WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley today received a USA Wind Jobs Champion Award from the American Wind Energy Association for "his determined support and diligent work in helping to create and sustain U.S. jobs in the wind energy industry and its manufacturing supply chain."

John Ragan of TPI Composites and Denise Bode of the American Wind Energy Association presented a commemorative plaque and wind turbine bolt as part of the award this afternoon.  TPI Composites operates a 316,000 square foot wind turbine blade facility in Newton.

Senator Grassley authored the legislation that established the tax credit for wind energy in 1992 as a way to provide a level playing field for this renewable resource against coal-fired and nuclear energy and to help grow an innovative energy industry.

Today, Grassley is the author of bipartisan legislation to extend the tax credit for two years after it expires at the end of the year.  If the tax credit lapses, an estimated 37,000 jobs could be lost across the country.

"Tax relief has proven successful in developing wind energy, and it ought to be continued with the degree of certainty needed for continued investment and development of this clean energy alternative," Grassley said.  "Wind is free, inexhaustible, and environmentally friendly.  Conventional energy sources, including oil, gas and nuclear, enjoy countless tax incentives and many of them are permanent law."

Nationwide, the wind energy industry supports 75,000 jobs and drives as much as $20 billion in private investment.  During the last five years, 35 percent of all new electric generation in the United States was wind.  There are nearly 400 wind-related manufacturing facilities today, compared with just 30 in 2004.

In Iowa, the wind energy industry employs 5,000 full-time workers, and there are major wind manufacturing facilities in Newton, West Branch, Cedar Rapids and Fort Madison.

Iowa generates 20 percent of its electricity needs from wind.  Wind energy powers the equivalent of a million homes.  There are nearly 3,000 utility-scale turbines in Iowa, and they generate lease payments to landowners worth $12.5 million every year.

Senator Chuck Grassley will continue to work to enact legislation requiring the agents of the $400 million political intelligence industry to disclose their interests, as lobbyists do. These operatives collect information from Congress and federal agencies and sell the information to Wall Street firms. This week, the majority leader of the United States Senate dealt a blow for good government and transparency by using his power to shut out Senator Grassley's effort.  It was a victory for Wall Street and those who prefer the secrecy of the status quo.  It was a defeat for the American people and the overwhelming majority in Congress that supports the legislation.

Click here for the audio clip.

Here is the text of the address:

This week, the majority leader of the United States Senate used his power to shut out my effort to require political intelligence agents to register, as lobbyists do.

At a growing rate, political intelligence professionals collect information from Congress and federal agencies and sell the information to Wall Street firms.  The firms use the information to buy and sell stocks and presumably profit.  My proposal is focused on the people who make their living gathering information and selling it to Wall Street.  It specifically exempts reporters from any disclosure requirements.

A Washington Post news story this week said the political intelligence amendment, combined an enhanced prosecution amendment by Senator Leahy, which also was dropped, "transformed the (insider trading) bill into the most sweeping ethics legislation Congress had considered since 2007."

The decision to scrap a requirement for registration by political intelligence professionals is a blow for good government and transparency.  It's a victory for Wall Street and a defeat for the American people.  It's a victory for those who prefer the secrecy of the status quo.

 

The reform had the support of 60 senators in a vote earlier this year, and the original House bill has 286 co-sponsors.  So, even though political intelligence registration got left out of this bill, I'll keep looking for ways to bring it back.

 

-30-

 

Please note:  Several news accounts are describing Sen. Grassley's vote as against the anti-congressional insider trading bill, the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge, or STOCK Act.  Here's an explanation of the vote:

 

Sen. Grassley voted against cloture on the STOCK Act, not against the STOCK Act itself.  There was a unanimous consent agreement that if cloture were invoked, the bill would be adopted.  That obviated the need for a roll call vote on final passage of the STOCK Act.  Sen. Grassley supports the STOCK Act.  He voted against cloture to proceed to the STOCK Act because the Senate leadership stripped out his political intelligence registration provision, and he wanted the opportunity to offer his amendment.

 

 

Also, here's Sen. Grassley's statement on the Senate floor from earlier today.

 

Statement by Senator Charles E. Grassley

Consideration of the Anti-congressional Insider Trading Bill,

Minus Political Intelligence Registration

March 22, 2012

 

Bpartisanship is alive and well here in Washington, DC.

 

On Tuesday the Republican Majority Leader of the House and the Democrat Majority Leader of the Senate worked together to thwart the will of 60 Senators and 286 Members of Congress.

 

This is not the kind of bipartisan cooperation we need.

 

I won't ascribe motives to anyone in this body, but I know that today's actions only serve the desires of obscure and powerful Wall Street interests and undercut the will of an overwhelming majority of Congress.

 

They took a common sense provision supported by a majority of both Houses of Congress ? and they simply erased it.

