Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley

Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee

Opening Remarks, The Violence Against Women Act

Thursday, April 26, 2012

 

Mr. President, I have seen the good that the law has done in providing victims services in Iowa.  We all recognize the harms that flow from domestic violence.  It's both on the victims and on victims' families.

 

I have supported reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act each time that it has come up.  VAWA reauthorization on each of these occasions has been bipartisan.  We have passed consensus bills.  We have not played politics with reauthorizing this law.

 

Until now.  This time, it's different.  The majority turned this issue into a partisan bill.

 

In the Judiciary Committee, the Majority gave no notice that it would inject new matters into the Violence Against Women Act.  When the Committee held a hearing on VAWA, these ideas were not discussed.  Their need has not been demonstrated.  We do not know exactly how they will work.  It was clear that Committee Republicans would not be able to agree to this new added material.  The majority refused during negotiations when we asked that they be removed.

 

Republicans will be offering a substitute amendment to the Leahy bill.  Probably 80 to 85 percent of the substitute we're offering is the same.  This includes whole titles of the bill.

 

We could have again reached a near consensus bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.  But the majority intentionally decided not to change the bill.  They didn't want it to pass with an overwhelming bipartisan majority.

 

Now the media has reported that this was the deliberate strategy of the majority.  A recent Politico article quoted a prominent Democrat senator.

 

The article said that he "wants to fast track the bill to the floor, let the GOP block it, then allow Democrats to accuse Republicans of waging a 'war against women.'"

 

This is the cynical, partisan game-playing that Americans are sick of.  This is especially the case here.

 

Republicans aren't even blocking the bill.  We've called for the bill to be brought up. Instead the majority has taken 6 months to reauthorize this program that expired last October. That says something about the majority's priorities.  For instance, last week we wasted time on political votes.  That seems to be the case in the Senate most of the year.

 

The Senate can pass a bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act by an overwhelming margin.  It seems like the other party doesn't want that to happen.  When they say unfavorable things about Republicans and women, they aren't being forthright.

 

A few weeks ago, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out a fundraising email.

 

The email stated in part, "Now, there are news reports that Republicans in Congress will oppose re-authorizing the Violence Against Women Act.  Enough is enough!  The Republican War on Women must be stopped NOW.... Will you chip in $3 by midnight tonight to hold Republicans accountable for their War on Women?"

 

The majority had a decision between raising money for campaigns or trying to get a VAWA reauthorization bill that would help victims.

 

My fellow Senators:  There is no "War on Women," except the political one.  It's a figment of imagination of Democratic strategists who don't want to remember health care reform, unemployment and high gas prices.  All evidence points to the other side being more interested in raising money.  The media has also reported that the bill is coming up now because the Democrats' desire to gin up a Republican so-called war on women were derailed last week.

 

It should be clear at the outset that Republicans are not blocking, have not blocked, and never threatened to block the Senate's consideration of this bill.  The Judiciary Committee only reported the bill to the Senate in January.  It was March before it filed its Committee report in the Senate.  Democrats immediately came to the floor and urged the bill to come up.  It was up to the Majority Leader to decide when the bill should be debated.  He's finally decided that now is the time.

 

As long as there is a fair process for offering amendments, including our alternative bill, and pointing out the flaws in the majority's bill, this should be a relatively short process.

 

Several other important points should be established.

 

First, I hope a consensus version of VAWA will be reauthorized.  If a consensus bill doesn't pass, no rights of women or anyone else will be affected if a bill does not pass.  Contrary to statements made, there would be no cutbacks of services.  VAWA is an authorization bill only.  It does not provide one dime of money.  That result occurs through the appropriations process.  Appropriators can fund VAWA programs regardless of whether VAWA is reauthorized.  This is exactly what they did last year.

 

We think that new issues have arisen since the last VAWA reauthorization. These issues should be addressed in a consensus reauthorization bill.  That can happen.  We should give guidance to the appropriators.  I support the appropriators continuing to fund VAWA while we're trying to put together a consensus bill.  VAWA is being funded despite the expiration of its previous authorization.  No existing rights of anyone are affected if VAWA is not reauthorized.  No existing rights of anyone are affected if we pass a consensus bill rather than the majority's bill.

