21 Nov 2013

Setting the Record Straight - Again

By Grassley Press

Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Hearing Regarding the Nomination of:

David Jeremiah Barron, to be United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Mr. Chairman,

Today, we are holding the 17th judicial nominations hearing of the year, during which we will have considered a total of 58 judicial nominees.  I would note this is the fourth nominations hearing in four weeks.   So anyone who says Republicans are engaging in "unprecedented" obstruction is ignoring the cooperation I have shown as Ranking Member of this committee.

Compare the record on hearings for President Obama this year with how President Bush was treated during the fifth year of his Presidency.

In 2005, the final judicial nomination hearing was held on November 15th.  That wasn't the 17th hearing of the year, but only the sixth hearing on lower court judges.  During those six hearings we heard from not 58 judicial nominees, but only 15 district and circuit nominees.

How are we doing this year compared to last year?  2012 was a very productive year for judicial nominations.  In fact, in the 112th Congress, President Obama had more district judges confirmed than were confirmed in any of the previous 8 Congresses.  Our work in Committee last year contributed to that accomplishment when we held 10 hearings for 41 judicial nominees.

In addition, let me remind everyone that we have now confirmed 38 lower court Article 3 judicial nominees this year.  That is more than two and a half times the number confirmed at a similar stage in President Bush's second term, when only 14 district and circuit nominees had been confirmed.

In total, the Senate has confirmed 209 lower court Article 3 judges.  This includes a significant number of women and minority nominees.  We could have confirmed more judges over the last couple of weeks.  But the Senate majority decided to take precious Senate floor time for a diversionary political exercise, rather than confirming additional judges.

Now, as I explained earlier this week, the other side has been working diligently to manufacture a crisis on the D.C. Circuit.  And in order to support their claim that Republicans are "obstructing" nominees, it appears the other side is doing a sleight-of-hand on the data as well.

Recently, one of my colleagues stated that Senate Republicans have filibustered 34 of President Obama's nominees.  Anyone who pays attention to these things knows that Republicans have "filibustered" only a handful of nominees.  So what is going on here?  How does the other side get to 34?

To begin with, fully one-half of these cloture petitions were filed by the Majority on one day, as a procedural gimmick and were totally unnecessary.  None of those 17 cloture petitions required a vote - every cloture petition was withdrawn.  And, every single one of those nominees was confirmed.    So that was just another manufactured crisis.

That leaves 17.  But Republicans haven't filibustered anywhere close to 17 nominees.  So again, what is the real story here?

Of the remaining 17 cloture petitions, six of those were also withdrawn.  That leaves only 11 nominees who have actually faced a cloture vote.  One of those nominees had 2 cloture votes, for a total of 12 cloture votes.

Yet, six of those 11 nominees were confirmed.  That leaves only 5 nominees who have failed to achieve cloture.

So to sum up, the Majority claimed earlier this week, with great fanfare, that Republicans had "filibustered" 34 nominees, when we've actually stopped 5 nominees.  And of those 5, three are still pending in the Senate, leaving only 2 nominees actually defeated by filibuster.

I suppose that's what one is required to do in order to try to overstate the record established during this administration with the record the Democrats established during the Bush years.

During the Bush administration, Senate Democrats truly were unprecedented in their use of cloture against judicial nominees.   In fact, they forced 30 cloture votes on judicial nominees, including a Supreme Court nominee.

So that is the factual record - 30 cloture votes during the Bush Administration, 12 cloture votes during President Obama's term.

Of those 30 cloture votes faced by President Bush's nominees, Senate Democrats obstructed nominees 20 times.

Let me emphasize this point - during the Bush administration, 20 cloture motions failed.  Senate Democrats continued to obstruct judicial nominees twenty times.

So I think it is clear which party holds the record on delaying or obstructing the confirmation of judges.  The number of cloture votes demanded by Senate Democrats on President Bush's nominees is 2 and a half times the number of cloture votes on President Obama's nominees.  The number of times Senate Democrats refused to end debate is nearly 3 times what Republicans have done.  Democrats clearly hold the record on delaying and obstructing judges.

I think we have treated President Obama in a fair manner, and he enjoys an outstanding record for his judicial nominees.

One final point on this baseless charge that Republican obstruction has left the federal judiciary with high vacancies.  The fact is, President Obama's initial delay in nominations was the primary factor in the lower number of confirmations during his first term, resulting in the high number of vacancies.

Even now, 42 of 93 vacancies have no nominee.  That is 45 percent of vacancies with no pending nomination before the Senate.  While this percentage recently has been reduced, it was the case for most of the Obama presidency that the majority of vacancies had no nominee.  Of the 38 "Judicial Emergencies", 18 have no nominee.  That is 47 percent.

The Senate can't be held responsible for these vacancies, where almost half the seats have no nominee.