 

The provision simply says that if you seek information from Congress or the executive branch to trade stocks - Congress, the executive branch, and the American people ought to know who you are.

 

But, the leadership of both parties went behind closed doors, and they made that provision magically disappear.

 

What they did was a truly amazing procedural sleight of hand.

 

First, the Majority Leader in the House said that the definition of political intelligence was so "vague" that he couldn't possibly figure out how to define it.

 

That's the excuse given for stripping any regulation of it from the STOCK Act.  To me, that came as something of a surprise.

 

I would like to read Section 7 part b of the version of the STOCK Act that was rammed through the House of Representatives:

 

"Definition - for purposes of this section, the term 'political intelligence' shall mean information that is derived by a person from direct communications with an executive branch employee, a Member of Congress, or an employee of Congress; and provided in exchange for financial compensation to a client who intends, and who is known to intend, to use the information to inform investment decisions."

 

That seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it?

 

Of course, now that definition will only be applied to a study, not to legislation with any real teeth.

 

If you think that's bad, this is what happened to the STOCK Act in the Senate.

 

By now I think just about everybody in this body knows how passionately I feel about this amendment.

 

I have spoken repeatedly about the dangers of unregulated political espionage.

 

I have reached out to leadership to express my concern and written a letter with Senator Leahy on the importance of our STOCK Act provisions.

 

I said that I was willing to negotiate on the language of my provision.

 

What was the response?

 

Nothing.

 

I wasn't even given the courtesy of being notified before cloture was filed.

 

It was an ambush, plain and simple.

 

Just like those people who traffic in political espionage, this process has been cloaked in secrecy.

 

Now the claim is made that the Senate was forced to take up the House bill, because an unnamed Republican was threatening to object to a conference.

 

However, no Republican, or any Senator for that matter, has publically owned-up to trying to stop this bill from going to conference.

 

But, even if we accept this fact, there are still more questions.

 

Supposedly, we are taking up the House bill because the Senate does not have time to take two more cloture votes.

 

Throughout this Congress, we have spent weeks in nothing but quorum calls but suddenly, we have run out of time.

 

Of course, in less than ten days, we will be leaving Washington, D.C., for a two week recess.

 

Here is an idea.  With congressional approval ratings in the near single digits why can't we spend part of that recess getting the STOCK Act right.

 

The Washington Post said that my amendment, combined with Senator Leahy's political corruption amendment, "transformed the (STOCK Act) into the most sweeping ethics legislation Congress had considered since 2007."

 

Isn't that worth taking two extra votes?

 

I think so, but apparently others disagree.

At the end of the day, here is what will happen.

 

There are over 2,000 people working in the completely unregulated world of political intelligence, or political espionage as I call it.  Right now, they are celebrating.

 

They are celebrating because they know that its business as usual.

 

They can continue to pass along tips they get from Members of Congress, Senators and staff and no one will be the wiser.

 

They pass along these tips to hedge funds, private equity firms and other investors who pay them top dollar.

 

The lobbyists get rich.

 

Wall Street traders get rich.

 

But the American people lose.

 

That is the tragic result of the Majority Leader's decision.

 

Through my oversight investigations, I have learned that political intelligence gathering for Wall Street is growing field, ripe for abuse.

 

Here are just two examples of the type of activity that will continue to be kept in the dark.


In the course of my investigation of a whistleblower's claims, I learned that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has closed door meetings with Wall Street firms where CMS policies are discussed.

 

No record is kept of these meetings and employees are essentially on the honor system to make sure that they are not giving investors inside information.

 

As an example, the whistleblower who came to us claimed that over a dozen CMS employees spent nearly two hours briefing Wall Street analysts and investors on the taxpayer's dime.

 

A member of the public could not walk in and get that kind of access to information.

 

CMS is supposed to be working for us, but instead, we found out that they were working for Wall Street.

 

If my amendment fails we won't know how many of these meetings occur throughout the government and who profits from these meetings.

 

Another example was an investigation I conducted into the Obama Administration's Department of Education.

 

The Department of Education was getting set to issue regulations on gainful employment that would affect for-profit colleges.

 

Several hedge funds had bet big that those new regulations would make it harder for for-profit colleges to do business.

 

Then, news began to leak out that those regulations were not going to be as tough as was expected.

 

Suddenly, for-profit stocks began to rise and those hedge fund investors reached out to their friends in the Department of Education.

 

This is from an actual e-mail that my investigation uncovered.

 

It was sent from Steve Eisman, a hedge fund investor to David Bergeron, he was part of the team in charge of writing these regulations.

 

The e-mail reads:  "I know you cannot respond, but FYI education stocks are running because people are hearing DOE is backing down on gainful employment."