 

Second, the majority controls how bills move in the Senate.  As I said, the current VAWA reauthorization expired six months ago.  If VAWA reauthorization was so important, the Democrats could have moved to reauthorize this bill months ago.  They didn't move a bill because no one's substantive rights or funding are stake.  This is true even though the prior reauthorization has expired and a new reauthorization bill has not yet passed.

 

Third, nothing like the majority's bill, where it does not reflect consensus, will become law.  It's a political exercise only.  The other body will not pass it.  If we want to pass a consensus VAWA reauthorization bill, we ought to start with the Republican alternative.

 

Fourth, the majority's bill, as reported out of Committee, was fiscally irresponsible. According to the Congressional Budget Office the majority's bill would have added more than $100 million in new direct spending.  That will increase the deficit by that same amount.  The reason is the immigration provisions that we said were non-starters.  These were some of the provisions that the majority refused to take out.  Those provisions are bad immigration policy.  Nonetheless, I am glad that the majority has now found an offset for this spending.

 

The Republican alternative does more to protect the rights of victims of domestic violence and sex crimes than does the majority bill.  There are many ways in which this is so.

 

Under the substitute amendment, more money goes to victims and less to bureaucrats.  It requires that 10 percent of grantees be audited every year.  This is to ensure that taxpayer funds are actually being used to combat domestic violence.

 

This is an important point.  The Justice Department Inspector General conducted a review of 22 VAWA grantees from 1998 to 2010.  Of these 22 audits, 21 were found to have some form of violation of grant requirements.  The violations range from unauthorized and unallowable expenditures, to sloppy recordkeeping and failure to report in a timely manner.

 

In 2010, one grantee was found by the Inspector General to have questionable costs for 93 percent of the nearly $900,000 they received from the Justice Department.  A 2009 audit found that nearly $500,000 of a $680,000 grant was questionable.

 

The fiscal irregularities continue.

 

An Inspector General audit from just this year found that a VAWA grant recipient in the Virgin Islands engaged in almost $850,000 in questionable spending.  Also a grant to an Indian tribe in Idaho found about $250,000 in improperly spent funds.  This includes $171,000 in salary for an unapproved position.  In Michigan this year, a woman at a VAWA grant recipient used grant funds to purchase goods and services for her personal use.

 

We should make sure that VAWA money goes to the victims.  That hasn't been the case under the current situation.

 

The Republican substitute also prevents grantees from using taxpayer funds to lobby for more taxpayer funds.  That will ensure that more money is available for victim services.  Money that goes to grantees and is squandered helps no women or other victims.

 

In addition, the Republican alternative limits the amount of VAWA funds that can go to administrative fees and salaries to 7.5 percent.  The Leahy bill contains no such limit.  If you want the money to go to victims and not bureaucrats, those overhead expenses should be capped.

 

The Republican substitute amendment requires that 30 percent of STOP grants and grants for arrest policies and protection orders are targeted on sexual assault.  The Leahy-Crapo bill sets aside only 20 percent for sexual assault.

 

The Hutchison-Grassley substitute requires that training materials be approved by an outside accredited organization.  This ensures that those who address domestic violence help victims based on knowledge and not ideology.  That will result in more effective assistance to victims.  The Leahy-Crapo bill contains no such requirement.

 

The Hutchison-Grassley substitute protects due process rights that the majority bill threatens.  For instance, the majority bill said that college campuses must provide for "prompt and equitable investigation and resolution" of charges of violence or stalking.  This would have codified a proposed rule of the Department of Education that would have required imposition of a civil standard or preponderance of the evidence for what is essentially a criminal charge, one that if proved, rightfully should harm reputation.  But if established on a barely more probable than not standard, reputations can be ruined unfairly.

