17 Mar 2014

Grassley Floor Speech on the Introduction of the Stop Cloture Abuse Resolution to Reform the Senate Cloture Rule

By Grassley Press

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today introduced the Stop Cloture Abuse Resolution that would amend Senate rules.

Video of the speech can be found here.

Read the text of the Stop Cloture Abuse Resolution that would amend the Senate rules here.

The speech text follows here.

I have addressed the Senate several times in recent weeks about the need to restore the Senate as a deliberative body.  I am very concerned that the Senate is no longer living up to its reputation as the World's Greatest Deliberative Body.  I have outlined how the Senate ought to function by quoting at length the writings of the primary architect of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison.  When trying to understand what the authors of the Constitution intended the role of the Senate to be, you can't do better than James Madison, the Father of the Constitution.  The writings of James Madison, along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, in the Federalist Papers, comprise the most comprehensive and detailed explanation of what the Framers of the Constitution intended.  This provides an important, nonpartisan frame of reference about the role the Senate is supposed to play in our system of government.  By going back to our founding document and first principles, we can rise above petty partisan squabbling and start working on how to restore the Senate as a deliberative body.

I would like to start by recapping some of the lessons from the Federalist Papers about where the Senate has gone off course.  Then I want to talk about solutions to restore the Senate as a deliberative body.  In Federalist 62, this new creation of a Senate is being explained to the people of New York to convince them to ratify the Constitution.  It tells of the lessons that Americans learned in the first years of independence under the Articles of Confederation, which had a unicameral legislature, as did most states at the time.  Based on lessons learned from practical experience, James Madison lists four problems that a republic like ours can face if it doesn't have a properly functioning Senate.

The first problem Madison recounts is the tendency for a group to form in a legislative body that pushes its own agenda as opposed to that of the people who elected them.  Madison explains that having a second chamber makes such "schemes of usurpation or perfidy" less likely because they would have to capture both chambers at the same time.  The Senate, with longer, staggered terms, makes that even less likely.

The second lesson is that a single chamber legislature with lots of members tends to "yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions."  If that sounds like the House of Representatives, that's because it's supposed to work that way.  The House is supposed to reflect the immediate passions of the day, even if those passions take on a partisan tinge.  However, when laws are made only by "factious leaders" you end up with "intemperate and pernicious resolutions."  That's where the Senate comes in.

Madison's third lesson has to do with the need for a body with longer terms that is serious about doing the hard work of legislating, instead of pushing short term agendas.  To quote Madison, "What indeed are all the repealing, explaining, and amending laws, which fill and disgrace our voluminous codes, but so many monuments of deficient wisdom; so many impeachments exhibited by each succeeding against each preceding session; so many admonitions to the people, of the value of those aids which may be expected from a well-constituted senate?"  In other words, it's better to take the time to get it right the first time than to have to constantly go back and fix ill-conceived laws.  That's what the Senate's job is supposed to be.

In the fourth and final point, Madison explains that if a legislature is constantly churning out new laws, even if they are good ideas, it causes chaos because no one knows what the law says from day to day.  Madison says "... a continual change even of good measures is inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect of success."  Madison also points out a problem caused by overactive legislating that we tend to think is unique to modern times-
that is special interest groups that hire lobbyists and lawyers.  "Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people."

So, just to recap, the Senate was specifically written into our Constitution to solve certain problems, namely: to prevent an agenda that does not reflect that of the American people, to prevent legislation based on short term partisan passions, to pass fewer, but better thought-out laws.

Of course, starting in 2007, we had a House and Senate controlled by the same party, and intent on enacting the President's agenda, top of which was his health care law.  The deliberative process was cut short, and the legislation was rammed through the Senate over the objections of senators representing forty percent of the states.  The President's healthcare law is practically the poster child for an "intemperate and pernicious resolution" reflecting a partisan agenda that did not enjoy broad support among the American people when it was passed, and still doesn't.

The fact that Congress didn't take the time to think through every aspect of this legislation and work out a consensus that could attract broad support in the Senate has resulted in the need for a series of "repealing, explaining, and amending laws."  Of course, the President has claimed for himself the authority to unilaterally suspend or amend parts of the law that aren't working rather than come back to Congress.  That's not what the authors of the Constitution intended either.  We wouldn't be in this predicament with a deeply flawed healthcare law if the Senate had been allowed to function as it was intended.

