Tuesday, June 19, 2012

WASHINGTON -- Senators Chuck Grassley and Patrick Leahy have asked Chief Justice John Roberts to consider live television coverage of proceedings when the Supreme Court delivers its ruling on the 2010 health care law, which is expected this month.

Leahy and Grassley, who serve as Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made their request in a letter sent today.  Both senators are longtime advocates of allowing broadcast coverage of federal court proceedings, and they support allowing camera coverage of Supreme Court proceedings.

Click here to see a signed copy of the letter.  Below is the text of their letter.

June 18, 2012

The Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr.

Chief Justice of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States

Washington, DC 20543

Dear Chief Justice Roberts:

We write to urge the Supreme Court to consider live television coverage of its proceedings when the Court delivers its ruling in the case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  It is our understanding that the court will likely issue the ruling sometime over the next couple of weeks.

We believe that the issues in the case are as important and consequential as any in recent Court history.  In conducting its review, the Court directed parties to address the constitutionality of the act, the severability of the individual mandate, and the extent of the spending power of Congress.  Given the fundamental constitutional questions raised and the effects the decision will have, the Court should be aware of the great interest Americans have in the outcome of this case.

Broadcasting the Court's ruling would permit millions of citizens the opportunity to view what so few can from the court's small and limited public gallery.  Modern technology makes televising the proceedings simple and unobtrusive.  A minimal number of cameras in the courtroom, which could be placed to be barely noticeable to all participants, would provide live coverage of what may be one of the most historic rulings of our time.  We believe permitting the nation to watch the proceedings would bolster public confidence in our judicial system and in the decisions of the Court.

Sincerely,

Patrick Leahy, Chairman             

Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member

Friday, June 15, 2012

Grassley, Colleagues Seek Answers on Spending, Other Practices

of Government-sponsored Travel Promotion Agency

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa is among six senators who are asking for information about troubling spending and practices by a government-sponsored travel promotion agency called Brand USA.   Besides Grassley, signers of a letter to the Commerce Department secretary were Sens. Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), and Mike Lee (Utah).

Brand USA is a government-sponsored travel promotion agency, created to boost tourism in the United States.  It was formerly known as the Corporation for Travel Promotion, which was created by Congress in 2009.

In order to pay for Brand USA's funding, Congress levied a $10 tax on foreign tourists.  To date, $25 million incurred from the tourist tax has been distributed to Brand USA.  Brand USA has come under scrutiny for holding lavish parties in London, subsidizing travel corporations' advertising budgets, a misguided ad campaign, and struggling to meet federal matching funds requirements.

The full text of the letter follows.

June 14, 2012

Via Electronic Transmission

The Honorable John Edgar Bryson                                                    
Secretary
U.S. Department of Commerce                                              
Herbert Clark Hoover Building                                 
1401 Constitution Avenue, NW                                
Washington, DC 20230

Dear Secretary Bryson:

Recent media reports raised serious concerns about the direction and management of the promotional campaign directed by the Corporation for Travel Promotion (Brand USA/Corporation), a public/private entity formed to promote U.S. tourism abroad.  We are concerned about reports of potentially significant waste and misuse of funds at the Corporation.

Congress passed the Travel Promotion Act (Act) in 2010 to "increase international travel to the United States ... thereby creating jobs and stimulating economic growth."  The Act sunsets in 2014 when funding for the Corporation would be provided by industry contribution only.  The Corporation is responsible for spending hundreds of millions of dollars to promote America abroad and must ensure that the highest standards of performance and accountability are met.  Unfortunately, recent reports indicate that the Corporation is allegedly not meeting those high standards.

It is our understanding that in November 2011, the entire Corporation Board traveled to London to attend the World Travel Market, a trade show for the travel industry.  While there, the Board held a meeting in London to discuss marketing strategies and efforts to lobby Congress. Despite the fact that board members traveled all the way to London for the meeting, it was a brief event, beginning at 1:30pm UK time and ended at 3:30pm UK Time.