 

The substitute eliminates this provision.  Now, the majority has changed their own bill's language.  I take that as an implicit recognition of the injustice of the original language.

 

The substitute also eliminates a provision that allowed the victim who could not prove such a charge to appeal if she lost, creating a kind of double jeopardy.

 

The majority bill also would give Indian tribal courts the ability to issue protection orders and full civil jurisdiction over non-Indians based on actions allegedly taken in Indian Country. Noting that the Due Process Clause requires that courts exercise jurisdiction over only those persons who have "minimum contacts" with the forum, the Congressional Research Service has raised constitutional questions about this provision.

 

The Administration and its supporters in this body pursue their policy agenda headlong without bothering to consider the Constitution.  The substitute contains provisions that would benefit tribal women and would not run afoul of the Constitution.

 

We have heard a lot of talk about how important the rape kit provisions in the Judiciary Committee bill are.  I strongly support funds to reduce the backlog in testing rape kits.  But that bill provides that only 40 percent of the rape kit money actually be used to reduce the backlog.  The substitute ensures that 70 percent of the funding will go to that purpose.  It requires that 1 percent of Debbie Smith Act funds be used to create a national database to track the rape kit backlog.  It also mandates that 7 percent of the existing Debbie Smith Act funds be used to pay for state and local audits of the backlog.  Debbie Smith, herself, has endorsed these provisions.  The majority bill has no such provisions.  Making sure that money that is claimed to reduce the rape kit backlog actually does so is pro-victim.  True reform in VAWA reauthorization should further that goal.

 

Combating violence against women also means tougher penalties for those who commit these terrible crimes.  The Hutchison-Grassley substitute creates a 10 year mandatory minimum sentence for federal convictions for forcible rape.  The majority bill establishes a 5 year mandatory minimum sentence.  That provision is only there because Republicans offered it and won it in Committee.

 

Child pornography is an actual record of a crime scene of violence against women.  Our alternative establishes a 1 year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of child pornography where the victim depicted is under 12 years of age.

 

I believe that the mandatory minimum for this crime should be higher.  In light of the lenient sentences that many federal judges hand out, there should be a mandatory minimum sentence for all child pornography possession convictions.  But the substitute is a start.

 

This is especially true because the majority bill takes no action against child pornography.  The alternative also imposes a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of aggravated sexual assault.  This crime involves sexual assault through the use of drugs or by otherwise rendering the victim unconscious.  The Leahy bill does nothing about aggravated sexual assault.

 

The status quo appears to be fine for the other side.

 

The Hutchison-Grassley amendment establishes a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of interstate domestic violence that results in the death of the victim.  It increases from 20 to 25 years the statutory maximum sentence for the crime where it results in life threatening bodily injury to, or the permanent disfigurement of, the victim.  It increases from 10 to 15 years the statutory maximum sentence for this crime when serious bodily injury to the victim results.  The Leahy bill contains none of these important protections for domestic violence victims.

 

The substitute grants administrative subpoena power to the U.S. Marshals Service to help them discharge their duty of tracking and apprehending unregistered sex offenders.  The Leahy bill does nothing to help locate and apprehend unregistered sex offenders.

 

And the substitute cracks down on abuse in the award of U visas for illegal aliens and the fraud in the VAWA self-petitioning process.  The majority bill does not include any reform of these benefits, despite actual evidence of fraud in this program.

 

One of the senators who recently came to the floor complained that there had never been controversy in reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.  But in the past, there were not deliberate efforts to create partisan divisions.  We always proceeded in a consensus fashion.

 

Domestic violence is an important issue and a serious problem.  We all recognize that.

 

In the past, we put victims ahead of politics in addressing it.  When the other side says this should not be about politics or partisanship, we agree.

 

It's the majority that has now decided that they want to score political points above assisting victims.  They want to portray a phony war on women because this is an election year.  They're raising campaign money by trying to exploit this issue.  There could have been a consensus bill before us today as in the past.  There is controversy now because that's what the majority seems to want.