Having set the record straight let me now address today's nomination.  I welcome the nominee, his family and guests.  This nomination has been pending before the Senate just 55 calendar days.    I would note that President Bush's Circuit nominees waited, on average, 246 days for a hearing, more than four times the wait for this nominee.

Mr. Barron has an extensive record as an academic.  He has written on a wide range of subjects.  I think it would be fair to say that I probably don't agree with much of what he has written.  But that isn't necessarily the standard for my review of his qualifications to sit on the federal bench.

I am interested in hearing his views on Executive Authority; on his work while at the Office of Legal Counsel; on his judicial philosophy, particularly what he calls "progressive constitutional outcomes"; and on a variety of other topics.  I expect to address some of these today and will likely have a significant number of written questions as well.   I thank the chair.
20 Nov 2013

Floor Statement of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley on the Gillibrand Military Justice Improvement Act Amendment

By Grassley Press

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

I would like to reiterate my strong support for Senator Gillibrand's reforms to the Military Justice System.  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Military Justice Improvement Act and I should add that it has been a pleasure working with Senator Gillibrand on this issue.  Her passion and commitment to rooting out sexual assault in the military is inspiring.  I should also add that I appreciate the work of the Armed Services Committee, which added a large number of common sense reforms to the underlying bill.  In fact, some of them are so common sense that you have to wonder why the military hasn't adopted them or asked for legislation to do so before now.  For instance, the bill before us provides that people convicted of certain sexual assault offenses may not join the armed forces, requires the mandatory discharge from the armed forces of any member convicted of certain sexual assault offenses, and directs a comprehensive review of the adequacy of training pertaining to sexual assault prevention and response.

The bill also has a number of provisions to address concerns about commanding officers not handling sexual assault charges properly, but still keeps the judicial process in the chain of command.  We feel that this is inappropriate.  We've tried working within the current system.  This isn't a new issue.  Military leaders have been making emphatic promises about tackling the problem of sexual assault for years and years, but the problem only seems to be getting worse.  What's more, the current system appears to be part of the problem.

According to a recent Defense Department report, 50 percent of female victims stated they did not report the crime because they believed that nothing would be done with their report.  Seventy-four percent of females and 60 percent of males perceived one or more barriers to reporting sexual assault.  Sixty-two percent of victims who reported a sexual assault indicated they perceived some form of professional, social, and/or administrative retaliation.  This acts as a terrible deterrent to reporting sexual assault.  If sexual assault cases are not reported, they cannot be prosecuted.  If sexual assault isn't prosecuted, it leads to predators remaining in the military and a perception that it is tolerated.  By allowing this situation to continue, we are putting at risk the men and women who have volunteered to place their lives on the line.  We are also seriously damaging military morale and readiness.  Taking prosecutions out of the hands of commanders and giving them to professional prosecutors who are independent of the chain of command will help ensure impartial justice for the men and women of our armed forces.

I know some senators will be nervous about the fact that the military is lobbying against this legislation.  We are being asked once again to wait and see if the latest attempts to reform the current system will do the trick.  I would respond that the time for trying tweaks to the current system and waiting for another report or study has long since passed.  We also hear that this measure will affect the ability of commanders to retain "good order and discipline."  I would like to be clear that we in no way take away the ability of commanders to punish troops under their command for military infractions.  Commanders also can and should be held accountable for the climate under their command.  But, the point here is the sexual assault is a law enforcement matter - not a military one.  If anyone wants official assurances that we are on the right track, we can take confidence in the fact that an advisory committee appointed by the Secretary of Defense himself supports our reforms.  On September 27, 2013, the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) voted overwhelmingly in support of each of the components of the Military Justice Improvement Act Amendment.

DACOWITS was created in 1951 by then Secretary of Defense, George C.  Marshall. The Committee is composed of civilian and retired military women and men who are appointed by the Secretary of Defense to provide advice and recommendations on matters and policies relating to the recruitment and retention, treatment, employment, integration, and well-being of highly qualified professional women in the Armed Forces. Historically, DACOWITS' recommendations have been very instrumental in effecting changes to laws and policies pertaining to military women.  The bottom line is, this isn't an advocacy group or fly by night panel.  It's a longstanding advisory committee handpicked by the Secretary of Defense and it supports the substance of our amendment to a tee.

