Senator Chuck Grassley made the following comment after a meeting he hosted today for members of the Iowa congressional delegation with the Secretary of the Air Force regarding Air Force budget reduction recommendations to retire the 21 F-16 fighter aircraft assigned to the 124^th Fighter Squadron, Iowa Air National Guard in Des Moines.  The meeting was held in the U.S. Capitol.

"A lot of mixed signals were sent by the Air Force in today's meeting.  The Iowa congressional delegation is on the same wavelength and committed in a bipartisan, bicameral way to getting the data that the Air Force said it used to make a decision that the Air Force claimed was based on a cost-benefit analysis.  We want this data in order to reconcile an additional comment made by Air Force officials in today's meeting that judgment, beyond the data, was also involved in its decision.  This judgment comment detracts from the Air Force statement that everything was measured for cost and benefit.  Overall, it's a question of safeguarding national security dollars because the Guard has shown to be more cost effective for missions such as a fighter squadron than the Active Duty, and Guard pilots tend to be more experienced since they stay in the service over a long period of time.  The discouraging part is that my feeling was that the Air Force has made its decision, but it will be up to Congress to decide whether to approve the Air Force plan and National Guard advocates in Congress are already signaling that they won't go along quietly with the Air Force's plan to take so many cuts out of the Air Guard.

Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Executive Business Meeting

Thursday, February 9, 2012

With regard to the nominations, there are four nominations on the agenda for the first time.  There is a request on our side for these nominations to be held over for a week.

Today, the only bill on the agenda is S. 1945- The Cameras in the Courtroom Act.  It would allow all Americans to have the opportunity to watch Supreme Court proceedings.  This bill is not new.  It has been before the committee on several occasions.  Each time, it was reported out favorably with bi-partisan support.

I am a cosponsor of this legislation and strongly believe it will help educate millions of Americans who do not know or understand how the Supreme Court works.

Before we move to S.1945, I want to take a minute and talk about an important issue that relates to the transparency of court proceedings that members of the committee should be aware of.

Yesterday, Judge Emmet Sullivan of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia issued an opinion ordering the public release of a 500 page report outlining serious misconduct by Justice Department attorneys from the Public Integrity Section during the prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens.

In the opinion, Judge Sullivan discussed the tortured history of the Stevens prosecution.  Specifically, he noted that after a public indictment, a public trial, a public conviction, and a press conference celebrating the guilty verdict, evidence of prosecutorial misconduct arose.

He also noted that only as the evidence of misconduct became clearer, and harder to refute, did the Justice Department dismiss the indictment and vacate the verdict.  However, the Justice Department also stepped in to protect the prosecutors.

The Justice Department initially sought to prevent any misconduct review by the court arguing instead for an internal review the prosecutors conduct via the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).  To his credit, Judge Sullivan did not allow this and instead appointed a special investigator to investigate and prosecute the Justice Department attorneys responsible for the prosecution of Senator Stevens.

Following the completion of this investigation, the special investigator produced a 500 page report that found, "the investigation and prosecution of Senator Stevens were permeated by the systemic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence which would have independently corroborated [his] defense and his testimony, and seriously damaged the testimony and credibility of the government's key witness."  This is an incredible finding and one that as Judge Sullivan puts it, has "led to a continuing national public discourse on prosecutorial misconduct and whether and what steps should be taken to prevent it."

I agree with Judge Sullivan, the public has a right to know what the special investigator found and how pervasive the misconduct was inside the Public Integrity Unit at the Justice Department.  The American people need to hear the truth about what happened, not simply trust the Justice Department's internal Office of Professional Responsibility review process.

In addition to Judge Sullivan's decision to release the independent report, the Justice Department should follow and publicly release the final report issued by Office of Professional Responsibility.

At our oversight hearing in November, Attorney General Holder stated in response to a request from Senator Hatch calling for the release of the final Office of Professional Responsibility report, "That is up to the people at OPR...what I have indicated was that I want to share as much of that as we possibly can, given the very public nature of that matter, and the very public decision that I made to dismiss the case."