 

We look forward to a fair debate on this bill and the chance to offer and vote on our substitute amendment.  That amendment contains much that is in agreement with the Leahy bill.  The substitute also is much closer to what can actually be enacted into law to protect victims of domestic violence.

 

-30-

Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry

"The Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012" Mark-Up

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Thank you Madam Chairwoman.  I appreciate all the work you and Ranking Member Roberts have put into this farm bill so far.  And while we still have a ways to go in the process, we are headed in the right direction.

The farm bill is never an easy process, and it certainly isn't any easier under the current budget conditions.  We are dealing with a broad range of issues that are important to Americans, from conservation to nutrition.  It's important we get a bill done this year.

Many of the members of this committee have come together in supporting what many farmers say is the most important piece of the safety-net, crop insurance.  We have worked for 30 years to make it an effective risk management tool.  And farmers have skin in the game with crop insurance, and that's good policy.

There has been a lot of debate about the programs this committee is going to create to replace direct payments.  I still have reservations about a Title 1 revenue program, and its potential interaction with crop insurance.  But I understand the reality that there is fairly broad support for a revenue program.

I commend the Chair and Ranking Member on providing a high level of defensibility to the Chairwoman's mark.  Accepting my proposal for a $50,000 payment cap on the commodity program is crucial to ensure that we all can go to the Senate floor and defend this bill.

And I am pleased we are finally closing the loopholes in actively engaged.  My amendment, which was accepted into the modified mark, will help ensure farm payments go to farmers, not doctors, lawyers, and celebrities.

There is no justification for allowing nonfarmers to receive farm payments.  And that is particularly true in this current budget climate.  The payment limits reform in the Chairwoman's mark is something this committee should be very proud of.

I'm not going to ask for a vote today on my packer ban amendment, but I still want to say few things about it.

For too long, large meat packers have had an unfair advantage in the market place.  At some point, Congress has to address the fact that independent livestock producers are entitled to a level playing field.

One big step Congress could take to solve the competition problems is banning packer ownership of livestock.  As one packer executive once told me, packers own livestock so that when prices are high, they kill their own livestock, when prices are low, they buy from the farmer.

Banning packer ownership of livestock will help us ensure our livestock producers are able to compete in the marketplace.

Thank you Madam Chairwoman, and I look forward to moving an effective and defensible farm bill out of this committee.

-30-

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Senator Chuck Grassley issued the comment below about his vote for the 21st Century Postal Service Act, S.1789.

"This legislation isn't perfect, but it takes steps to correct Postal Service problems that could result in mail delivery coming to a halt entirely, if not addressed.  Unless we help the Postal Service cut costs, the borrowing authority of the Postal Service will run out in the fall, and it will be unable to make payroll.  By acting now, and with this legislation, it's likely that fewer post offices will have to be closed and there will be more accountability regarding which offices are closed.   I voted for the bill, even if imperfect, to address a looming crisis now and avoid either a disruption in mail service or a taxpayer bailout, both of which would hurt the economy and take money out of the pockets of hard-working Americans."

Grassley Continues Review of Minnesota Medicaid, Calls for Consistent Reporting

of Program Earnings at Medicaid Managed Care Plans Nationwide

 

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today said the state of Minnesota's payment problems to managed care plans serving Medicaid beneficiaries, combined with inconsistent federal oversight of all state rate-setting in this area, call for consistent reporting standards across the board.

 

"Purchasers, in this case states, using transparent information about how their dollars are being spent, are best suited to make decisions about the value provided from managed care companies," Grassley said.  "We have legitimate disagreements about many issues in Congress, but on this issue, there can be no disagreement.  We must have a better understanding of where $7 trillion will be spent by the Medicaid program over the next 10 years."

 

Grassley's comments came in testimony before a joint hearing of two subcommittees of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.  The hearing covered several aspects of payment concerns in Medicaid, including payments to managed care plans in Minnesota.  State officials in Minnesota accepted $30 million for the state from one of Minnesota's contractor managed care plans and until this week, termed the payment a "donation" that did not require sharing with the federal government, which would be necessary under the state-federal Medicaid program.  This week, state officials agreed to give the federal government its share of the $30 million payment.