I know it's easier to support incremental reform.  That's even prudent in many cases.  However, when we are talking about something as serious and life altering as sexual assault, we cannot afford to wait any longer than we already have.  Our men and women serving this country deserve bold action to solve this problem - not in a few years or a little bit at a time, but right now.  I would urge my colleagues to be bold and join us in this effort.  It's the right thing to do.
20 Nov 2013

Grassley Continues Work for Passage of Military Justice Reform for Sexual Assault Cases

By Grassley Press

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

 

AIR FORCE MAJOR GENERAL (RET.) MARTHA RAINVILLE, ARMY BRIGADIER GENERAL (RET.) LOREE SUTTON, IRAQ & AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA, VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA, SERVICE WOMEN'S ACTION NETWORK, SURVIVOR/PROTECT OUR DEFENDERS ADVOCACY COMMITTEE KATE WEBER, SARAH PLUMMER, SURVIVOR & ADVOCATE, AUTHOR/LEADERSHIP COACH ARRIVE ON CAPITOL HILL TO CONTINUE PUSH FOR INDEPENDENT MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM

 

Chorus of Military Voices Continues to Grow: Senators Release New Letter Supporting Military Justice Improvement Act Signed by 26 Retired Generals, Commanders, Colonels, Captains and Senior Enlisted Personnel - Includes 4 Retired Generals/Admirals Speaking Out for First Time

 

Last September, DOD's Own Advisory Panel Voted in Favor of Gillibrand Approach Without a Single Vote Against, 9 of 10 Yes Votes by Former Military Members

 

Washington D.C. - U.S. Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Rand Paul (R-KY), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), and Dean Heller (R-NV) were joined on Capitol Hill today by Air Force Major General (Ret.) and former Vermont National Guard Adjutant General Martha Rainville, who served in the military for twenty-seven years, including fourteen years in command positions, plus Brigadier General (Ret.) Loree Sutton who served as the top psychiatrist in the U.S. Army, Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA), Service Women's Action Network (SWAN), Kate Weber, a survivor and Protect Our Defenders Advocacy Committee Member from the state of California, and Sarah Plummer, Survivor & Advocate, Author/Leadership Coach to continue their unified push for an independent military justice system.

While in Washington, the generals are meeting with undecided Senators to make their case on why this reform is critically needed to strengthen our military. The Senators also publicly released a letter supporting the Military Justice Improvement Act signed by twenty-six retired generals, admirals, commanders, colonels and captains - including four flag officers (two generals and two admirals) speaking out for the first time. Rainville, the first woman in the history of the National Guard to serve as a state Adjutant General, and Sutton, are now joined by a dozen generals or admirals, knows as flag officers, in supporting the Military Justice Improvement Act.

"America is home to the world's best and brightest, brave men and women who join the armed services for all the right reasons - to serve our country, defend all that we hold sacred, and make America's military the best the world has ever known," Senator Gillibrand said. "But too often, these brave men and women find themselves in the fight of their lives not off on some far-away battlefield, but right here on our own soil, within their own ranks and commanding officers, as victims of horrific acts of sexual violence. Our bipartisan bill takes this issue head on by removing decision-making from the chain of command, and giving that discretion to experienced trial counsel with prosecutorial experience where it belongs. That's how we will achieve accountability, justice and fairness."

"As a former commander, endorsing a change that removes certain authority from military commanders has been a tough decision," said Major General (Ret.) Martha Rainville. "It was driven by my conviction that our men and women in uniform deserve to know, without doubt, that they are valued and will be treated fairly with all due process should they report an offense and seek help, or face being accused of an offense. When allegations of serious criminal misconduct have been made, the decision whether to prosecute should be made by a trained legal professional. Fairness and justice require sound judgment based on evidence and facts, independent of pre-existing command relationships."

"Failure to achieve these reforms would be a further tragedy to an already sorrowful history of inattention and ineptitude concerning military sexual assault," said Brigadier General (Ret.) Loree Sutton. "In my view, achieving these essential reform measures must be considered as a national security imperative, demanding immediate action to prevent further damage to individual health and well-being, vertical and horizontal trust within units, military institutional reputation, operational mission readiness and the civilian-military compact. Far from 'stripping' commanders of accountability, as some detractors have suggested, these improvements will remove the inherent conflict of interest that clouds the perception and, all too often, the decision-making process under the current system. Implementing these reforms will actually support leaders to build and sustain unit cultures marked by respect, good order and discipline."

In a letter released by the Senators from twenty-six retired generals, admirals, commanders, colonels, captains and senior enlisted personnel they wrote, "It is time to create an independent, objective, and non-biased system of criminal justice in the armed forces. We believe that the decision to prosecute serious crimes, including sexual assault, should be made by trained legal professionals who are outside the chain of command, but still within the military. This change will allow prosecutorial decisions to be made based on facts and evidence and not be derailed by pre-existing relationships, attitudes, biases, and perceptions... It is our sincere belief that this change in the military justice system will go a long way to safeguard the integrity of the judicial process and provide the opportunity for real progress toward eliminating the scourge of sexual assault in the military."