Now, with neither party having the 60 votes needed to steamroll members of the minority party, the Senate should go back to functioning as it was intended.  Yet, that hasn't happened.  Instead, we have seen an unprecedented abuse of Senate rules to block senators from participating in the deliberative process.

These abuses of Senate rules threaten to fundamentally transform the Senate from the greatest deliberative body on earth, into a purely partisan rubber stamp for the agenda of the majority leadership.  If we allow that to happen, we will see even more of the problems that Madison warned about.  The Senate was intended to be a deliberative body and only functions properly when deliberation is allowed.  That means we must have debate and amendments.

I hear frequent complaints from Iowans about Congress passing huge bills without members of Congress having the opportunity to understand all the provisions, much less the people they are supposed to represent having a chance to understand them and weigh in.  It is now routine for cloture to be filed immediately upon bringing a matter up for consideration. That's not a deliberative process.

Cloture was invented to allow the Senate to end consideration of a matter after the preponderance of senators had concluded it had received sufficient consideration.  Even that was a compromise.  Before cloture was invented, there was no way to end debate so long as at least one senator thought a matter needed further consideration.

Cloture was introduced to balance the desire to get things done with the principle that each senator, as a representative of his or her state, has the right to participate fully in the legislative process.  The threshold was later adjusted down from  two-thirds of senators voting to three-fifths of all senators.  Each time this matter has been revisited, the balance has tilted more in favor of speeding up the process at the expense of allowing senators to fully represent the people of their states.

At the beginning of the current Congress, the Senate passed changes to the Senate rules to shorten the amount of debate time after cloture is invoked for certain nominees and to expedite consideration of legislation in some situations.  These changes were agreed to in exchange for the promise that the so called "nuclear option" would not be used.  Notwithstanding that commitment, just 10 months later, the nuclear option was used, setting a new precedent that debate on nominations can be cut off by a simple majority of senators, ignoring the plain text of the cloture rule still on the books.

So at the end of the day, members of this body agreed to extinguish certain rights in exchange for the promise not to use the nuclear option, only to have additional rights stripped away 10 months later by majority vote.  Taken together, those two episodes represent a dramatic shift toward domination of the Senate by one faction, contrary to Madison's stated intent.

I say all that by way of background but that's history and the other side will have to learn to live with the ramifications of the changes to the nomination process they forced upon this body.  I would like to turn the focus now to the legislative process and what can be done to restore the Senate to the role envisioned by the authors of the Constitution before it's too late.

When it comes to legislating, we've gotten off track from how the Senate was designed, but we have an opportunity to restore the Senate as a deliberative body.  There was an understanding at the beginning of this Congress that there would be some return to regular order.  In exchange for rules changes that expedite the legislative process, the majority leadership would return to the longstanding tradition of an open amendment process.  In other words, there was an understanding that the Senate would take its time to consider legislation and senators from both sides of the aisle would be free to propose amendments and have them voted on.  That understanding lasted just until Republicans submitted amendments that some on the other side were nervous to have to take a position on.

It's no secret that the majority leader has gone out of his way to keep members of his caucus from having to take votes that may hurt them with the people back home.  The Senate rules provide that any senator may offer an amendment to a bill being considered.  Therefore, in order to shield his members from having to take tough votes, the majority leader now routinely moves to shut down all consideration of a bill before any amendments are considered.

Cloture is supposed to be used after the Senate has considered a measure for a period of time and a preponderance of the Senate thinks it has deliberated enough.  Cloture should not be used to prevent any meaningful deliberation from taking place.

The average number of cloture motions filed each session of Congress under this majority leadership is more than double what it was in prior sessions of Congress under majority leaders of both parties, going back to 1987.  This alone is an indication that cloture is being overused, even abused by the majority.

The majority leader will tell you that he is forced to file cloture because of Republican filibusters.  He might have a point IF it was true that, after extensive debate and plenty of opportunity to consider amendments, Republicans were dragging out debate purely for the sake of delay.  However, you can hardly claim that the Senate's deliberation has dragged on too long when it hasn't even begun consideration of a matter.  We are now at a point where the overwhelming number of motions to cut off debate are made before debate has even started, much less in response to a filibuster.

Let's look at a chart put together by the Congressional Research Service on cloture motions in relation to legislative business filed the same day a matter is brought before the Senate.  I've color coded each Congress based on which party controlled the Senate.  You'll notice that use of same-day cloture averages out to 29 times per Congress up until the 110th Congress, when this majority leadership takes over.  Then there is a HUGE jump to 98 same-day cloture motions.  That's more than 3 times the previous average!