 

Information from the four managed care plans serving Medicaid beneficiaries in Minnesota showed that each plan listed excess revenues from Medicaid while showing losses on the state-only plans.  "This suggests the state might have overpaid managed care plans under Medicaid while underpaying the same plans to provide care for individuals covered with state-only dollars," Grassley said.

 

Grassley said the federal government should make sure states are required to know the medical-loss ratio of every managed care company they contract with specific to the Medicaid beneficiaries they serve.

 

That medical-loss ratio should be clearly defined by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and consistently implemented across every state that uses managed care, and the medical-loss ratio should be based on independently audited, verifiable encounter data and expense data that make clear what administrative expenses are related to the provision of Medicaid benefits and what administrative expenses are not, Grassley said.

 

Also today, Grassley wrote to the Minnesota legislative auditor, asking for all correspondence between the auditor and the state government, including state legislators, on the UCare payment.  The state auditor has questioned the candor of state officials who apparently withheld from him - as well as from Grassley - a letter from the federal government questioning the UCare payment.

 

Grassley's testimony before the House hearing is available here.  Grassley's letter to the Minnesota legislative auditor is available here.

 

 

-30-

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley has earned a score of 100 percent in an interim report monitoring key small business votes during this session of the United States Senate.

The report was issued by the National Federation of Independent Business, the largest advocacy organization representing small and independent businesses in the United States.  Click here to see the report.

Grassley said that jobs and the economy are the number one issue nationwide, small businesses create two-thirds of all new jobs, and Congress should act to improve the landscape for job creation.

"The priorities need to be giving employers and small business owners greater certainty with taxes and regulations.  The threat of higher taxes and overly burdensome regulations inhibit economic activity and job creation.  There also ought to be a much more active effort by the administration to expand international trade.  Manufacturers, farmers and the services industry need new markets for products created by U.S. workers, and the rest of the world is moving ahead and building trading relationships without us.  Affordable energy is a major economic issue, too, and much more needs to be done to increase domestic production of traditional and alternative energy sources, both for lower energy costs and job creation," Grassley said.

-30-
Tuesday, April 24, 2012

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley is asking the White House Counsel for details regarding the White House's quick weekend internal investigation about any personnel involvement in the Colombia prostitution scandal.

On Friday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told the press corps that he saw no need for an internal review of any White House involvement.  At today's briefing, Carney said that an internal review was performed over the weekend and that no indication of any misconduct by the White House advance staff was found.  He failed to provide any details of the investigation or explain the methodology that was used.

Grassley said that questions should be answered publicly in order for the White House to set the record straight that the internal investigation was complete and thorough.  Grassley pointed out that President Obama had said that his administration will be the most transparent ever, but has not been forthcoming in several oversight matters that the executive branch is engaged in.

Here's a copy of the text of Grassley's letter.  A signed copy can be found here.

April 23, 2012

Via Electronic Transmission

Kathryn H. Ruemmler

Assistant to the President and White House Counsel

Executive Office of the President

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500

 

Dear Ms. Ruemmler:

 

I read the comments today by White House press secretary Jay Carney regarding the ongoing investigation into the recent events surrounding the recall of 11 Secret Service agents from Colombia.  On Friday evening I questioned Director Sullivan of the Secret Service and Acting Inspector General Edwards at the Department of Homeland Security about whether any members of the White House Communications Agency and/or White House Office of Advance ("White House advance staff") had overnight guests while in Colombia.[1] At this time I am awaiting Director Sullivan's full response to all my questions.