"Senator Gillibrand's reform is needed, and it's the right thing to do. We've tried working within the current system and military leaders have made promises about addressing the problem of sexual assault for years and years, but the problem only seems to be getting worse. In fact, the current system seems to be part of the problem," Senator Grassley said. "Now, we're being asked once again to wait and see if the latest attempts to reform the current system will fix the problem. The truth is, the time for waiting for another report or study has long since passed. Commanders can and should be held accountable for the climate under their command. But, the point here is that sexual assault is a law enforcement matter, not a military one. An advisory committee appointed by the Secretary of Defense himself supports this bipartisan reform initiative, and the Military Justice Improvement Act should pass along with this year's defense authorization bill."

"We have to change the way the military investigates and prosecutes cases of sexual assault within its ranks," Senator Shaheen said. "The support the Military Justice Improvement Act has received from current and retired military officials is a testament to the importance of passing this bill."

Senator Blumenthal said, "Victims of this hideous, horrific crime deserve a fairer, more effective justice system - with decisions made by a trained, experienced prosecutor - so they will be better protected and encouraged to report sexual assaults. As the best and strongest military in history, our men and women in uniform deserve a justice system worthy of their excellence. Our legislation is vital to victim trust and confidence in military justice. I am proud to stand with Senator Gillibrand and this broad, bipartisan coalition of advocates and colleagues."

"The crime of sexual assault in the military is gut-wrenching and there should be no tolerance of it," said Senator Hirono. "I'd like to applaud the work of all my colleagues to help solve this terrible problem that has plagued the military. As we move forward to pass NDAA, I urge my colleagues to support the Military Justice Improvement Act. Today's letter from retired generals, commanders, colonels, captains and senior enlisted personnel show that we are gaining support and that its time to create an independent, objective, and non-biased system of criminal justice in the armed forces."

"I want to thank my constituent - Kate Weber, an Army veteran and mother of four - for her courage in speaking out today about the horrific abuse she suffered at the hands of her fellow soldiers," Senator Boxer said. "We owe it to Kate and all the other survivors of military sexual assault to end the decades of empty promises and fix our broken military justice system."

"The status quo is simply unacceptable. These individuals deserve justice which is why prosecutorial authority should be in the hands of unbiased, objective military prosecutors," said Senator Begich. "It's time to bring change, confidence and justice back to the system by instituting a zero-tolerance policy for sexual assault in our ranks . This is exactly what Sen. Gillibrand's amendment will do and why I am a proud to be a  co-sponsor. "

The carefully crafted Military Justice Improvement Act moves the decision whether to prosecute any crime punishable by one year or more in confinement to independent, trained, professional military prosecutors, with the exception of 37 crimes that are uniquely military in nature, such as disobeying orders or going Absent Without Leave. The decision whether to prosecute the 37 serious crimes uniquely military in nature plus all crimes punishable by less than one year of confinement would remain within the chain of command. The bill does not amend Article 15 pertaining to non-judicial punishments.

According to the FY2012 SAPRO report released earlier this year by the Defense Department, an estimated 26,000 cases of unwanted sexual contact and sexual assaults occurred in FY2012, a 37% increase from FY2011. Another report released by the Defense Department this year showed that more than 1 in 5 female service members reported experiencing unwanted sexual contact while serving in the military. Also according to the FY2012 SAPRO Report, 25% of women and 27% of men who received unwanted sexual contact indicated the offender was someone in their military chain of command. Further, 50% of female victims stated they did not report the crime because they believed that nothing would be done with their report. Even the current top military leadership admits the current system "has failed" and as Commandant of the Marine Corps General James F. Amos stated this year, victims do not come forward because "they don't trust the chain of command."

The problem of sexual assault in the military is not new, neither are the pledges of "zero tolerance" from commanders, which date all the way back to then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney in 1992. The Military Justice Improvement Act would for the first time remove the decision whether to take a case to general court-martial completely out of the chain of command and give that discretion to experienced military prosecutors for all crimes punishable by one year or more in confinement, except crimes that are uniquely military in nature, such as disobeying orders or going AWOL.

In September, the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) voted overwhelmingly in support of removing the decision whether to prosecute sexual assaults and other serious crimes from the chain of command. Ten members voted in support of the measure, six abstained to study further, none voted against. DACOWITS was created in 1951 by then Secretary of Defense, George C.  Marshall. The Committee is composed of civilian and retired military women and men who are appointed by the Secretary of Defense to provide advice and recommendations on matters and policies relating to the recruitment and retention, treatment, employment, integration, and well-being of highly qualified professional women in the Armed Forces. Historically, DACOWITS' recommendations have been very instrumental in effecting changes to laws and policies pertaining to military women. Secretary Chuck Hagel was recently quoted as saying, "I have a put a premium on that advisory board."

Many of our allied modern militaries have reporting outside of the chain of command, such as Britain, Canada, Israel, Germany, Norway and Australia. For example, the British military has prosecutors making trial decisions for all crimes through the Service Prosecuting Authority (SPA) within Britain's Ministry of Defense. Four allied commanders recently testified to the Response Systems Panel that these changes to their military justice systems had no negative consequences to good order and discipline.