A related video (https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=2210089064112) shows members of the Corporation Board enjoying themselves at a Brand USA Launch party held at the British National Maritime Museum in Greenwich, London. The video, also available on the Brand USA website, shows it was a high-end affair held at the Maritime Museum covered in light art projections displaying the Brand USA logo.  Brand USA also provided guests, over 500 VIPs, sushi, champagne and petit fours.

We want to ensure that the Corporation's administrative and financial matters are fully transparent.  It is our understanding that the Corporation awarded a media consultant, JWT of New York City, an initial ninety day contract.  According to a recent GAO report,[1] the Corporation negotiated a subsequent Master Service Agreement with JWT without first going through the bidding process.  Moreover, the Corporation's first substantive annual report, due out on May 15^th, has yet to be released to the public even though the Department of Commerce (Department) has been reviewing it for weeks.  For a company spending tens of millions in federal funds it is vital that such this information be made available to the public and Congress immediately.

In an effort to gain a clearer understanding of the operations of the corporation and its oversight by the Department, please provide the following:

1) All documents associated with the production of the Launch Party held at the British National Maritime Museum, including all costs associated with the event, menus, transportation, swag given to guests, invoices from contractors, and museum rental charges.

2) A comprehensive list of all Brand USA employees and Board members who attended the World Travel Market and Brand Launch Party at the British National Maritime Museum in London.

3) The salaries and benefits of the top five most highly compensated individuals employed by the Corporation.

4) An itemized listing of all expenses incurred by the Corporation since its founding current through the date of this letter.

5) An itemization of all cash and in-kind contributions made to the corporation current to the date of this letter.

6) Copies of all in-kind advertising contributions made to the corporation including the claimed value for the contribution by the Corporation.

7) In correspondence  dated December 20, 2011, March 2, 2012, March 15, 2012, and May 1, 2012 from Mr. Scott Quehl  at the Department of Commerce to Ms. Lauren Carrico or Ms. Wanda Fischer at the Department of Treasury, Mr. Quehl states, "the Department of Commerce has reviewed the CTP's request for payment of ... and associated documentation received ..."  Please provide copies of all documentation referenced in those letters.

8) On March 2, 2012 Ms. Laura Carrico at the Department of Treasury received a letter from Mr. Scott Quehl at the Department of Commerce stating "the Department of Commerce has reviewed the CTP's request for payment of $15,718,112 and associated documentation received February 1.   Our review concludes that the CTP has received qualifying amounts from nonfederal sources totaling $2,476,884. The Department of Commerce therefore recommends the transfer of $4,953,768 to the CTP. " Please provide all documentation associated with the review of this request for payment and an explanation of the rationale for the reduction in authorized payments.

9) The number of webpage hits to www.discoveramerica.com identified by country of origin.

10) A detailed and itemized breakdown of all the costs associated with the contract with JWT, including costs associated with retaining talent, the production of videos, and other multimedia items.

11) Copies of print advertisement's placed overseas by Brand USA and a listing of the publications in which the advertisements were placed or location of outdoor advertising placement.

12) For items 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10 please provide a short justification for the expenses and detail what results you expect from the expenditures and what metrics you will use to measure the success of the expenditures.

Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to these matters. I would appreciate receiving a response by no later than June 27, 2012. Whenever possible please provide documents and materials electronically.  Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact our offices.

Sincerely,

Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, made the comment below about invoking the Thurmond-Leahy rule on circuit court judicial nominees.  Previously, Chairman Patrick Leahy expressed respect for the informal rule.  During an executive business meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 12, 2008, Chairman Leahy said, "... I want to say, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Delaware.  He knows that we are now way past the time of the Thurmond Rule, named after Senator Thurmond when he was in the minority, and I'm trying to respect that. ..."