You'll notice a trend toward slightly more use of same day cloture in the years leading up to 2007, and both parties are guilty of that.  But, you can see an unprecedented use of same-day cloture starting when this majority leadership took over.  The trend has continued at more than double the previous average in each Congress since this majority leadership took over.

There were 65 same day cloture motions in the 111th Congress and 67 in the 112th Congress, compared to 29 the last time Republicans controlled the Senate, which coincidentally is also the previous average.  The last line shows the total as of January, when we were only half-way through the current Congress.  At that time, we were already up to 30 same-day cloture motions.  That is more than we saw for the entire Congress the last time Republicans were in the majority.  This unprecedented use of cloture to end deliberation before deliberation has even begun is clearly abusive and cannot be justified.

Some people might argue that same-day cloture motions on the motion to proceed shouldn't be counted because the motion to proceed can't be amended.  That is debatable, but I'll just point out that the last column shows same-day cloture filings excluding the motion to proceed and the trend is exactly the same.

So what do we do about this abuse of cloture to end consideration of a bill before it has even been considered?  Today I am introducing the Stop Cloture Abuse Resolution.  That appropriately spells SCAR, because cloture abuse threatens to scar the body of the Senate.  The Stop Cloture Abuse Resolution will amend the Senate Rules to prohibit the filing of cloture until at least 24 hours after the Senate has proceeded to a matter.  This reform will end once and for all the practice of attempting to shut down debate and amendments before debate has started.

It is important to keep in mind that when senators are blocked from participating in the legislative process, the people they represent are disenfranchised.  By that, I don't just mean the citizens of the 45 states that elected Republicans.  The citizens of states that elected Democrat senators also expect them to offer amendments and engage with their colleagues from different parties.  Forcing a cloture vote before any deliberation prevents even members of the majority party from offering amendments that may be important to the people they represent.

Voters have a right to expect the people they elect to actually do the hard work of legislating, not just be a rubber stamp for their leadership's agenda.  Senators who go along with tactics that disenfranchise their own constituents should explain to those who voted them into office why they aren't willing to be a full-fledged senator.  They should explain why their loyalty is to their party leadership and not the people of their state.

A senator's job includes offering amendments.  Being a senator also means that sometimes you have to take tough votes on other senators' amendments that reveal to your constituents where you stand on various issues.  It is the job of senators to deliberate and to legislate.

The Stop Cloture Abuse Resolution will make it clear that deliberation is the rule, not disenfranchisement.  It would establish that a deliberative process is expected and at least some deliberation must occur before any attempt to silence the voices of senators, and by extension the people of their states.

This is just one reform idea that I am proposing for the Senate to consider as we work to restore the Senate as a deliberative body.  It would only address part of the problem.  The Senate will also have to address the abuse of filling the tree to block amendments.

The ability to block senators from offering amendments is actually not found in the Senate Rules.  Filling the tree is an abuse of Senate precedents.  In some ways, that makes it the easier problem to address.  Whereas cloture abuse is an abuse of the Senate cloture rule, the practice of filling the tree to block amendments can be eliminated simply by establishing a new precedent.

As everyone remembers from the nuclear option, establishing a new precedent is a simple process that only requires a majority vote.  However, unlike the nuclear option, which established a precedent that the Senate would ignore the plain text of a rule still on the books, ending the ability of the majority leader to block amendments would simply involve replacing the old precedent with a new precedent.

For now, the Stop Cloture Abuse Resolution would be a good start.  Adopting the Stop Cloture Abuse Resolution would send a strong message that the Senate will once again deliberate over issues rather than ramming them through without careful consideration.  This reform will reduce the urge to force legislation though the Senate based on a short-term partisan agenda, and result in fewer, but better laws, just as James Madison and the other Framers of the Constitution intended.

Amending the Senate Rules should be a last resort, and this move should not be necessary.  We've been told that the bipartisan Child Care Development Block Grant bill will be considered under an open amendment process.  If that happens, and if it marks the beginning of a return to regular order where all senators are allowed to represent their states to the best of their ability once again, then perhaps this move will not be necessary.  Given the record of the past three Congresses, I will not hold my breath.  If a fully open amendment process is not permitted after all, or if this rare instance of bipartisanship proves to be an exception to the rule, it will prove that the Senate is fundamentally broken and only significant reforms like the Stop Cloture Abuse Resolution can restore the Senate as the world's greatest deliberative body.
17 Mar 2014

Grassley works to give flexibility to foster-care children in accessing child care

By Grassley Press
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Senate has given unanimous approval to a bipartisan amendment co-authored by Senator Chuck Grassley that would help to get children in the foster care system enrolled in available child care programs as quickly as possible by making them eligible for a paperwork grace period.