The text of the full letter from twenty-six retired generals, admirals, commanders, colonels and captains is below. For more information, visit www.gillibrand.senate.gov/mjia

 

Dear Senator Gillibrand:

 

We write to express our support for the changes to the military justice system proposed in your bill, the Military Justice Improvement Act (S. 967). We represent all branches of the military and bring many years and a range of experiences, including that of convening authority for courts martial.

 

We know that, in too many cases, service members have not reported incidents of sexual assault because they lack confidence in the current system. The inherent conflicts that exist in the military justice system have led service members to believe that their allegations of sexual assault will not receive a fair and impartial hearing and that perpetrators will not be held accountable.

 

Additionally, we know firsthand that commanders often lack the deep and broad legal experience necessary to make critical decisions about whether sufficient evidence exists to move forward with a prosecution.

 

It is time to create an independent, objective, and non-biased system of criminal justice in the armed forces. We believe that the decision to prosecute serious crimes, including sexual assault, should be made by trained legal professionals who are outside the chain of command, but still within the military. This change will allow prosecutorial decisions to be made based on facts and evidence and not be derailed by pre-existing relationships, attitudes, biases, and perceptions.

 

The bill appropriately excludes uniquely military crimes and leaves commanders with the tools they need to maintain good order and discipline, including non-judicial punishment.

We applaud the Department of Defense for its ongoing efforts to address this serious problem.

 

However, it is our sincere belief that this change in the military justice system will go a long way to safeguard the integrity of the judicial process and provide the opportunity for real progress toward eliminating the scourge of sexual assault in the military.

 

We thank you for your leadership on this important issue that affects mission readiness and national security.

 

Sincerely,

 

Arlen D. Jameson, Lt Gen, USAF (Ret.), Austin, TX 78731

Claudia J. Kennedy, LTG, USA (Ret.), Hilton Head Island, SC 29928

Marty Evans, RADM, USN (Ret.), Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082

Dennis J. Laich, MG, USA (Ret.), Powell, OH 43065

Elizabeth M. Morris, RADM, USN (Ret.), Herndon, VA 20171

Rear Admiral: Rabbi Harold L. Robinson, RADM, CHC, USN (Ret.), Centerville, MA 02632

Julia J. Cleckley, BG, USA (Ret.), Fredericksburg, VA 22406

Barbara L. Brehm, CAPT, USN (Ret.), Annandale, VA 22003

Margarethe Cammermeyer, COL, USA (Ret.), Langley, WA 98260

Ellen Haring, COL, USA, Bristow, VA 20136

Lory Manning, CAPT, USN (Ret.), Arlington, VA 22209

Carolyn V. Prevatte, CAPT, USN (Ret.), Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250

Katherine Scheirman, MD, Col, USAF (Ret.), MC, Oklahoma City, OK 73132

Glenna L. Tinney, CAPT, USN (Ret.), Alexandria, VA 22315

Sherry de Vries, LtCol, USMC (Ret.), Alexandria, VA 22301

Rev. Karen M. Rasmussen, CDR, USN (Ret.), Annandale, VA 22003

Coy A. Flowers, MD, FACOG, LCDR (former), USNR, Lewisburg, WV 24901

Stefanie Goebel, LCDR (former), USN, Mt. Shasta, CA 96067

Brynn Tannehill, LCDR (former), USN, Xenia, OH 45385

Hon. Carolyn Becraft, former Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), CPT (former), USA, Burke, VA 22015

Anu K. Bhagwati, Capt (former), USMC, New York, NY 10027

Tanya Domi, CPT (former), USA, New York, NY 10471

Gregory S. Jacob, Capt (former), USMC, New York, NY 10023

Beth L. Schissel, MD, Capt (former), USAFR, MC, Decatur, GA 30030

Julianne H. Sohn, Capt (former), USMCR, Fullerton, CA 92833

Cynthia A. Pritchett, CSM (Ret.), USA, Brandon, FL 33511

 

# # #
19 Nov 2013

Critical Time in Farm and Nutrition Bill Negotiations

By Grassley Press

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa released the following statement regarding the ongoing farm and nutrition bill negotiations between the House and the Senate.

"We are coming to a critical time in the farm and nutrition bill conference committee negotiations.   Current negotiations include possible changes to the actively engaged criteria and requiring the use of planted acres or base acres in commodity programs.

"There's no question that the current actively engaged law isn't working.  The non-partisan Government Accountability Office wrote in a report this fall that changes needed to be made and the legislative language in the Senate passed farm bill would be an appropriate fix.