 

To translate, on Wall Street, the term "running" means that a stock is going up.

 

Within minutes this e-mail was marked high importance and forwarded to senior level political appointees.  These appointees included James Kvaal, the Deputy Undersecretary and another policy expert at the Department and Phil Martin, the Secretary of Education's confidential assistant.

 

To this day we do not know why the Department's higher education policy experts needed to know that a hedge fund investor was losing money.

 

What we do know is that for-profit stocks dropped significantly and if you bet big that these stocks would drop, you likely made a lot of money.

 

When the Department of Education answered my questions, they admitted to my staff that this e-mail was not a proper contact.

 

In addition, the Department of Education's Inspector General is investigating the gainful employment rulemaking process.

 

These are just two examples in two government agencies but reports like this are just the tip of the iceberg.

The more power Washington, DC has, the more it affects financial markets.

 

And the more it affects financial markets, the more people on Wall Street want to pay for information about what is going to happen in Washington, DC.

 

Usually, the only way any sort of ethics reform gets done around here is that someone gets caught.

 

With political intelligence we have the opportunity to create transparency before the next scandal happens.

 

As government grows, this industry is going to grow along with the potential for corruption.

 

The question is - what are we going to do about it?

 

Transparency is the simplest and least intrusive solution.

 

We can commission another study and kick the can down the road for another year or we can act.

 

This is our last chance to make sure that the Senate speaks with a unified voice against secrecy for political intelligence agents and for transparent government.

 

We must not allow special interests to operate in darkness.

 

For these reasons, and to support transparency, open government, and good government, I will oppose cloture on this bill.

 

If cloture is invoked, which is likely, I intend to vote for the bill.  Although very flawed, at least it's better than current law.  But, it's not much of a victory for the American people.

 

I yield the floor.

Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Hearing on "Justice for All: Convicting the Guilty and Exonerating the Innocent"

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing.  The debate surrounding crime and punishment has been around long before the United States.  When our Founding Fathers drafted and ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights 225 years ago, at the forefront of their minds was ensuring the protection of individual liberty from the power of the government.  However, the Founders did recognize that at times there are citizens that break the social contract of our civil society and need to be punished, provided they are afforded due process.  While not strictly defining what due process was required, the Constitution and years of court cases have outlined that process which has worked to ensure a baseline set of standards at both the state and federal level for criminal prosecutions.

Over time, these baseline procedures have been supplemented with statutory law, model rules, court rules, and standards of professional responsibility that are designed to ensure the fair and impartial administration of criminal justice.  Unfortunately, despite the adherence to the Constitution, laws, regulations, rules, and procedures, there is the possibility that an innocent person could be afforded all this due process yet still be convicted.  Mr. Haynesworth is here today after spending 27 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit.  In December he was declared an innocent man by the Virginia Court of Appeals.  His case presents us with a personal example of why we must continue to ask questions about the criminal justice system and not become complacent.

Cases like Mr. Hayensworth's make us realize that no system involving humans is perfect.  This is a sad, unfortunate and emotional reality that we must recognize.  However, we must also examine the issue in an informed way that doesn't threaten to destabilize the entire criminal justice system.

Chief among the issues to discuss today is the question of how many innocent men and women may have been convicted over the years and how do we effectively review those cases, correct injustices, and apply what we learn so those injustices are not repeated.  This is not an easy task.  So, the question becomes - how do we determine which cases should be reviewed and how do we allocate the limited resources of the government to review these cases?

It is important to note that there is a real discrepancy in the number of individuals in prison who are actually innocent.  For example, some argue that cases where truly innocent individuals were exonerated are just the tip of the iceberg.  However, others argue that the number of true exonerations is small because many of the statistics on exonerations include cases where convictions were overturned on procedural grounds, even though the individual was not found factually innocent.  Furthermore, they argue that the number of exonerations is going down each year as technological advances, such as DNA testing, eliminate many wrongful convictions from even occurring because DNA testing is being routinely used to prove factual innocence earlier in the investigative process.  Getting a better understanding of how many cases are out there will not only inform us about whether reforms are needed, but also what types of reforms would provide the best help.

Further, we need to be cognizant of the fact that in addition to the federal criminal justice system, there are fifty different state justice systems each with their own constitutions, laws, rules, regulations, and procedures.  As Justice Jackson, who was then-Attorney General Jackson, said in his famous speech The Federal Prosecutor, "[O]utside of federal law each locality has the right under our system of government to fix its own standards of law enforcement and morals."  This statement is particularly important today given the current fiscal situation the federal government faces.  We do not have the resources at the federal level to provide funding to states to review every single criminal case after each case has exhausted all appellate remedies.  Nor, should we interfere in the day-to-day intricacies of state criminal justice systems.