"The goal is to get these children into safe and secure child care and make sure it can happen with the kind of flexibility needed due to the realities facing children in foster care," Grassley said.

The foster-care amendment is now part of legislation (S.1086) to reauthorize the Child Care Development Block Grant program.  The program is the primary source of federal funding for child-care assistance through block grants awarded to states.  The bill as proposed created a grace period for homeless families to compile required medical documentation for their children to access child-care services.  The amendment backed by Grassley extended the grace period to children in foster care.

In 2012, nearly 400,000 children lived in the U.S. foster care system.  Of those, nearly 102,000 awaited adoption.  More than 26,000 aged out of the system before ever securing a permanent place to call home.

Grassley has led numerous legislative efforts to improve the foster-care system, as well as to encourage the adoption of children in the foster care to permanent, loving homes.

The Child Care Development Block Grant program was first signed into law by President George H.W. Bush in 1990 to assist low-income working families with the cost of child care.  The program hasn't been updated since 1996, when adjustments were made as part of welfare reform.

-30-

14 Mar 2014

Grassley Praises Department of Education Response on Foster Youth

By Grassley Press

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today praised the Department of Education's response to a call from a bipartisan group of senators to reach out to foster youth about available college aid and other resources that could help them succeed.

"Foster youth often don't know about the resources available to them," Grassley said.  "As a result, the kids don't take advantage of an educational program or other opportunity that might make a difference in their lives.  The Department of Education is taking steps to reach out to foster kids and inform them about existing resources that might help them get to college.  I'm glad to see this effort."

Last month, Grassley and his fellow senators wrote to the secretaries of the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to seek a coordinated informative effort.  The senators noted that only three percent of foster youth graduate from college.  Nearly 400,000 children are in the foster system due to abuse or neglect; every year more than 23,000 of those children age out of the system with no place to call home.

Grassley is founder and co-chair of the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth and a senior member and former chairman and former ranking member of the Finance Committee, with jurisdiction over foster care programs.  He has a long record of improving policies to help foster youth and promote adoption, including authoring the 2008 Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act. Foster youth often face multiple school placements once in the child welfare system.   Research has demonstrated that instability and multiple placements have a negative effect on academic achievement and are associated with high rates of children and youth dropping out of school.  The 2008 law requires child welfare and educational agencies to work together to ensure educational stability for foster youth.

The senators' letter to the agencies is available here.  The Department of Education's response is available here.

-30-
14 Mar 2014

FOIA Oversight Hearing - Grassley Statement

By Grassley Press

Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Hearing on "Open Government and Freedom of Information:

Reinvigorating the Freedom of Information Act for the Digital Age"

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I always enjoy this hearing.  It provides us an opportunity to focus on how the government handles the Freedom of Information Act.  As I've said before, it's been my experience that every administration, whether Republican or Democratic, has challenges in providing the degree of transparency desired by so many.

Unfortunately, the current administration, as administrations before, continues to fail to provide the transparency that the President promised.  This is troubling, as we all were told this would be the most transparent administration ever.  We need to do better than the status quo.

I expect we'll hear about some of the changes in technology that are taking place to make the Freedom of Information Act process better.  This is important and improvements are needed.  But we also must remain focused on improving the way the government thinks about transparency and Freedom of Information.  All of the changes to technology will be futile if there's not a change in attitude.

On this point, at last year's hearing I questioned what the Justice Department was doing to improve the way people think about transparency.   I hope to hear today what's been done to change the so-called "culture of obfuscation among Freedom of Information officials."

The Justice Department and its Office of Information Policy has a unique and special role with regard to the Freedom of Information Act.  The Office of Information Policy can have a profound impact on Freedom of Information Act policy.  It can tackle head-on the government-wide "culture of obfuscation" problems.  I'm concerned, though, that rather than lead in a positive way, the Justice Department has acted in a way that's contrary to the President's transparency promise.

I'm frustrated with the legal argument the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission made in a recent Freedom of Information case.  In Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Federal Election Commission, the Justice Department made an argument that, in the view of many, undermined the Freedom of Information Act. 

