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.

###
12 Nov 2013

The Standard Set in 2006-D.C. Circuit

By Grassley Press

Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee

On the Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of

Cornelia Pillard, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

 

Mr. President,

 

I'm speaking in opposition to the motion to invoke cloture on the nominee for the D.C. Circuit, Cornelia Pillard.  Although her record makes clear her views are well outside the mainstream on a host of issues, I'm not going to focus on those concerns today.

 

I'm going to focus instead on the standard the Democrats established in 2006.  Based on that standard, the court's caseload makes clear that the workload simply doesn't justify adding judges, particularly when those additional judges cost approximately $1 million per year, per judge.

 

I have walked through the statistics several times now.

 

The bottom line is this: the data overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the D.C. Circuit is underworked.  Everyone knows this is true.  That circuit does not need any more judges.

 

Take for instance, the appeals filed and appeals terminated.

 

In both categories, the D.C. Circuit ranks last.  And in both categories the D.C. Circuit is less than half the national average.

 

To provide some perspective on this, compare the D.C. Circuit to the 11th.  After another judge took senior status last week, both courts now have eight active judges.

 

If we don't confirm any more judges to either court, and the numbers remain the same as last year, the 11th Circuit will have 875 appeals filed per active judge.  Compare that to the 149 appeals filed per active judge in D.C., which also has eight active judges.  Again, that's 875 for the 11th Circuit, compared to 149 for D.C. Circuit.

 

Now, some might argue we shouldn't look only at "active judges" because those averages will change if and when we confirm more judges to the 11th Circuit.

 

Suppose we fill each judgeship on the 11th Circuit and each judge on the D.C. Circuit as the Democrats want to do.  If we fill them all, there would be 583 Appeals filed per judge for the 11th Circuit, and only 108 for D.C.

 

The 11th Circuit has over five times the caseload.

 

This is why everyone who has looked at this objectively understands the caseload for the D.C. Circuit is stunningly low.

 

This is why the current judges on the court have written to me and said things like: "If any more judges were added now, there wouldn't be enough work to go around."

 

Now, some of my friends on the other side recognize that the D.C. Circuit's caseload is low, but they claim that the caseload numbers don't take into account the "complexity" of the court's docket.

 

They argue the D.C. Circuit hears more "administrative appeals" than other circuits.  And they claim these administrative appeals are more complex.

This argument is nonsense.  Here is why.

 

I've heard my colleagues argue repeatedly that the D.C. Circuit's docket is complex because "43%" of its docket is made up of "administrative appeals."

But of course, that is a high percentage, of a very small number.

 

When you look at the actual number of these so-called "complex" cases per judge, the Second Circuit has almost twice as many as the D.C. Circuit.

 

In 2012, there were 512 "administrative appeals" filed in D.C.

 

In the Second Circuit, there were 1,493.

 

Stated differently, in D.C., there were only 64 administrative appeals per active judge.

 

The Second Circuit has nearly twice as many with 115.

 

Again, that's 64 administrative appeals per active judge in DC.

As opposed to the Second Circuit which has almost twice as many, with 115.

 

So, this entire argument about "complexity" is nonsense, and the other side knows it.

 

Now, let me raise another question regarding caseload.

 

If these cases were really that hard -

 

If these cases were really so "complex" -

Then why in the world would the D.C. Circuit take the entire summer off?

 

And I'm not talking about just a couple weeks in August.  They don't hear any cases for the entire summer.

 

The D.C. Circuit has so few cases on their docket, that they don't hear any cases from the middle of May until the second week of September.

This past term, the last case they heard before taking the summer off was on May 16th.  The court didn't hear another case until September 9th, almost four months later.

The bottom line is this: everyone knows this court doesn't have enough cases as it is.  Let alone if we were to add more judges.

 

This is why when you ask the current judges for their candid assessment, they write:

"if any more judges were confirmed now, there wouldn't be enough work to go around."

 

Now, while I'm discussing this caseload issue, I want to remind my colleagues of a little bit history.

 

In 2006, the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee blocked Peter Keisler's nomination to the D.C. Circuit.

 

They blocked Mr. Keisler's nomination based on the court's caseload.  Since that time, by the standard the other side established, the court's caseload has declined sharply.

 

We didn't set this standard.  The Democrats did.

 

I recognize that the other side wants to rewrite history.  They try to compare John Robert's second nomination to the circuit, which passed fairly easily, with the current nomination.  What they conveniently forget, in a misleading way, is that they blocked Keisler's nomination after the Roberts' nomination.

 

I recognize the other side hopes we forget that they established these rules and precedents.

I recognize the other side finds those rules inconvenient today.

 

But these are not reasons to ignore the rules and standards they established.

 

There is simply no legitimate reason that the other side should not embrace today the very standard they established in 2006.

 

So, under the standard established by the Democrats in 2006, these nominations aren't needed.

 

According to the current judges themselves, these judges aren't needed.

 

And according to the Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit - a Clinton appointee - the senior judges are contributing the equivalent of an additional 3.25 judges.  As a result, the court already has the equivalent of 11.25 judges - more than the authorized number.