Despite the Attorney General's purported desire to make this information public, his initial comment that it is "up to the people at OPR" to make that decision, leads me to believe we aren't likely to ever see that report.

The Justice Department has routinely blocked the release of Office of Professional Responsibility investigations citing privacy laws and employee rights of the attorneys and agents guilty of misconduct.  The Attorney General ultimately oversees the Office of Professional Responsibility and if he truly wants that information made public, he should order it released upon the conclusion of the investigation.

Between the misconduct in the Stevens case and the notorious Operation Fast & Furious, where the Justice Department knowingly walked guns to Mexican drug cartels which may have led to the death of a federal agent, it's easy to see why so many elected officials and the American people have lost faith in the leadership at the Justice Department under the Obama Administration.

These public failures paint a picture of a department where bad decision-making rules the day -- A department where attorneys prosecuting a sitting U.S. Senator systemically conceal "significant exculpatory evidence" that would have damaged the testimony and credibility of the government's key witness.

A department where whistleblowers, who don't go along, are sure to face retaliation from supervisors and then are forced into bureaucratic limbo to adjudicate their cases.

A department where one Assistant Attorney General prepares a letter to a Senator saying that ATF doesn't allow guns to cross the border, while another Assistant Attorney General is in Mexico the same day advocating a plan to let guns cross the border as an investigative strategy?which was explicitly forbidden by the Deputy Attorney General a month later.

Something is wrong here and it's easy to see why the public is outraged.

Further, the overreaching by the Obama Administration's Justice Department impacts us here in Congress, Republican and Democrat.  For example, legislation addressing online infringement hit a massive roadblock on the floor in part because the public doesn't trust the current Justice Department to do the right thing. Instead, and I heard from many constituents about this point, the American people are worried the Attorney General will use his power for political censorship.  That's the kind of impact the distrust has had and it affects us all.

The Stevens prosecution and these other examples are all serious problems that need to be addressed.  Not to mention the fact that the failed prosecution cost the taxpayers three-fold. First, the cost to investigate and prosecute; second, the cost of the special investigator; and third, the defense attorneys paid to defend the prosecutors from the contempt charge.  The defense attorneys alone cost taxpayers $1.8 million.

The cost alone is reason enough for us to discuss these cases in this committee and hold a hearing to get to the bottom of what is going on at the Justice Department.  The public's confidence in the department is shaken and rightfully so.

The best thing the department can do is be transparent and accountable, something that was promised, not only by the President, but also at many confirmation hearings.  The transparency promised has yet to be realized.

S. 1945-Cameras in the Courtroom Act

My interest in expanding the people's access to the Supreme Court increased eleven years ago when the Supreme Court decided to hear arguments on the Florida recount during the 2000 Presidential Election.  Senator Schumer and I urged the Supreme Court to open the arguments to live broadcast.  In response, the Supreme Court took the then unprecedented step of releasing an audio recording of their arguments shortly after they occurred.  It was a sign of progress that gave the entire country the opportunity to experience what so few get to: the Supreme Court at work.

In 2010, the Supreme Court began releasing audio recordings of its proceedings at the end of each week.  This was another step in the right direction and I applaud the court for increasing its transparency and access.  But it's not enough.  I believe that the nature of our government and the fundamental principles upon which it was built require more.

As President Lincoln said, ours is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  Our Constitution divides power.  It creates a system of checks and balances.  But most importantly, it makes the government accountable to the people.  The best way we can ensure that the federal government is accountable is to create transparency, openness, and access.

That's why this bill is necessary: it offers Americans access to the highest court in the land.  According to a poll released last year, 62 percent of Americans believe that they hear too little about the workings of the Supreme Court.  Two-thirds of Americans want to know more.  What could be a better source of the workings of the Supreme Court than the Supreme Court itself?

In 1947, the Supreme Court stated, "what transpires in the courtroom is public property."  Well, if its public property, then it belongs to the whole public, not just the 200 people who can fit inside the public gallery.  With today's technology, there's no reason why arguments could not be broadcast in an easy, unobtrusive, and respectful manner that would preserve the dignity of the Supreme Court's work and grant access to the millions of Americans wishing to know more.