As written testimony submitted by Judge Hervey points out, the state of Texas, via the Court of Criminal Appeals has established the Texas Criminal Justice Integrity Unit to review their criminal justice system and propose reforms where needed.  As states are already undertaking this effort on their own, our role in Congress should be to examine the federal criminal justice system and not to reform every state system.  We should not go down a path of attempting to correct problems in state criminal justice systems.  Instead, as the recent report on prosecutorial misconduct in the Ted Stevens case points out, we should expend our limited resources ensuring that the federal criminal justice system works as it should.

That said, we have a panel of witnesses here today to discuss this important topic and I look forward to their testimony.  Thank you.

-30-

Broken Promises in the 2010 Affordable Care Act

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

 

In 1994, the health care reform bill proposed by then President Clinton failed, in large part, because it would fundamentally changed health care coverage for nearly every American.  In 2009, President Obama decided he would combat the failure of the Clinton Administration by repeating over and over again to the American public "if you like what you have, you can keep it."

 

It is my understanding he said that on 47 separate occasions while the bill was being debated in Congress.  And while it may have been political useful to make that promise to the American people, it remains a promise he can't keep.  The fact is that millions of Americans are seeing changes in their existing health plan due to the health law.

 

The Administration's regulations governing so called "grandfathered health plans" will force most firms?and up to 80 percent of small businesses?to give up their current plan by next year.  When those businesses lose their 'grandfathered' status, they immediately become subject to costly new mandates and the increased premiums that follow.

 

Families in 17 states no longer have access to 'child-only' plans as a result of the health law.  It's not known how many of the families that lost coverage for their children because of the law have been able to find an affordable replacement.  In Medicare Advantage, there is one study showing Medicare Advantage enrollment will be cut in half, choices available to seniors will be reduced by two-thirds.

 

Then there is the open question about Americans who receive their health care through large employers.  The Congressional Budget Office recently released a report with that constructed a scenario where as many as 20 million Americans could lose their employers coverage.  And while I acknowledge the Congressional Budget Office report provided the number I just mentioned as only one plausible scenario, there are many of us who believe it is very plausible given the incentives the health law creates for large businesses.

 

***

 

The President made a further promise that I think we should talk about.  On July 29, 2009, during the consideration of the health law, the President said "Medicare is a government program.  But don't worry: I'm not going to touch it."

 

So let's take a look at the health care law and see if that promise was kept.  The health care law made significant cuts in the Medicare program.  On April 22, 2010, the Chief Actuary for Medicare analyzed the law and found that it would cut Medicare by $575 billion over ten years.  The President said about Medicare "I'm not going to touch it."  The bill cuts $575 billion from Medicare.  The Congressional Budget Office wrote that over $500 billion in Medicare reductions "would not enhance the ability of the government to pay for future Medicare benefits."  The President said about Medicare "I'm not going to touch it."

 

The CMS actuary had this to say about the Medicare spending reductions:  "Providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program."  The President said about Medicare "I'm not going to touch it."

 

The CMS actuary said, in essence, these cuts could drive providers from the Medicare program.  I have a hard time understanding how these massive cuts to Medicare count as not touching the program.  On the other hand, the biggest problem facing Medicare in the near term is the physician payment update problem that we constantly have to address here in Congress.  Of course, the health care law did nothing to address that problem.  Perhaps that's what the President meant when he said about Medicare, "I'm not going to touch it."

Grassley, Johnson Push for Legitimate Payment Limits in Upcoming Farm Bill Discussions

Senators Introduce New Legislation to Place Hard Caps and Close Loopholes

 

WASHINGTON - Senators Chuck Grassley and Tim Johnson today are introducing legislation that would place a hard cap on the farm payments an individual farmer could receive in a year and would close long-abused and well-documented loopholes in the farm payment program.

 

The new Grassley-Johnson payment limits bill sets a hard cap for farm payments of $250,000 per married couple, and closes loopholes that allow non-farmers to qualify for federal farm payments.

 

The senators had introduced similar legislation earlier this Congress, but wanted to be sure the legislative text would accommodate any type of safety-net program adopted in a new farm and nutrition bill.  This is particularly important in light of the growing prospect that direct payments are unlikely to be included in a farm and nutrition bill.

 

"A strong safety net is critical to ensuring a safe and affordable food supply.  In order to maintain that safety net, we can't have the mentality of the past where the government looked the other way and allowed people with no connection to the farm to take farm payments," Grassley said.  "It's unacceptable that small- and medium-sized farmers get so little of the very program that was created to help them."

 

"The farm safety net was designed to help family farmers but it has increasingly led to a windfall for owners of our nation's largest farms. Congress should act to close the loopholes and better target payments to our small and mid-sized family farmers. This legislation represents our best chance to move forward with reforms as consideration of the farm bill continues," said Johnson.