 

So it seems pretty clear that the other side has run out of legitimate arguments in support of these nominations.  Perhaps that is why they are resorting to such cheap tactics.

 

Over the last couple of days, I've heard my colleagues on the other side actually come to the floor and argue that Republicans are opposing this nominee because of her gender.

 

That argument is offensive, but predictable.  We've seen this before.  When the other side runs out of legitimate arguments, their last line of defense is to accuse Republicans of opposing nominees based on gender or race.  It's an old and well-worn card.  And they play it every time.  The fact of the matter is that I've voted for 75 women nominated to the bench by President Obama, as well as a host other nominees of diverse backgrounds.

 

Those are the facts. But the other side isn't concerned with facts.  They are more interested in demagoguery and coarse rhetoric.

 

It's unfortunate.  Those types of personal attacks on members of the Senate are beneath this institution.

 

Now, given that there is no legitimate reason to fill these seats, why is the other side pushing these nominations so aggressively?  Why waste $3 million a year in taxpayer dollars?

 

Unfortunately, we don't have to guess.  We know the reason.

 

We've all heard the President pledge repeatedly, "If Congress won't act, I will."

 

What he means, of course, is that he will rule by Executive Fiat.

 

He won't go to Congress.

 

He won't negotiate.

 

He'll go around Congress.

 

He doesn't need legislators to enact legislation.

 

He'll just issue an Executive Order or issue new Agency rules.

 

Why bother with those pesky Senators and members of the House, when you can make law with the stroke of a pen?

 

In effect, the President is saying:

'If the Senate won't confirm who I want, when I want them, then I'll recess appoint them when the Senate isn't even in session';

 

'If Congress won't pass Cap and Trade fee increases, then I'll go around them and do the same thing through administrative action at the Environmental Protection Agency';

 

'If Congress won't pass gun control legislation, then I'll issue a series of Executive Orders';

 

That is what the President means when he says, "if Congress won't act, I will."

 

But remember, we have a system of checks and balances.

 

Under our system, when the President issues Orders by Executive Fiat, it's the courts that provide a check on his power.

 

It's the courts that decide whether the President is acting unconstitutionally.

 

So, the only way the President's plan works is if he stacks the deck in his favor.

 

The only way the President can successfully bypass Congress is if he stacks the court with ideological allies who will rubberstamp his Executive Orders.

 

There is no big secret here.  The other side hasn't been shy about this strategy.

 

Here is how the Washington Post described the strategy:

 

"Giving liberals a greater say on the D.C. Circuit is important for Obama as he looks for ways to circumvent the Republican-led House and a polarized Senate on a number of policy fronts through executive order and other administrative procedures."

 

Here is how another high profile administration ally put it:

 

"There are few things more vital on the president's second-term agenda.  With legislative priorities gridlocked in Congress, the president's best hope for advancing his agenda is through executive action, and that runs through the D.C. Circuit."

 

So the President is willing to waste $3 million in taxpayer dollars a year, every year, in order to bypass congress and make sure his Executive Orders don't lose in court.

 

Every member of this body should find that troubling.

 

Finally, I want to mention a couple points on the so-called "gang of 14" agreement.

 

First, by the very terms of that agreement, it applied only to those fourteen Senators for that specific Congress, the 109th.

 

Second, even though that agreement - by its own terms - expired at the end of the 109th Congress, just last week one of the members who was actually in the Senate back in 2005, determined that these nominations, in his judgment, constituted "extraordinary circumstances."

 

And third, in 2006, after the so-called "gang of 14" agreement, Senate Democrats created the Keisler Standard.

 

They blocked Peter Keisler based on caseload, after the so-called "gang of 14" agreement.  Peter Keisler waited in committee for over 900 days for a vote that never came.

 

These are the rules the other side established.  And now, when they are on the receiving end of those same rules, they want them changed.

 

Mr. President, we don't intend to play by two sets of rules around here.

 

And that brings me the constant threat from the Majority about changing the rules on the filibuster.

 

I've been in the Minority for a number of years.  I've also had the privilege of serving in the Majority for a number of years.

 

Many of those on other side who are clamoring for a rules change - and almost falling over themselves for it - have never served a single day in the Minority.

 

All I can say is this: be careful what you wish for.

 

I've come to the conclusion that that if the rules are changed, at least we Republicans will get to use them when we're back in the Majority.

 

Republicans had the chance seven or eight years ago to change the rules and we didn't.  And, I'd imagine we wouldn't be the first to change them in the future.

 

Remember, it was the Democrats who first used the filibuster to defeat circuit judges.  It was the Democrats who first used caseloads to defeat circuit judges.

 

So, if the Democrats are bent on changing the rules.  Go ahead.

 

There are a lot more Scalias and Thomases out there we'd love to put on the bench.

 

The nominees we'd nominate and confirm with 51 votes will interpret the Constitution as it was written.  They are not the type who would invent constitutional rights out of thin air.

 

I urge my colleagues to oppose cloture on the Pillard nomination.

 

I yield the floor.

 

-30-

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 Amy Alkon Advice Goddess, Real Astrology, Red Meat cartoon and RCR Crossword every week?) 

* indicates required

View previous campaigns.

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.