Today, it was announced by Mr. Carney that over the weekend the White House Counsel's Office reviewed the matter and concluded that there was "no indication of any misconduct" by White House advance staff.[2] This came after Mr. Carney was questioned on Friday about the potential need for an internal review of the White House advance staff.   Mr. Carney answered the question by assuring the White House press that, "I have no reason, as I said yesterday, to believe that there is a need for that."[3] Further, this afternoon, Mr. Carney refused to provide details of the review conducted by the White House Counsel's Office.[4]

At the beginning of his administration President Obama released a memorandum entitled "Transparency and Open Government" and stated, "My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government."[5] However, declining to provide details of the internal review conducted over the weekend, contradicts that goal set by President Obama.  Therefore, to set the record straight about what actions were taken by the White House Counsel's Office, please provide answers to the following questions:

1)      Provide a detailed overview on what led the White House Counsel's Office to conduct the weekend review?  Was there any thought given to having an independent review?  If not, please explain why not.

 

2)      How many individuals in the White House Counsel's Office were involved in this weekend review?

 

3)      How many total hours were spent on the weekend review?

 

4)      Was the review coordinated in any way with the Department of Defense to the extent that it covered military employees of the White House Communications Agency (WHCA)?

 

5)      Were civilian employees of WHCA also examined?

 

6)      How many White House advance staff were in Colombia prior to the President's arrival?

 

7)      How long before the President's arrival where the White House advance staff present?

 

8)      How many additional White House staff arrived with the President?

 

9)      Did the White House Counsel's Office review hotel records regarding overnight guests for all White House advance staff as well as additional White House Staff who arrived with the President ("other White House staff") in Cartegena, Colombia?  If so, for what time frame were records reviewed?

 

10)  How many White House advance staff had overnight guests?

 

11)  How many other White House staff had overnight guests?

 

12)  If there were overnight guests, did any White House advance staff or other White House staff with overnight guests pay additional room charges as a result?

 

13)  Did the White House Counsel's Office interview all White House advance staff and other White House staff?  If not, why not?

 

14)  Please provide a detailed overview of all the steps the White House Counsel's Office took to investigate this matter.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this request.  I would appreciate your response by April 26, 2012, as it only took a weekend to conduct this review, it should not take long to respond to these questions.  Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact my staff at (202) 224-5225.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Charles E. Grassley

Ranking Member

Sen. Chuck Grassley has been investigating the state of Minnesota's receipt of a $30 million payment from a Medicaid contractor, a health care plan called UCare.  State officials repeatedly characterized the payment as a "donation" and according to internal emails, took pains to avoid repaying any of the $30 million to the federal taxpayers.  Since Medicaid is a state-federal program, any refund must be divided between the state and federal governments.  Today, state officials notified the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that the state of Minnesota has agreed to return the federal government's share of the $30 million payment.  A U.S. House hearing on Wednesday will explore the situation, and Grassley is scheduled to testify.  Grassley made the following comment on today's development.

"Key state officials portrayed the UCare payment as a bona fide donation unrelated to Medicaid payments and schemed to keep 100 percent of the money.  These officials failed to disclose to my office all correspondence with CMS, including CMS' concern about the donation characterization in a July 2011 letter.  State officials have suggested that CMS knew about the payment and did nothing.  Now, the state officials are giving back the federal share of the $30 million payment, even though they continue to say the payment was a donation.  If the payment was a donation, why return the money?  This isn't the end of my investigation.  Minnesota needs to answer for its actions on the UCare payment.  And the state clearly has structural problems with its Medicaid payments that need examination.  If a state is gaming the federal government to get more out of Medicaid, the state is gaming taxpayers nationwide and ultimately hurting the people who need Medicaid.  Congress needs to make sure this situation isn't duplicated elsewhere."


Monday, April 23, 2012

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley and Sen. John Thune are asking the Energy Department to explain the selection of a luxury automaker - now described as "troubled" -- for a $529 million federal loan for advanced technology vehicles manufacturing.  The federal government made part of the loan to the Fisker Automotive Corporation, then froze the remaining portion, raising questions about whether the company was vetted properly in the first place.

"The government is responsible for minimizing risk to taxpayers," Grassley said.  "It's important to know what went into the Energy Department's decision to fund the production of expensive luxury vehicles.   The riskiness of loans to companies that may or may not be able to pay them back deserves scrutiny.  The taxpayers can't and shouldn't have to subsidize these decisions."