"Besides, the actively engaged provisions are the same in both the House and Senate bills.  So, we have the two bills with the exact same language and a scathing report from the GAO.  There is no reason for these provisions to even be a part of the discussion.  We need to close loopholes that have allowed non-farmers to game the system.  The longer we let this happen, the easier it will be for opponents of farm programs to argue for no farm bill.  And, quite honestly, I don't understand how anyone can promote closing loopholes for food stamps if they don't also support closing the loopholes non-farmers, many of whom have other significant income, are using.

"Another issue I'm surprised is still being debated is the use of planted acres vs. base acres for the commodity title.  The House bill uses extremely high target prices for some crops that are then coupled with planted acres.  I assume this is to drive up acreages for certain crops.  The press has reported that Ranking Member Peterson has made it no secret that was his exact intent for Barley, and the reason he insisted it have a high target price.

"Enacting the House commodity title will take us backwards to a time when farmers planted for the government instead of the market.  And, if anyone thinks we're immune to World Trade Organization challenges, I would remind them that U.S. taxpayers have sent the citizens of Brazil $146 million for the last several years because our cotton program was considered too market distorting.

"Yet, even with the statement by Ranking Member Peterson, possible WTO challenges, and concerns with the government picking winners and losers in the commodity program, I'm hearing Chairman Lucas and his staff are trying to convince people that there is no reason to be troubled about any of these concerns with regard to planted acres.

"I want to get a farm bill done, but I also want to vote for a good bill that is defensible."
15 Nov 2013

EPA Releases 2014 Renewable Fuel Standard Requirements

By Grassley Press

Friday, November 15, 2013

Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa made the following comment after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the 2014 Renewable Fuel Standard volume requirements.  The proposed rule released by the EPA lowers the required consumption of conventional renewable fuel to 13.01 billion gallons, despite the law mandating consumption of 14.4 billion gallons, and below the 2013 level of 13.8 billion gallons.  It also provides that biodiesel remains at 1.28 billion gallons.  (Click here to read the letter Grassley sent to the EPA with 31 colleagues on the biodiesel regulations.)  The proposed rules are now open for public comment.  Grassley encourages Iowans to make comments at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/regulations.htm.

"The federal government made a commitment to homegrown, renewable energy when Congress passed the Renewable Fuel Standard.  The proposed rules released by the Environmental Protection Agency undermine that commitment.  These misguided rules could cost jobs and create dirtier air, while protecting the stranglehold Big Oil has on the country's fuel supply.  It's disappointing that a President who claimed to be a supporter of renewable energy has allowed his administration to take us a step back in lessening our reliance on foreign sources of oil.  It's time for supporters of clean, homegrown, green energy and forward-thinking energy policy to rally and let the Obama administration know that its proposal is short-sighted and irresponsible."
15 Nov 2013

Obamacare Broken Promise is Hitting Home and Hurting Credibility

By Grassley Press

If you like your health plan you can keep it.  It was a nice soundbite; it also wasn't true.

My constituents have learned that the hard way.  Like one from Perry, Iowa who wrote to me saying:

QUOTE  My husband and I are farmers. For nine years now we have bought our own policy.  We recently received our letter that our plan was going away and effective Jan 1, 2014 it will be updated to comply with the mandates of Obamacare.  We did not get to keep our current policy. We did not get to keep our lower rates. I now have to pay for coverage that I do not want or will never use.  We are the small business owner that is trying to live the American dream.  I do not believe in large government that wants to run my life. END OF QUOTE

The President's failed promise is hitting home.  But, more importantly, if the President promises something and doesn't keep that promise, it goes way beyond a promise to hurt an individual.  It goes to the lack of credibility of all government.  We instead need to build up the credibility of government and create trust. This in turn will strengthen our country.

So, where do we go from here?

For three years, the President has taken out his pencil and eraser and rewritten or delayed his law on the fly when it's not working. He's doing it again today. The President broke his promise that you can keep your health care plan if you like it. Now he's again got his eraser out and announced that his fix for the people hurt by this policy, like those who wrote to me from Perry, will last only one year. The insurance companies that sent four million cancellation notices did it to comply with his law. What will it take for the President to admit the law isn't working and at least call for a full delay?  The President should work with Congress on something bipartisan that would address health insurance problems without disrupting what does work in our health care system.
15 Nov 2013

Administration urged to support biodiesel

By Grassley Press

BIOFUELS: Murray, Franken, Blunt, Grassley Lead 28 Colleagues Urging Administration to Support American Biodiesel Industry

Growing biodiesel industry supports more than 62,000 American jobs, nearly $17 billion in annual economic impact

Biodiesel and other advanced biofuels increase energy security, reduce American dependence on foreign oil

(Washington, DC) - Today, U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Al Franken (D-MN), Roy Blunt (R-MO), and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) led 28 of their Senate colleagues in a bipartisan letter urging the Obama Administration to support the American biodiesel industry in its upcoming 2014 regulatory proposal for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).  Current projections indicate that the industry will produce 1.7 billion gallons of biodiesel in 2014, continuing its pattern of exceeding annual RFS targets.  In light of the this production estimate, the Senators urged the Administration to carefully consider its 2014 biodiesel targets, which, if decreased or left stagnant at 2013 levels, could cost thousands of American jobs and significantly impact confidence in industry investments.