Fortunately, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, rejected the Obama Administration's argument.  The D.C. Circuit said the government's position would create a "Catch-22" situation, leaving requesters in limbo for months or years.  That result isn't what Congress or the law envisions.  I'm glad the court got this one right, but it's a shame that it even had to consider the question.

What message does the Justice Department's argument send to other agencies?  I fear this "do as I say, not as I do" approach emboldens agencies to craft legal maneuvers that undermine Freedom of Information compliance.  That's what the Federal Election Commission did and the Justice Department was right there to help them in court.

Given the Justice Department's leadership role with respect to the Freedom of Information Act, this is disappointing, if not downright alarming.  If Justice makes these kinds of arguments, why should anyone be shocked about lack of transparency claims against the government?  As a Senator, I've had my own challenges in obtaining information from this administration.  If it's this difficult for a senator, I can only imagine how much more difficult and frustrating it is for a private citizen.

So, this problem is something we need to address.  I know we'll hear from the witnesses today about proposals to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act.  These may in fact be needed, but we must first ensure current law is followed, rather than undermined.

I'll note that recently the House of Representatives unanimously passed bipartisan Freedom of Information legislation.  That's a real accomplishment these days.  I understand, Mr. Chairman, our staffs are reviewing this legislation and hearing from those in the transparency community.  Overall, the reception seems to be positive, but there are some questions that have been raised regarding, for example, the technology used for handling requests.  We'll continue to examine this issue and others, but here's a bill that we should take serious and examine closely.

There's a lot of room for improvement and I look forward to asking our witnesses about some of these concerns I've raised today.

-30-
14 Mar 2014

Grassley: Notice from Inspector General is a Victory for Accountability

By Grassley Press

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley, senior member and former Chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, said the decision of the Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services to disqualify CSHM, LLC from the Medicaid program "will protect both taxpayers and vulnerable children receiving dental care in the Medicaid program."

The Inspector General delivered a Notice of Exclusion (click here to read the Notice) following a year-long investigation by Grassley and then-Chairman Max Baucus of Montana into allegations of abusive treatment of children in clinics controlled by corporate investors rather than dentists.  The senators issued a report and recommendations last July and urged the administration to ban dental clinics from participating in the Medicaid program if the dental clinics circumvent state laws designed to ensure only licensed dentists own dental practices to prevent substandard care.

"Our oversight found that when states can't hold owners accountable, then clinics are more likely to fail to meet standards that protect the children who should be helped," Grassley said.  "The actions of some dental practices strained the Medicaid program and put low-income children in traumatic, highly questionable situations."

The "Joint Staff Report on the Corporate Practice of Dentistry in the Medicaid Program" (click here to read the Report) released by Grassley and Baucus focused on dental management companies organized as a corporation or limited liability company that works with dentists in multiple states.  The investigation found a failure to meet quality and compliance standards including unnecessary treatment on children, improper administration of anesthesia, providing care without proper consent, and overcharging the Medicaid program.

According to the report, while many clinics technically meet state-level rules requiring their owners to be licensed dentists, some clinics nonetheless placed control of their operations in the hands of corporate investors with the results placing "profits above patient care."  Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia ban corporate dentistry.

The Grassley-Baucus report also recommended that Medicaid be allowed to reimburse mid-level dental providers, such as dental therapists.  Mid-level providers are in a position to provide much of the needed dental care at current Medicaid reimbursement rates.

"Access to dental services is a concern and empowering mid-level providers is a common sense solution," Grassley said.

-30-
14 Mar 2014

Grassley to Hold Meetings in 16 Iowa Communities

By Grassley Press

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley will participate in 16 meetings in Iowa during the week of March 17 as part of his annual 99-county tour.

Grassley has visited each of Iowa's 99 counties at least once every year for a meeting since he was first elected to the U.S. Senate.

 

On March 17, 19, 20 and 21, Grassley will be in Waukon, Monona, Oelwein, Calmar, Cresco, Tama, Marengo, Coralville, Oskaloosa, Sigourney, Kalona, Le Claire, Maquoketa, Manchester, Dyersville and Anamosa.  The meetings in Oelwein, Calmar and Cresco were originally to be held on Feb. 17 but were rescheduled due to weather.

"Representative government is a two-way street.  It's strengthened by dialogue between elected officials and the people we represent," Grassley said.  "I appreciate the opportunity to hold town meetings, go directly to Iowans in their workplaces, and answer questions and take comments where people are gathered for civic group meetings.  I also enjoy meeting with high school students as they study current affairs and government."