"There seems to be a troubling pattern developing at the Department of Energy when it comes to providing taxpayer-backed government loans to private companies," Thune said. "Taxpayers have a right to know why their hard-earned money was used in part to back the production of luxury automobiles overseas, especially in a manner that might not have undergone proper review. I hope Secretary Chu will provide Congress with answers about why this loan was granted and to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not at risk."

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 required the creation of a direct loan program from the federal government to car companies through the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive program.   Fisker's two planned vehicles would sell for more than $100,000 and about $50,000.  The high retail prices seem to indicate the vehicles would be out of reach for most Americans, thereby seeming like a questionable choice of investment for a federal program.  Also, the senators questioned whether the company's vehicle production in Finland diminishes the goal of developing advanced vehicle technology to create jobs in the United States.

The text of the Grassley-Thune letter to Energy Secretary Stephen Chu is available here.

-30-

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is questioning the United States Secret Service about possible involvement of staff from the White House Communications Agency, and the White House Office of Advance in the Colombian prostitution scandal given the close working relationship among members of advance teams.

 

Grassley's letter to Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan and Acting Inspector General Charles Edwards asks if the Secret Service, in the course of its investigation, is also looking into the possibility that staff from the White House Communications Agency and White House Office of Advance may also be involved in the scandal that has plagued the agency over the last week.  Grassley's questions come following a Senate Judiciary Committee staff briefing provided by the Secret Service.  The Senate Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over the Secret Service.

 

A copy of the text of the letter to the Secret Service Director and the acting Inspector General is below.  A signed copy of the letter can be found here.

 

April 20, 2012

 

Via Electronic Transmission

 

The Honorable Mark J. Sullivan                                Mr. Charles K. Edwards

Director                       Acting Inspector General

U.S. Secret Service                        U.S. Department of Homeland Security

950 H Street, NW                             245 Murray Drive, SW Bldg. 410

Washington, D.C. 20223                          Washington, D.C. 20528

 

Dear Director Sullivan and Acting Inspector General Edwards:

 

I write today regarding the ongoing investigation by the U.S. Secret Service Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (OIG) regarding the recent events surrounding the recall from Colombia of 11 agents and officers after allegations of misconduct arose.  I appreciate the quick action taken by the Secret Service to immediately address these serious allegations by removing the agents and officers from the field, starting an investigation with OPR and the OIG, and by taking swift action to remove individuals involved from federal service.  While these actions indicate the Secret Service is taking these allegations seriously, more work remains to investigate and uncover what occurred, hold those responsible accountable, and to put in place new policies and procedures to prevent future misconduct.

 

I appreciate the briefing provided to my staff on the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Committee) today by representatives of both the Secret Service and OIG.  The briefing included a number of useful details about the investigation thus far and about ongoing plans.  In addition to matters discussed at the briefing, I have a number of additional questions that need to be addressed in writing.  Accordingly, I ask that you provide responses to the following questions.

 

(1)   In addition to the rooms held by Secret Service agents and officers at Hotel Caribe, were there agents or officers staying at other hotels in Cartagena, Colombia?  If so, were records from those other hotels pulled?  If not, will those records be pulled?

 

(2)   It has been reported that in addition to the 11 agents and officers of the Secret Service there were members of the Department of Defense (DOD) involved as well.  It has also been reported that those individuals are currently being reviewed by DOD.  It is my understanding that ordinarily the Secret Service advance team works closely with the White House Communications Agency (WHCA) which is made up of military and civilians.  Further, it is also my understanding that the Secret Service advance teams work closely with the White House Office of Advance and that sometimes the Secret Service may help reserve rooms for representatives from these offices.

 

a.       Did the Secret Service reserve rooms at the Hotel Caribe or other hotels in Cartagena, Colombia for representatives of the WHCA or the White House Advance Team?  If so, have records for overnight guests for those entities been pulled as part of the investigation conducted by OPR or OIG?  If not, why not?