My state knows something about this.  For over 30 years, Iowa has permitted the broadcast of its trial and appellate courts.  In fact a few weeks ago, Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady testified before this committee about his unique experience sitting on a bench that regularly broadcast its proceedings.  It's important to note that he was the only witness with this experience.

Because of his unique perspective, I urge my colleagues to give special weight to his testimony, especially to three things he emphasized.

First, Chief Justice Cady explained that broadcasting the court's proceedings had NO negative effect.  He was asked about the effects cameras had on case preparation, on the attorneys before the court, and on the judges themselves and their deliberations.  In each instance, he reported that there was NO effect.

Second, he and his fellow justices did not anticipate the great interest their proceedings drew.  In 2006, the court began webcasting its arguments.  That year, the 40 arguments the court webcast were viewed a modest 5,000 times.  The following year, however, court arguments were viewed over 75,000 times.  I believe that when the Supreme Court begins broadcasting their proceedings, they too will be pleasantly surprised by the large numbers of Americans interested in the work they do.

Third and last, Chief Justice Cady told us that he and his fellow justices have noted how creating an open, transparent, and accessible Supreme Court has increased Iowans' understanding and trust of the court's role.  I believe that once the American people are able to see and observe their Supreme Court in action, they too will gain a greater understanding of, and appreciation for, the court.

For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Here is information about Senator Grassley's schedule this week in Washington.  The Senate is in session.

·         Senator Grassley will meet during the week with Iowans from Iowa City, Coralville and North Liberty, the Iowa Association of School Boards, the National Child Support Enforcement Association, the National Federation of the Blind of Iowa, Job Corps, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the American Wind Energy Association, the National Association of FSA County Office Employees, the University of Iowa and the Iowa State University Colleges of Engineering, Habitat for Humanity, and the Iowa State Education Association.

·         Senator Grassley will meet with an Iowa family visiting Washington from New Hampton.

·         Senator Grassley will be a guest on public affairs programs hosted by Cindy Kohlmann on KDTH Radio in Dubuque, Scott Voorhees on KFAB Radio in Omaha, and Mike Savage on KBUR Radio in Burlington.  He also will be a guest on AgriTalk, an agriculture-focused public affairs program that airs live on 13 radio stations in Iowa.

·         On Monday, February 6, at 3:30 p.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will meet with community leaders and city officials traveling to Washington with the Iowa City, Coralville and North Liberty Chamber of Commerce to discuss economic development initiatives and other public policy matters.

·         On Tuesday, February 7, at 10 a.m. (ET), there is a Budget Committee hearing on the outlook for U.S. monetary and fiscal policy.  Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke will testify.  Senator Grassley is a senior member of the committee.

·         On Tuesday, February 7, at 3 p.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will participate in a business meeting of the Senate Finance Committee on the Highway Investment, Job Creation and Economic Growth Act of 2012.

·         On Tuesday, February 7, at 4:30 p.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will meet with Major General Timothy Orr of the Iowa National Guard regarding the Iowa impact of the Air Force budget reduction recommendations announced Friday, which would retire the 21 F-16 fighter aircraft assigned to the 124^th Fighter Squadron, Iowa Air National Guard in Des Moines.  Senator Grassley has expressed concerns about the Air Force strategy of targeting the Guard for cuts, as the Guard is more cost effective for missions such as a fighter squadron than Active Duty, and Guard pilots tend to be more experienced since they stay in the service over a long period of time.  On Thursday, February 9, at 1:30 p.m., Senator Grassley will host a meeting for the Iowa congressional delegation with Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley to discuss the recommendations.

·         On Wednesday, February 8, at 12:30 p.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will speak at a Capitol Hill event of the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America.  CADCA is the leading national drug abuse prevention organization representing more than 5,000 community anti-drug coalitions in the country and focusing on local, targeted solutions to prevent drug abuse.  Senator Grassley founded the FIT Coalition in Iowa more than 15 years ago.  FIT stands for Face It Together.  The organization, today part of the Iowa Drug-Free Partnership, networks employers, schools, parents and community-based organizations to help address local substance abuse problems.