Grassley will be available for 15 minutes before or after each meeting to answer questions from local reporters, except for the meeting in Monona.  Grassley's town meetings in Cresco, Maquoketa and Anamosa are open to the public and media.  Members of the media should contact individual organizations about attending other events, as Grassley is a guest of the organizations.

 

Grassley's schedule for the week of March 17 is as follows:­

 

Monday, March 17

8:20-9 a.m.

Q&A with students at Waukon High School

1061 3rd Ave. NW

Waukon

*Grassley will be available for 15 minutes before the meeting to answer questions from local reporters.

 

9:30-10:30 a.m.

Q&A with students at MFL MarMac High School

700 North Page Street

Monona

 

Noon-1 p.m.

Q&A with the Rotary Club of Oelwein
Luigi's Restaurant
1020 South Frederick Ave.
Oelwein

*Grassley will be available for 15 minutes after the meeting to answer questions from local reporters.

 

 

2:30-3:15 p.m.

Q&A with students at South Winneshiek High School

203 West South Street

Calmar

*Grassley will be available for 15 minutes before the meeting to answer questions from local reporters.

 

 

4-5 p.m.

Howard County Town Meeting

Cresco Bank & Trust, Community Room

126 Second Ave. Southeast

Cresco

*This Grassley town meeting is open to the public.  Grassley will be available for 15 minutes after the meeting to answer questions from local reporters.

 

Wednesday, March 19

8:15-9 a.m.

Q&A with students at South Tama County High School

1715 Harding Street

Tama

*Grassley will be available for 15 minutes after the meeting to answer questions from local reporters.

 

10:15-11:15 a.m.

Q&A with students at Iowa Valley High School

359 East Hilton Street

Marengo

*Grassley will be available for 15 minutes after the meeting to answer questions from local reporters.

 

Noon-1 p.m.

Q&A with North Corridor Rotary Club

Vesta Restaurant

849 Quarry Road

Coralville

*Grassley will be available for 15 minutes after the meeting to answer questions from local reporters.

 

Thursday, March 20

8-9 a.m.

Tour and Q&A with employees at Clow Valve Company

902 South Second Street

Oskaloosa

*Grassley will be available for 15 minutes after the meeting to answer questions from local reporters.

 

10-11 a.m.

Tour and Q&A with employees at Sigourney Tractor Company

1407 200th Ave.

Sigourney

*Grassley will be available for 15 minutes after the meeting to answer questions from local reporters.

 

12:15-1:15 p.m.

Q&A with employees of Kalona Coop Telephone Company

Kalona Area Chamber of Commerce

514 B Ave.

Kalona

*Grassley will be available for 15 minutes after the meeting to answer questions from local reporters.

 

6-8 p.m.

Q&A with Le Claire Lions Club

Crane & Pelican Restaurant

127 South 2nd Street

Le Claire

*Grassley will be available for 15 minutes before the meeting to answer questions from local reporters.

 

Friday, March 21

8-9 a.m.

Jackson County Town Meeting

Jackson County Courthouse, Community Room

201 West Platt Street

Maquoketa

*This Grassley town meeting is open to the public.  Grassley will be available for 15 minutes before the meeting to answer questions from local reporters.

 

 

10:15-11:15 a.m.

Q&A with the Delaware County Farm Bureau

115 East Delaware Street

Manchester

*Grassley will be available for 15 minutes after the meeting to answer questions from local reporters.

 

 

Noon-1 p.m.

Q&A with the Dyersville Noon Lions Club

Country Junction Restaurant

913 15th Ave. SE

Dyersville

*Grassley will be available for 15 minutes after the meeting to answer questions from local reporters.

 

 

2-3 p.m.

Jones County Town Meeting

Jones County Courthouse, Courtroom

500 West Main Street

Anamosa

*This Grassley town meeting is open to the public.  Grassley will be available for 15 minutes after the meeting to answer questions from local reporters.

 

 

-30-
11 Mar 2014

Grassley: GAO Report Reveals Extensive and Alarming Mismanagement of Foreign Student Program

By Grassley Press
WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today released a report from the Government Accountability Office that shows serious integrity issues with the Optional Practical Training program.

The Optional Practical Training (OPT) program allows foreign students to obtain temporary work in their major area of study during and after completing an academic program in the United States.  The number of students approved annually for this program has more than quadrupled in the last six years.

