b. todd jones was nominated in january. by march the committee required nomination materials that were received and made available to senator grassley and his staff with a plan legal hearing on mr. jones's nomination was delayed after the committee was notified of the complaint filed with the u.s. office of special counsel. chairman leahy intended to wait until after they finish their work, meant to be confidential, before holding this hearing. in late april after these allegations were unnecessarily made public the chairman decided to proceed so that b. todd jones could publicly defend his reputation. today's hearing was originally noticed a week ago, the ranking member's requested was postponed until today. last week osc notified the committee the underlying complaint against b. todd jones of management failures was closed due to insufficient evidence and the second

b. todd jones could publicly defend his reputation. today's hearing was originally noticed a week ago, the ranking member's requested was postponed until today. last week osc notified the committee the underlying complaint against b. todd jones of management failures was closed due to insufficient evidence and the second allegations made of retaliation for raising the underlying management issues with b. todd jones as for that as senator grassley points of the parties agreed to mediation. that is the procedural status. part of it was dismissed. the other powered the parties have willingly agreed to mediation. as often happens in employee matters across the government. satisfied that the issues before the osc resolved chairman leahy determine the hearings should move forward eddie asks me to chair it. this past friday senator grassley notified the chairman he would invoke not very much used senate rule. as far as i know we haven't seen witnesses to be called in hearings involving nominees that are not at the cabinet level. he decided to

b. todd jones, the nominee to be director of the bureau of alcohol and tobacco, firearms. earlier this year i learned that the office of special counsel was investigating mr. jones in a complaint that he had retaliated against a whistle-blower in the u.s. attorney's office for the district of minnesota. in the judiciary committee, it has been the committee's practice that when a nominee is subject to an open investigation, the committee generally does not move forward until the issues are resolved. because of because of this practice i objected to holding his hearing last month and requested the hearing be postponed allowing the investigation to finish. my request was denied. then i objected to putting him on the committee agenda until the nonpartisan investigation was complete. again my request was rejected. and now, despite the fact there remains an open complaint of whistle-blowers retaliation against mr. jones before the office of special counsel, his office will soon be considered by the full senate. so i want all of my colleagues to know what happened because i'm qui