"Biodiesel has exceeded RFS targets in each year and is clearly poised to do so again in 2013.  The industry has had impressive growth, going far beyond initial expectations just five years ago, and is supporting 62,160 jobs and nearly $17 billion in total economic impact.  Biodiesel is improving our energy security by reducing our dependence on imported petroleum diesel, diversifying fuel supplies and creating competition in the fuels market," the Senators wrote. "Setting the 2014 biodiesel volume requirement at reduced levels could have severe impacts on the domestic biodiesel industry.  Further, a continuation of 2013 levels paired with any reduction in advanced biofuels targets could similarly negatively impact the industry."

The following Senators also signed on to the letter: Senators Mark Pryor (D-AR), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Angus King (I-ME), Jack Reed (D-RI), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Jon Tester (D-MT), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Bob Casey (D-PA), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Tom Udall (D-NM), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Susan Collins (R-ME), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Kay Hagan (D-NC), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT).

 

The full text of the letter can be read here:

 

November 14, 2013

 

The Honorable Gina McCarthy                       The Honorable Tom Vilsack

Administrator                                Secretary

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency                     U.S. Department of Agriculture

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.                                1400 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460                                Washington, D.C. 20250

 

The Honorable Sylvia Mathews Burwell

Director

Office of Management and Budget

725 17th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20503

 

cc: The Honorable Howard Shelanski, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

Dear Administrator McCarthy, Secretary Vilsack, and Director Burwell:

We write to encourage the Administration to develop a 2014 regulatory proposal for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) that supports the current-year projected 1.7 billion gallons of U.S. biodiesel production.

Biodiesel has exceeded RFS targets in each year and is clearly poised to do so again in 2013.  The industry has had impressive growth, going far beyond initial expectations just five years ago, and is supporting 62,160 jobs and nearly $17 billion in total economic impact.  Biodiesel is improving our energy security by reducing our dependence on imported petroleum diesel, diversifying fuel supplies and creating competition in the fuels market.

Setting the 2014 biodiesel volume requirement at reduced levels could have severe impacts on the domestic biodiesel industry.  Further, a continuation of 2013 levels paired with any reduction in advanced biofuels targets could similarly negatively impact the industry.

Biodiesel is the only Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-designated advanced biofuel to achieve commercial-scale production nationwide and the first to reach 1 billion gallons of annual production.  Keeping the targets stagnant, rather than gradually allowing the biodiesel industry to grow, could leave 400 million gallons of biodiesel potentially unused - roughly 25 percent.  Such a cut could result in nearly every small facility shutting down and permanently ceasing production of biodiesel, leading to the loss of some 7,000 jobs.  Additionally, investment and financing for the U.S. biodiesel industry could be severely jeopardized, creating new and possibly insurmountable hurdles for the remaining producers to grow and expand.

In setting 2014 targets for biodiesel, the EPA should avoid outcomes that could lead to plant closures, worker layoffs, and uncertainty over future investments in the biodiesel industry.  We urge you to continue to support this fragile and growing industry with a reasonable increase in the RFS volume requirement for 2014.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

###
15 Nov 2013

Grassley, Father from Ames, Iowa, Recognize National Adoption Month

By Grassley Press

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today joined Robert White of Ames to raise awareness about the importance of adoption during National Adoption Month at an event honoring adoptive families nationwide.  Robert and his wife, Sharon, have been long-time advocates for adoption.

"Robert has made it a goal to educate policy makers, including me, on key issues," Grassley said.  "These considerations include keeping siblings together, recruiting high-quality foster families, and ensuring that one of our most vulnerable populations ? foster children ? get the care they need in an appropriate family setting.   It's my pleasure to celebrate families like the Whites. This month is an important opportunity to raise awareness for the many kids who wait for permanency and salute the many organizations that make those dreams come true."

The Whites have adopted several children and have recently decided to become foster parents.  They also have worked with Iowa state legislators to pass legislation making it easier for children in foster care to be adopted with their siblings.

Through Voice for Adoption, a national advocacy organization, Grassley was paired with the Whites for an "Adoptive Family Portrait Project" in an effort to raise awareness and support during National Adoption Month. This family's picture and inspirational story will be displayed in Grassley's office throughout the month of November.  This year, Saturday, Nov. 23, marks the 14th anniversary of National Adoption Day.  The goals of National Adoption Day include : finalizing adoptions from foster care in all 50 states; celebrating and honoring families who adopt; raising awareness of the more than 100,000 children in foster care waiting for permanent, loving homes; encouraging others to adopt children from foster care; and building collaboration among local adoption agencies, courts and advocacy organizations.