Grassley requested the Government Accountability Office report after hearing concerns that employers were targeting foreign students with OPT status and learning that there was an atypical upward trend in participation.  The report is a follow-on to previous studies about the Student Exchange Visitor Program, which the GAO has evaluated and found serious flaws for several years.

In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Grassley wrote, "The GAO report reveals extensive and alarming DHS mismanagement of the OPT program, proving serious program integrity issues that bring to light potential risks to national security.  I'm writing today to ask that you place an immediate moratorium on the program until these serious problems are fixed."

The report highlights several deficiencies in the program.

·         Foreign students, sometimes aided by school officials, are currently abusing the OPT program to acquire unauthorized employment in the United States.

·         The federal government does not know where tens of thousands of foreign students in the OPT program are located, who they are working for, or what they are doing while staying in the United States.

·         There is a lack of coordination within ICE, inconsistent collection of information by ICE, and inadequate monitoring mechanisms in place to ensure program compliance.

Here is a copy of Grassley's letter to Johnson.  Here is a copy of the signed letter.  The GAO report can be found here

 

March 5, 2014

Via Electronic Transmission

 

The Honorable Jeh Johnson

Secretary

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC 20528

 

Dear Secretary Johnson:

On February 27, 2014, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its report on the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) management of the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program - an immigration benefit that allows foreign students to obtain temporary work in their major area of study during and after completing an academic program in the United States. The GAO report reveals extensive and alarming DHS mismanagement of the OPT program, proving serious program integrity issues that bring to light potential risks to national security.  I'm writing today to ask that you place an immediate moratorium on the program until these serious problems are fixed.

The use of the OPT program has increased dramatically over the years.[1] In 2008, just 28,497 students were approved for OPT.  In 2013, 123,328 were approved. In the last six years, more than 560,000 students received OPT.  Only 2.6% of those who applied in 2013 were denied.  Only .06% of those approved in the last 6 years have had their OPT revoked.  This data shows that there's an upward trend in applications while denials and revocations are minimal.  I asked the GAO to review the OPT program to better understand the use of OPT, including who uses it and how students are tracked, determine what weaknesses exist, and suggest ways to improve the procedures and policies that govern its administration.

Notably, the GAO's public report highlights that (1) foreign students, sometimes aided by school officials, are currently abusing the OPT program to acquire unauthorized employment in the United States, and (2) due to lack of oversight by DHS, no one in the Federal Government presently knows where tens of thousands of these foreign students are located, who they are working for, or what they are doing while staying in the United States.  The GAO concluded that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement "has not analyzed available information to identify and assess potential risks specific to OPT posed by schools and foreign students."[2] The report also highlights the lack of coordination within ICE, the inconsistent collection of information by ICE, and the inadequate monitoring mechanisms in place to ensure program compliance. Without effective oversight of the OPT program, it is impossible to know if foreign students are complying with the rules and regulations.

The findings of the recent GAO report are all the more disconcerting given the fact that the GAO has warned your Department of risks involving the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) for years.  For example, in April 2011, the GAO reported that some schools were attempting to exploit the immigration system by knowingly misreporting that foreign students were fulfilling their visa requirements.[3] In June 2012, the GAO reported that ICE had not developed a process to identify and analyze risks across SEVP-certified schools, in accordance with internal controls and risk management guidance.[4] In this same 2012 report, the GAO said that officials at both SEVP and ICE's Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit (CTCEU) had expressed concerns about the fraud risks posed by schools that did not comply with regulatory requirements.[5] Thus, even prior to receiving the GAO's report last week, DHS had clear notice of the vulnerabilities in the program.

It is especially alarming and perplexing that SEVP officials consider OPT to be a low-risk employment benefit for foreign students.[6] Many other government officials interviewed provided a starkly different opinion. For example, senior CTCEU officials interviewed for the GAO report stated that "OPT is at risk for fraud and noncompliance, in part, because it enables eligible foreign students to work in the United States for extended periods of time without obtaining a temporary work visa."[7] Likewise, ICE field agents interviewed for the GAO report acknowledged that "foreign students approved for OPT present a risk for becoming overstays because they are allowed to work and remain in the United States for 12 to 31 months after graduation from school."[8] Immigration enforcement agents and designated school officials (DSOs) interviewed for the report pointed out that "DSOs face greater challenges in monitoring foreign students in post-completion OPT because the students are no longer attending classes."[9] Moreover, officials from CTCEU provided SEVP's compliance officers on multiple occasions from 2011 to 2013 with position papers expressing concerns about vulnerabilities and risk indicators associated with OPT.[10]

