preach about the importance of an independent judiciary, and of the importance of norms.

They're correct, of course, that a robust and independent judiciary, at both the state and federal level, is a critical safeguard of our Republic. But these admonitions ring hollow when these same colleagues remain silent when Democrats actively politicize the judiciary and its decisions or engage in conduct that demeans and undermines the judiciary as an institution.

Recent reports at the state level serve as a cautionary tale.

Although Georgia Supreme Court elections have historically been nonpartisan, former President Obama and other partisans have endorsed two pro-abortion challengers in the upcoming race.

Out-of-state progressive groups have also funneled big money into their campaigns, including nearly a million dollars in partisan attack ads from pro-abortion groups.

Does injecting partisanship and vitriol into non-partisan judicial elections really advance a robust, independent judiciary? Consider me skeptical.

Democrats engaged in this same political folly when courts issue rulings that they disagree with.

For years, we've heard Democratic threats about court-packing. And we're seeing that now in Virginia.

Because of a recent ruling on redistricting, some Democrats want to lower the retirement age for the state Supreme Court to repack it with loyalists who'll issue rulings they like.

In the meantime, Democrats openly defy court orders they don't like.

For example, the Supreme Court recently ruled that a pregnancy center in New Jersey has a First Amendment right to keep its donor list confidential. But, just one day later, the state's Attorney General sought a subpoena to compel its records.

This is unacceptable. A healthy judicial system must remain free from political influence. And our system of government requires compliance with all lawful court orders.

To that end, I'm very satisfied with the nominees that we're considering today.

Justin Smith and the Kansas nominees have dedicated their careers to upholding the rule of law without fear or favor. They reflect precisely what a healthy and impartial judiciary should be.

But turning to a more bipartisan note, our legislative agenda is a series of seven strongly bipartisan, important bills.

Today we'll continue our consideration of an important bill that was delayed last week because too many committee members left before we could vote on it.

Trey's Law helps keep children safe from abuse by no longer letting perpetrators hide behind NDAs. I look forward to voting on this bill.

The thrust of the remainder of our agenda is our annual tradition of advancing Police Week legislation.

Ranking Member Durbin and I have worked together for years to ensure this committee advances bipartisan legislation during Police Week. Today, we'll vote on seven bills - all of which are bipartisan and led by both Republicans and Democrats.

I hear too often from Iowans back home at my town meetings that there isn't enough work being done across the aisle. I've pushed back on this several times in the recent past. And today's yet another example of this committee's meaningful bipartisan work.

Indeed, there's no better cause to support than backing the blue.

Each of our nation's brave men and women in blue make a daily choice to serve and protect the American people, fully aware of the sacrifice they're making.

Every single day, these are men and women showing up in people's worst moments.

Hundreds of officers each year lose their lives in the line of duty.

Our heroes in law enforcement continue to choose to serve despite unhelpful rhetoric and unfair, politicized criticism.

We ought to be aware and grateful of that sacrifice.

Police week is a small gesture of this committee's appreciation for law enforcement.

Today's legislation addresses dangerous threats to officers, supports their mental health, bolsters access to new technologies and ensures they have the training they need.

Every administration, regardless of party, faces the same fundamental responsibility - to protect the public and reduce violence.

When legislation supports that mission by aligning resources, strengthening partnerships and addressing the toll that officers face to their mental health, it creates safer communities.

This committee has a shared commitment to support law enforcement and keep the citizens of this country safe.

I look forward to advancing those bills out of committee.

Now I'll turn to Ranking Member Durbin.

-30-

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Post