Grassley is a long-time advocate for adoption and improving foster care, especially the challenges facing those who age out of the system.  He is the co-founder and co-chair of the bipartisan Senate Caucus on Foster Youth.  He has secured several key legislative improvements to promote adoption.  More information is available here.

-30-
14 Nov 2013

Obamacare enrollment numbers

By Grassley Press

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa made the following comment on the Obamacare enrollment numbers released by the Administration today.

"Since Oct. 1, my office has received 4,358 emails from Iowans in opposition to Obamacare and 669 emails supporting Obamacare.   Many of the emails in opposition are from people who have received cancellation notices for their current insurance and are shocked at the increased prices they'll have to pay under new insurance.   The healthcare.gov website is in such chaos that individuals worry they won't be able to enroll in a plan as required, through no fault of their own.  Obamacare is a mess.  For every person who has gained coverage through Obamacare, ten people have lost their current coverage because of Obamacare.  It should be delayed if not outright repealed for the good of the country.   The President should admit what a disaster it is.  He should work with Congress on something bipartisan that would address health insurance problems without disrupting what does work in our health care system.  Also, on the enrollment numbers, I wouldn't be surprised if they're even lower than what the Administration is putting out.  'Enrollment' means different things to different people.  The four insurance companies in the D.C. exchange told me they had five people enrolled as of a few days ago.  The Administration might be putting a rosier spin on the numbers than the reality."
13 Nov 2013

Feinstein, Grassley: Penalize Drug Dealers Who Market Candy-Flavored Drugs to Children

By Grassley Press
Washington–U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), co-chairs of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, today introduced the Saving Kids From Dangerous Drugs Act of 2013 [link] to increase federal criminal penalties for drug dealers who entice children with candy-flavored methamphetamine, cocaine or other dangerous drugs.

According to law enforcement officers and drug treatment officials, methamphetamine and other illegal drugs are being colored, packaged and flavored in ways designed to attract children and other minors. Some have child-friendly names like Pot Tarts and Reese's Crumbled Hash Brownies.

"For years, drug dealers have used new gimmicks to target children by flavoring and marketing illegal drugs to taste and look like candy and soda," Senator Feinstein said. "These dealers intentionally mislead young customers into believing these drugs are less dangerous and less addictive than other illegal drugs.

"This bill responds to this serious and dangerous problem by increasing criminal penalties on drug dealers who alter controlled substances in a deliberate attempt to lure our youth into addiction and dependency."

"Anything that makes a dangerous drug seem less dangerous to kids is a serious problem," said Senator Grassley.  "The law should make clear that marketing drugs to kids will have steep consequences."

Many recent incidents have involved methamphetamine, which can cause users to experience hallucinations and delusions. In March of last year, police in Chicago warned parents about a strawberry-flavored version of methamphetamine called "strawberry quick" or "strawberry meth." Because of the drug's similarity to candy, police urged parents to tell their children not to take candy from anyone, even a classmate.

The size and sophistication of operations involving flavored or candied drugs is alarming. For example, in March of 2008, Drug Enforcement Administration agents seized cocaine near Modesto, Calif., valued at $272,400; a significant quantity had been flavored with cinnamon, coconut, lemon and strawberry.

Under current federal law, there are no enhanced penalties for altering controlled substances to make drugs more appealing to youth. The Saving Kids From Dangerous Drugs Act:

·         Provides an enhanced penalty when any adult knowingly or intentionally manufactures or creates a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or Schedule II that is:

o   Combined with a beverage or candy product;

o   Marketed or packaged to appear similar to a beverage or candy product; or

o   Modified by flavoring or coloring.

·         Subjects anyone who alters a controlled substance in these ways to the following penalty, in addition to the penalty for the underlying offense:

o   Up to 10 years for the first offense

o   Up to 20 years for a second or subsequent offense

The bill has been endorsed by the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs Association, the National District Attorneys Association and the National HIDTA Directors Association.

###

Pages

Subscribe & Listen to Reader Podcasts

On Stands Now

 

Tagged Content

    

Two Ways to Subscribe

1. Subscribe to free weekly e-mail content updates.

You'll get both the current official narrative challenge and What's Happenin' in the Quad Cities.
(Did you know we publish a new Real Astrology and RCR Crossword every week?) 

Subscribe!

* indicates required

2. Get 12 monthly issues mailed first class for $48

Get 12 issues mailed monthly for $48 per year.

Get the printed Reader edition mailed to you (or anyone you want) first-class for 12 months for $48.
$24 goes to postage and handling, $24 goes to keeping the doors open!

Click this link to Subscribe now.