 

Specifically, the new Grassley-Johnson payment limits bill has a hard cap on marketing loan gains of $75,000 ($150,000 for a couple).   The remainder of the payment limit would be a cap on the total amount a farmer can receive in safety-net payments in general.  For instance, if the Congress were to adopt a shallow loss program, the Grassley-Johnson bill would set a limit of $50,000 ($100,000 for a couple) that a farmer could receive.

 

In addition, the bill closes loopholes that allow people with ties to the farmland that consist of a conference call and nothing else.  The bill sets a measurable standard for someone to qualify as actively engaged in farming by providing management for the operation, and the bill provides an exception for farming operations where there is only one manager of the farm.  This exception should help the Department of Agriculture administer the standard.

 

Here is a copy of the text of Grassley's statement submitted for the Congressional Record upon introduction of the bill today.

Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley

The Rural America Preservation Act of 2012

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

 

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Rural America Preservation Act of 2012.  I appreciate Senators Johnson of South Dakota, Enzi, Brown of Ohio, Gillibrand, and Nelson of Nebraska for joining on this bill, and in this effort.

 

As the Senate Agriculture Committee continues working on the next farm bill, one thing seems to be clear.  The Title I safety-net is going to look quite different than current programs.

 

It appears the direct payment program may be done away with entirely.  Some of my colleagues and agriculture groups have proposed a variety of new ideas as possible replacements to the current commodity title.

 

No matter what commodity program we create, my bill sets the marker on payment limitations.  I introduced a similar payment limits bill last year, but this bill should better address whatever type of safety-net program we adopt going forward.

 

The premise remains the same.  We need firm payment limit.  And we need to close loopholes.  I support having a safety-net for farmers.  This nation enjoys a safe and abundant food supply.  Certainly a lot of that can be attributed to the ingenuity and hard-work of the American farmer.  But the farm safety-net helps small and medium-size farmers get through tough times that are out of their control.

 

We need an effective safety-net to assist farmers.  But equally important is for Congress to develop a defensible safety-net.  I will continue to work with my Agriculture Committee colleagues to figure out what type of program will be most effective.

 

We already know the steps that need to be taken to make it more defensible.  Defensible means setting firm caps on the farm payments any one farmer can receive.  The current approach does not have any overall cap.

 

There's nothing wrong with farmers growing their operations.  But big farmers shouldn't be using taxpayer dollars to get even bigger.  When the largest 10% of farmers receive 70% of farm payments, something is wrong.   There comes a point where some farms reach levels that allow them to weather the tough financial times on their own.  Smaller farms do not have the same luxury, but they play a pivotal role in producing this nation's food.

 

If you want to witness how farm payments to big farmers create a barrier for small and beginning farmers, look at land prices.

 

The current system puts upward pressure on land prices making it more difficult for small and beginning farmers to buy ground.  This is not unique to Iowa.  This upward pressure on land prices is occurring in many other states.

 

This bill proposes an overall cap of $250,000 for a married couple.  In my state, many people would say this is still too high.  But I recognize that agriculture can look different around the country, and so this is a compromise.  Strong payment limits will ensure farm payments are helping those who payments were originally created for, the small and medium-size farmers.

 

Having an overall cap is more defensible from a federal budget stand point as well.  This nation needs to make tough decisions regarding all government programs.  And we need to find savings across the board.  Setting strict caps on all commodity programs should be a no-brainer as we look to find savings and increase accountability in farm programs.

 

Having a defensible safety-net also means closing loopholes in the current law.  For all the rhetoric that comes out of Washington D.C. about eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse, making sure non-farmers don't game the system is a common sense step to take.

 

It's simple, if you are not a farmer, you shouldn't get a farm payment.  The bill I introduced last year, and this bill, has language that closes the loopholes.

 

After I introduced the bill last year, we received some questions regarding the language from two camps of people.  The first camp of people I would say were critical because they don't want the loopholes closed.  They would have us turn a blind eye to the fact people game the system.  They would have us turn a blind eye to the fact we have nonfarmers who claim to help "manage" the farm by participating in one or two conference calls a year.  To those people, I cannot satisfy your concerns. I will not turn a blind eye to abuses.  These are loopholes that need to be closed.

 

To the other camp of people, who have provided constructive feedback, I would say, we have listened.  The revisions we made addressed the issues raised.  We have improved the language closing the loopholes.  This bill provides a tangible, workable, and fair approach.  Closing these loopholes is the right thing to do for the American taxpayer.  And it's the right thing to do for the American farmer.

 

Hard caps on farm payments and closing loopholes should be supported by anyone who wants an effective and defensible farm safety-net.