Senator Grassley's comment:

"There's no need to make an exception to the Thurmond-Leahy rule based on the number of circuit court judges confirmed during this presidential election year, especially compared to the last couple of presidential election years.

"The Senate considered district court nominees into the fall during the last two presidential election years but not circuit court nominees, as was said today.  In fact, during both 2004 and 2008, the last circuit court nomination considered was in June.  No one has suggested that no more district court nominations will be considered this year this year.

"Since 2008, the Senate has confirmed 149 circuit and district court judges and two Supreme Court Justices nominated by President Obama, and his term is not over.  During President Bush's entire second term, which was the last time two  Supreme Court Justices were confirmed, the Senate confirmed a total of only 119 circuit and district court judges.

"This year, the Senate has confirmed five circuit court nominees.  Likewise, in 2004, the Senate confirmed five circuit court nominees.  Yet, in 2008, the Senate confirmed only four circuit court nominees.  The Senate did not confirm additional circuit nominees in 2008 even though, for example, the Fourth Circuit had a vacancy rate that was more than 25 percent, and four qualified nominees were pending in the Senate for that circuit alone.

"In addition, so far this year, the Senate has confirmed 22 district court nominees.  That's three times as many nominees as the Senate had confirmed by this date in 2008, when it had confirmed only seven district court nominees.  Similarly, by this date in 2004, the Senate had confirmed only nine district court nominees.

"Based on this record, it's disingenuous to suggest that Senate Republicans have not been fair in the consideration and confirmation of judicial nominees.  And, it is entirely appropriate and consistent with past practice to invoke the Thurmond-Leahy rule at this point."

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today urged Attorney General Eric Holder to produce any evidence to back a serious claim about a prior attorney general's having knowledge about a gun-walking operation called Wide Receiver and to apologize if no such evidence is available.  Holder made the claim about prior attorney general Michael Mukasey at a Judiciary Committee hearing this week.  If any such evidence exists to back Holder's claim, it has yet to come to light after months of scrutiny, and the charge should not stand without any evidence to back it up.

Grassley's letter to Holder is available here.  Supporting documents are available here.

Grassley, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, issued the following statement on the Holder charge.

Grassley Statement

On Fast and Furious, I was extremely disappointed to hear Attorney General Holder try to deflect criticism of himself and his Department by pointing the finger at his predecessor.

Specifically, he said to Senator Cornyn: "An Attorney General who I suppose you would hold in higher regard was briefed on these kinds of tactics in an operation called Wide Receiver and did nothing to stop them - nothing.  Three hundred guns, at least, walked in that instance."

That's a serious charge. The problem is: we have absolutely zero evidence that it's true.

Nothing in the documents produced by the Justice Department and no information provided by any whistleblowers that I know of suggests that Attorney General Mukasey was ever briefed about Wide Receiver.  Period.

If Attorney General Holder made that kind of a charge about Attorney General Mukasey to this Committee without any evidence to back it up, that would be an outrage.

So, I'm sending a letter this morning to Attorney General Holder asking him to provide any evidence he has to support his allegation against Attorney General Mukasey.

And, I'm asking for a response before the hearing record is closed next week.

If he can't produce evidence that Attorney General Mukasey was briefed on Wide Receiver, then he owes Mr. Mukasey an apology.

It appears to be an effort to shift blame away from himself, but I'm willing to hear his explanation.

The highest-ranking Justice Department official I'm aware of who knew about gun-walking in Wide Receiver is not Attorney General Mukasey.  It is Lanny Breuer.

Breuer did nothing to stop ATF from walking guns after learning about it in April 2010. That is why I called on him to resign. The evidence shows he and his deputies did not focus on making sure ATF never did it again. Instead, emails indicate they discussed how to help ATF be prepared to minimize the potential embarrassment over gunwalking in the press.

If Attorney General Holder wants to criticize senior Department officials who knew about gunwalking and did nothing, he should start with the current head of his own Criminal Division, Lanny Breuer.

-30-