·         On Thursday, February 9, at 10 a.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will participate in the weekly business meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  The committee is scheduled to take action on legislation sponsored by Senators Grassley, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, John Cornyn of Texas, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Chuck Schumer of New York.  Senator Grassley's bill, S.1945, would permit the broadcast and televising of Supreme Court proceedings.  It builds on sunshine legislation Senator Grassley has sponsored for more than 10 years to grant federal judges the authority to allow cameras in other federal courtrooms.  Over the years, Senator Grassley has successfully pressed the Supreme Court to release audio recordings of its proceedings.  The court did so in 2000 in the Bush v. Gore case, and last year the court began releasing audio at the end of each week.  In 1947, the Supreme Court said that what transpires in the courtroom is public property.  In Iowa, there has been broadcast coverage of state-level courts for more than 30 years, including online archived streams in recent years.  The federal-level Southern District Court in Iowa is part of a three-year pilot program to evaluate the impact of cameras in courtrooms.

Alert:  The Senate just passed Sen. Grassley's amendment 60 to 39.  Video of Sen. Grassley's remarks just prior to the vote is available here.

EARLIER

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Grassley seeks same transparency from political intelligence professionals as lobbyists

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley today offered an amendment to require political intelligence operatives to register and disclose affiliations in the same way that lobbyists are required to do.

"Political intelligence professionals aren't considered lobbyists, so they don't have to disclose that they're seeking information and are paid for it," Grassley said.  "As a result, members of Congress and congressional staff have no way of knowing whether such meetings result in information being sold to firms that trade based on that information.  My amendment would shed sunshine on this kind of political intelligence gathering."

According to an October 2011 Wall Street Journal story, political intelligence has become an approximately $100 million industry that employs over 2,000 people in Washington.  Political intelligence professionals seek information from members of Congress and congressional staff and then sell the information they gather to hedge funds and other firms that trade stocks and equities based on the information.

Grassley said transparency will help make members of Congress and congressional staff more aware of whether the people they are meeting with are selling information to others who trade on that information.

The Iowa senator offered his amendment, #1493, during Senate debate on the STOCK Act, S.2038.  The Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge bill would clarify that current prohibitions of the Securities and Exchange Commission on insider trading on non-public information extend to members of Congress and congressional staff.  It also would speed disclosure by requiring those who file annual financial disclosure statements to report stock and bond transactions within 30 days of the transaction, among other measures.

Here is the text of the floor statement Grassley delivered this afternoon regarding his amendment:

Mr. President, I would like to call up amendment #1493 and make that amendment pending.

Mr. President, the Wall Street Journal recently reported that political intelligence is an approximately $100 million industry.  The article also says that expert networks employ over 2,000 people in Washington, DC.

I say approximately because no one really knows how many people work in this industry, who they seek information from, what happens to that information, and how much they get paid.  This is the problem.

You have a growing industry with no transparency.  If a lobbyist has to register in order to advocate for a school or church, shouldn't that same lobbyist have to register if they are seeking and getting inside information to make a profit on?

This is especially true if that information would make millions for a hedge fund or a private equity firm.

Under current law, this is not the case.

My amendment merely brings some sunlight to this area.  It defines what a political intelligence lobbyist is and requires them to register - the same as any other lobbyist.  I understand that some will say that there have not been hearings on this subject and that it should be studied first.  But there isn't much that's complicated about this amendment.

If you seek information from Congress in order to make money, the American people have a right to know your name and who you're selling that information to.  That's just basic good government.

This amendment isn't just helpful to the American people, it also helps members and staff who are trying to decipher their duties under the STOCK Act.  Senators have raised the question, "How will we know if the people we speak to trade on what we say?"

By requiring lobbyists who sell information to stock traders to register, members and staff have an easy way to track who they are and who they sell information to.  This strengthens the bill and helps members and staff comply with its requirements.

Mr. President, I hope we can consider this amendment soon and bring light and transparency to this growing industry.  I yield the floor.

-30-