 

As the Senate Agriculture Committee heads toward a mark-up of the Farm Bill, I invite my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

 

-30-

by U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

 

With spring just around the corner, many Iowans look forward to seasonal rites of passage this time of year.  Farmers are itching to get in the fields. Home gardeners anticipate the first shoots of peas and lettuce.  Spring cleaning tops the to-do list for many families.  School students give thanks for Spring Break.  And, soon-to-be-college graduates have their sights set on landing a job.

 

It's no secret the Class of 2012 needs to break into a job market struggling to rebound from Wall Street's financial meltdown and mortgage industry mess.  The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports the unemployment rate is idling at 8.3 percent. This year's crop of graduates also will be competing with more than five million jobless Americans who have been looking for work for longer than six months.

 

Yet, the Obama administration has proposed federal rules to "attract and retain highly skilled immigrants" that arguably increase the competition for Americans who are looking for work.

 

Is this really the administration's idea of priming the employment pump?

 

In Iowa, civic and business leaders work together in their communities to grease the wheels for economic development.  From Council Bluffs to Keokuk, local economic development leaders search for ways to attract and keep businesses.  They go to bat for their towns because they know their labor pool is ready and willing to work.

 

So, flooding the employment market with foreign workers, when high-skilled Americans are seeking jobs at unprecedented levels, just doesn't square with improving the home team advantage, let alone fostering a level playing field.

 

From my leadership position on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, I have championed reforms to the nation's immigration and visa laws to better protect the pool of highly-skilled, unemployed U.S. workers and graduates who struggle to find good-paying jobs here at home.

 

For example, the H1-B visa program was created in 1990 as a temporary measure to help companies in America find high-technology workers -- assuming specialized workers aren't available in the United States to fill these jobs.  After more than two decades on the books, the program needs better controls and stronger oversight that will prevent qualified American workers from being passed over for good-paying jobs.

 

That's why over the last several years I've introduced an H-1B visa reform bill that would require a good faith recruitment of American workers by all companies seeking to bring in foreign workers, change the wage requirements to ensure that visa holders are not undercutting American workers, give more authority to the Department of Labor to investigate allegations of fraud, prohibit employers from advertising only to H-1B visa holders, and increase penalties for those who violate the terms of the H-1B visa program.

 

Working with Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, I've also urged the administration to formally adopt the standards set by the U.S. Department of State and the Administrative Appeals Office of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services when adjudicating L-1B visas (a visa that allows employers to transfer its existing workers to the U.S. if they have "specialized" or "advanced" knowledge of the company).  Unfortunately, the Obama administration is considering changes to the L-1B visa program that could water down these standards and allow the L-1B visa program to be used as a back door to evade restrictions of the H-1B visa program, putting American workers at a disadvantage.

 

Out-of-work Americans and graduates of the Class of 2012 have enough hurdles to overcome.  The nation's visa system should not undermine their chances of landing a good-paying job.

 

March 19, 2012


WASHINGTON - Sen. Patrick Leahy and Sen. Chuck Grassley today urged the Senate leaders to convene a conference committee on the congressional insider trading bill to restore two key amendments.

 

Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wants the Senate to restore his amendment to give prosecutors new tools to identify, investigate, and prosecute criminal conduct by public officials. Grassley, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, wants a conference committee to renew his amendment requiring political intelligence agents to register as lobbyists. The Senate overwhelmingly passed both amendments but the House of Representatives' version of the bill excludes the provisions.

 

Leahy and Grassley wrote to the Senate majority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, and the Senate minority leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell, urging a conference committee to resolve the differences between the Senate and House bills or alternatively, the opportunity to offer their amendments if the Senate takes up the House bill instead of convening a conference committee.

 

The text of Leahy-Grassley letter follows.

 

March 19, 2012

 

The Honorable Harry Reid                           The Honorable Mitch McConnell

Majority Leader, United States Senate                      Minority Leader, United States Senate

S-221 Capitol Building                       S-230 Capitol Building

Washington, DC 20510                          Washington, DC 20510

 

 

Dear Senators Reid and McConnell:

 

The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act (STOCK Act) passed the Senate with two critical provisions that would improve transparency and give law enforcement more effective tools to combat corruption.  One, an amendment requiring political intelligence agents to register as lobbyists, strengthens the STOCK Act by ensuring that lawmakers, congressional staff, and the American people know who is feeding information to Wall Street.  The other, a carefully tailored amendment to give prosecutors new tools to identify, investigate, and prosecute criminal conduct by public officials, furthers the STOCK Act's goals of stopping public corruption and holding public officials accountable for wrongdoing.

 

The Senate passed both of these amendments with strong, bipartisan support.  Unfortunately, the House stripped both provisions from the STOCK Act without a vote. The Senate should act to ensure that the key improvements it made to this bill are incorporated into the final legislation that Congress passes.