 

b.      In the event neither OPR nor OIG are pulling the records of WHCA or White House Advance Team staffers, who would be reviewing these hotel records to ensure that sensitive information was not compromised by overnight guests from these entities?

 

c.       Were there any rooms shared by Secret Service, WHCA, and the White House Office of Advance for operational or support matters?  If so, were logs for those rooms checked to see if overnight guests were registered?

 

(3)   Please provide an official copy of all written policies and procedures that agents and officers are provided and expected to adhere to while on foreign travel.  This request should include all relevant regulations, rules, procedures, and applicable policy statements that inform agents and officers of restrictions and limitations on their conduct while on official business.

 

Thank you for your prompt attention to this request.  The Committee has jurisdiction over the Secret Service and given the fluid nature of the ongoing investigation I would appreciate your response as soon as possible to address these important questions.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Charles E. Grassley

Ranking Member

Statement of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

Senate Budget Committee

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Mr. Chairman - I'd like to thank you, Chairman Conrad, for calling for a markup of the Democratic budget for fiscal year 2013.

Setting a budget for the country is one of the most basic responsibilities and fundamental functions of the Congress.  The Budget Act requires Congress to adopt a budget by April 15.  It's a requirement that this Senate Majority has ignored time and again.

In fact, the Senate hasn't adopted a budget since April 29, 2009.  Nearly three years have passed since the Senate last adopted a budget.  During that time, more than $4 trillion has been added to our nation's debt.  We're in the midst of the fourth consecutive year of spending more than $1 trillion more than we take in.

During this time, the Senate Democrat Majority has failed to propose a budget blueprint that would lay out their priorities for deficit reduction, economic growth or a path to balance.  They've said proposing a budget is "foolish."  It's no wonder our nation is driving toward a fiscal cliff of deficits and debt.  There is no one in the Democrat leadership willing to take hold of the wheel.

While I'm glad we're meeting to consider a budget resolution put forward by the Chairman, I'm also puzzled by today's exercise.  First, the Chairman has said repeatedly that we already have a budget in place for this year and next.  The Chairman and Majority Leader Reid feel that the Budget Control Act was a budget resolution.

Then why are we here?  Why do we need to mark up a budget resolution if the BCA was truly a budget resolution?  The answer is clear.  The Budget Control Act is not a budget.  President Obama clearly agreed when he proposed his budget.  House Republicans and Democrats alike agreed when they voted on seven budget resolutions authored by both Republicans and Democrats.  The Democratic Leadership in the Senate stands alone in their belief that the BCA was a budget resolution.

Is it because they have no ideas on how to balance the budget, contain out of control spending, grow the economy or create jobs?  I don't know.  I'm also confounded by what I've read in the press that this markup will end today with no consideration of amendments and without a vote on the Chairman's budget resolution.  A "markup" entails debate, amending and actually marking up the resolution.  But today is nothing more than speeches, with a suggestion that maybe we'll meet again sometime near the end of the year to offer amendments and vote on a resolution.

The Chairman was quoted yesterday as saying, "This is the wrong time to vote in committee; this is the wrong time to vote on the floor.  I don't think we will be prepared to vote before the election."  Do we need to add another $1 trillion to the national debt before it's time to vote on a budget resolution? Or $2 trillion?  If now is not the time to lead, propose bold solutions and take action, when is?

The American people are going to pay a heavy price for the unwillingness and inability of the Senate Democratic leadership to lead and offer solutions.  I understand the predicament the beloved Chairman is in and I'm sorry for the way he's being treated by his leadership.  He deserves better.  Despite what he knows should be done, and wants to do, his party leadership won't let him act.

Once again, the Senate Democratic leadership and President Obama are content with being absent from the discussion.  There are no solutions.  There is no leadership.  There is only failure and punting until after the next election.

We have a moral obligation to offer serious solutions for today and for future generations.  This exercise would be humorous if the consequences of inaction weren't so serious.  I yield.

Pages