 

We urge you to take the STOCK Act to a conference committee to resolve the differences between the Senate and House bills and to encourage the conference to restore these two key provisions.

 

Should you decide, instead, to have the Senate take up the House-passed version of the STOCK Act, we request the opportunity to offer these two crucial amendments so that the Senate may adopt them, again.

 

Taking up the House-passed bill without the opportunity for the Senate to reassert its position with respect to these provisions would be wrong.  These are two of the most important and substantive provisions in the bill.  Without them the legislation would be significantly weakened.

 

Sincerely,

 

PATRICK LEAHY                          CHARLES GRASSLEY

Chairman                       Ranking Republican Member

 

# # # # #


Prepared Floor Statement Senator Chuck Grassley

Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee

Sunshine Week

Delivered Thursday, March 15, 2012

Mr./Madam President,

This is Sunshine Week.  Sunshine Week is observed annually to coincide with the birthday of James Madison, the Founding Father known for his emphasis on checks and balances in government.

Open government and transparency are essential to maintaining our democratic form of government.

Although it's Sunshine Week, I'm sorry to report that contrary to President Obama's proclamations when he took office, after three years, the sun still isn't shining in Washington, DC.

There's a real disconnect between the President's words and the actions of his administration.

On his first full day in office, President Obama issued a memorandum on the Freedom of Information Act to the heads of the executive agencies.   In it, he instructed the executive agencies to

"adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government."

We all know that actions speak louder than words.  Unfortunately, based on his own administration's actions, it appears that the President's words about open government and transparency are words that can be ignored.

Given my experience in trying to pry information out of the Executive Branch and based on investigations I've conducted, and inquiries by the media, I'm disappointed to report that President Obama's statements about transparency are not being put into practice.

Federal agencies under the control of his political appointees have been more aggressive than ever in withholding information from the public and from Congress.

Throughout my career I've actively conducted oversight of the Executive Branch regardless of who controls the Congress or the White House.  When the agencies I'm reviewing get defensive and refuse to respond to my requests, it makes me wonder what they're hiding.

Over the last year, many of my requests for information from various agencies have been turned down again and again because I'm the Ranking Member and not the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.  Agencies within the Executive Branch have repeatedly cited the Privacy Act as part of the rationale for their decision, even though the Privacy Act explicitly says it is not meant to limit the flow of information to Congress.  This disregard by the Executive Branch for the clear language of the law is disheartening.

 

Since January 2011, Chairman Issa and I have been stonewalled by Attorney General Holder and the Justice Department regarding our investigation of Operation Fast and Furious.  This deadly operation let thousands of weapons "walk" from the United States into Mexico.  Despite the fact that the DOJ Inspector General possesses over 80,000 relevant documents, Congress has received only around 6,000 in response to a subpoena from the House Oversight Committee.

Even basic documents about the case have been withheld by the Justice Department, yet the Department insists it is cooperating.

The sun must shine on Fast and Furious so that the public can understand how such a dangerous operation took place?and what can be done to prevent it in the future.

I've also worked hard to bring transparency to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  This is an Executive Branch agency that desperately needs more sunshine.  Over the past two years I've investigated rampant fraud, waste, and abuse at public housing authorities around the country.  I've discovered exorbitant salaries paid to executive staff, conflicts of interest, poor living conditions and outright fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayers' money.

Many of these abuses have been swept under the rug and HUD has been slow at correcting these problems.  HUD cannot keep writing checks to these local housing authorities and blindly hope that the money gets to those Congress intended to help.  I'll continue to work to bring sunshine to HUD.

In April of last year, I requested documents from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding a valuable regulatory waiver it granted to a company called LightSquared.  LightSquared was attempting to build a satellite phone network in a band of spectrum adjacent to GPS.  The problem is that LightSquared's network causes interference with critical GPS users such as the Department of Defense, the Federal Aviation Administration, and NASA.

The FCC responded to my document request by saying that they don't give documents to anyone but the two Chairs of committees with direct jurisdiction over the FCC.  That means that if you're in that 99.6 percent of Congress that does not chair a committee with direct jurisdiction, you are out of luck.

In a letter to me, Chairman Genachowski did tell me that he would make his staff available to me for interviews.  But when I took him up on his offer and asked to interview members of his staff, my request was refused.  Once again, actions speak louder than words.  This is stonewalling pure and simple.

It seems obvious that the FCC is embarrassed and afraid of what might come from uncovering the facts behind what the Washington Post called the LightSquared "debacle."  If there's nothing to hide, then why all the stonewalling?  The FCC seems determined to stonewall any attempts at transparency.

But it's not just the executive branch that needs more transparency.  The judiciary should be transparent and accessible as well.  That's why over a decade ago, I introduced the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, a bipartisan bill which will allow judges at all federal court levels to open their courtrooms to television cameras and radio broadcasts.  By letting the sun shine in on federal courtrooms, Americans will have an opportunity to better understand the judicial process.

The sunshine effort has no better friend than whistleblowers.  Private citizens and government employees who come forward with allegations of wrongdoing and cover-ups risk their livelihoods to expose misconduct.  The value of whistleblowers is the reason I continue to challenge the bureaucracy and Congress to support them.

For over two decades, I've learned from, appreciated and honored whistleblowers.  Congress needs to make a special note of the role that whistleblowers play in helping us fulfill our Constitutional duty of conducting oversight of the Executive Branch.

The information provided by whistleblowers is vital to effective Congressional oversight.  Documents alone are insufficient when it comes to understanding a dysfunctional bureaucracy.  Only whistleblowers can explain why something is wrong and provide the best evidence to prove it.  Moreover, only whistleblowers can help us truly understand problems with the culture at government agencies.

Whistleblowers have been instrumental in uncovering $700 being spent on toilet seats at the Department of Defense.  These American heroes were also critical in our learning about how the FDA missed the boat and approved Vioxx, how government contracts were inappropriately steered at the GSA, and how Enron was cooking the books and ripping off investors.

Like all whistleblowers, each whistleblower in these cases demonstrated tremendous courage.  They stuck their necks out for the good of all of us. They spoke the truth. They didn't take the easy way out by going along to get along, or looking the other way, when they saw wrongdoing.

I've said it for many years without avail, but I'd like to see the President of the United States have a Rose Garden ceremony honoring whistleblowers.  This would send a message from the very top of the bureaucracy about the importance and value of whistleblowers.  We all ought to be grateful for what they do and appreciate the very difficult circumstances they often have to endure to do so, sacrificing their family's finances, their employability, and the attempts by powerful interests to smear their good names and intentions.

I've used my experience working with whistleblowers to promote legislation that protects them from retaliation.  Legislation such as the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and the False Claims Act recognize the benefits of whistleblowers and offer protection to those seeking to uncover the truth.  For example, whistleblowers have used the False Claims Act to help the federal government recover  more than $30 billion since Congress passed my qui tam amendments in 1986.

These laws are a good step, however, more can be done.

For example, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, will provide much needed updates to Federal whistleblower protections.  I'm proud to be an original cosponsor and believe the Senate should move this important legislation immediately.  This bill includes updates to the Whistleblower Protection Act to address negative interpretations of the WPA from both the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

I started out my remarks by quoting James Madison, the Founding Father who is one of the inspirations for Sunshine Week.

Madison understood the danger posed by the type of conduct we're seeing from President Obama's political appointees.  He explained that --- "[a] popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce, or a tragedy, or perhaps both."

I'll continue doing what I can to hold this administration's feet to the fire.

I hope that my colleagues will help work with me so that we can move toward restoring real sunshine, -- in both words and actions --, in Washington DC.


Measure Limits Taxpayer-Funded Reimbursement to $400,000 per Year, Extends Cap to All Government Contractor Employees

 

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) this week introduced the Commonsense Contractor Compensation Act of 2012, S. 2198, which would lower the maximum amount taxpayers reimburse all government contractors for their salaries.

 

The Senators' bill would limit the taxpayer reimbursement for government contractor salaries to the amount of the President's salary - currently $400,000. The measure would also extend the cap to all government contractor employees.

 

Currently government contractors can charge taxpayers $693,951 for the salaries of their top five employees, based on a federal executive compensation benchmark. Employees of government contractors outside of the top five can and do earn taxpayer-funded amounts in excess of the current benchmark.

 

The new bill would build on a previous measure by Senators Boxer and Grassley - which was passed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act in December - that set limits on taxpayer-funded salaries for defense contractor employees. It extended the $693,951 salary cap to all defense contractor employees, not just the top five.

 

Senator Boxer said, "As Senator Grassley and I made clear in December, we will keep fighting to rein in exorbitant taxpayer-funded salaries for contractors. There is simply no reason that taxpayers should fund government reimbursements for private contractor salaries at a rate more than three times what Cabinet Secretaries earn."

 

Senator Grassley said, "The direct taxpayer-funded salaries of government contractors clearly need to be contained, and this legislation is designed to do so. There's no justification for these payments to be higher than the salary of the President of the United States."

 

The salary benchmark has nearly doubled in the last twelve years. From 1998 to 2010 the benchmark has grown 53 percent faster than the rate of inflation. According to a study from New York University, in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics have been compiled, there were 7.6 million government contractors, including 5.2 million defense contractors.

 

The proposed taxpayer salary reimbursement limit is still double the $200,000 salary that Cabinet Secretaries earn.  Additionally, the amendment would in no way limit employee compensation provided by private companies out of their own revenue streams.

 

###

Pages