The recent GAO report confirms the fact that OPT is vulnerable to abuse.  As of September 2013, SEVP had identified 17 of the 133 schools on SEVP's compliance log as potentially noncompliant with ICE regulations related to OPT.[11] The report elaborated on some particularly disturbing cases to demonstrate the non-compliance.  For instance, ICE investigators reported that DSOs were allegedly falsifying documents in order to authorize students for OPT.  One school charged students for an OPT recommendation and for keeping students in status without requiring student attendance.  Other ICE field agents identified cases in which designated school officials were recommending OPT for foreign students to work outside their major area of study (e.g., a nursing student working in a pizza parlor), which is disallowed by ICE regulations.[12]

ICE regulations require OPT employment to be in a job directly related to the foreign student's area of study. However, the GAO report reveals that "ICE has not provided guidance to DSOs to help determine and document whether the student's job is related to his or her area of study."[13] Moreover, "ICE does not require DSOs to input into [the Student Exchange and Visitor Information System (SEVIS)] any information on how DSOs arrived at the determination that students' jobs related to their studies" - a concern that raises the risks that DSOs are inappropriately recommending students for OPT.  GAO discovered at least 35 cases in which students in economics, liberal arts and psychology were working in food service; and 9 cases in which students with degrees in computer science, engineering, and international studies were working in retail.  Accordingly, the GAO advised that properly guiding DSOs and requiring them to collect and provide such information in SEVIS "could help provide ICE with reasonable assurance that foreign students engaged in OPT are working in jobs directly related to their area of study."

Even more alarming is the GAO's finding that "ICE cannot fully ensure foreign students working under optional practical training are maintaining their legal status in the United States."[14] The GAO report found that ICE does not consistently collect information as to the type and timing of foreign students' employment, despite the fact that such information "could help ICE to better ensure that foreign students are maintaining their legal status in the United States and to identify and assess potential risks to OPT." According to the report, as of August 2013, 65 percent of pre-completion OPT and 48 percent of 12-month post-completion OPT student records did not contain an employer name.[15] This means that ICE is in the dark as to where these students are and for whom they might be working.  Likewise, ICE regulations and policy do not require students to report to their DSOs when they begin or stop working, and do not require DSOs to enter such dates into the SEVIS.  Without this information on employers or employment start and end dates, the GAO report found that "ICE's ability to oversee requirements for OPT is limited." In other words, the relevant components of DHS presently lack the information necessary to effectively fulfill their mission of protecting the homeland.

The GAO found other management issues with OPT that prove the program is susceptible to fraud and abuse.  Because of a lack of oversight by ICE, officials cannot determine if foreign students with OPT are unemployed longer than ICE regulations allow.  Furthermore, the GAO also found that DHS does not monitor "whether DSOs and foreign students are complying with requirements that students (1) have been in their program of study for at least one academic year prior to receiving authorization and (2) complete their OPT within certain time frames established by the type of OPT."[16] In other words, thousands of foreign students are working in the United States in violation of DHS regulations.

The OPT program, which has never been approved by Congress, was created to allow foreign students to obtain temporary work in their field of study.  It was created to be a benefit to employers and students alike.  Yet, due to gross lack of oversight by DHS, foreign students can be undetected from enforcement.  Employers have very little responsibility when employing foreign students and no requirements to pay them a certain wage.  Some employers even target foreign nationals with OPT, putting American workers and students at an unfair disadvantage.

The problems with OPT are extensive and serious.  The report not only calls into question the Department's oversight of the program, but also whether such lack of oversight is a serious national security risk.  At least one terrorist, Faisal Shahzad, a foreign national from Pakistan, may have utilized OPT prior to planning out an attempted terrorist attack on U.S. citizens in Times Square, New York.  While it is difficult to know how many other potential terrorists may have exploited OPT to remain in the United States, it is clear that the program requires an immediate overhaul before another potential terrorist exploits it.  The SEVP program, including the OPT program, needs serious leadership that will consider enforcement a top priority and will work diligently to close loopholes and reduce risks associated with it.

 

The gross lack of oversight of this program is inexcusable and should be immediately addressed by you and the Department.  Therefore, I urge your Department to swiftly incorporate all of the GAO's "Recommendations for Executive Action" in their entirety so that ICE can begin effectively identifying, assessing, and then addressing OPT risks.  Moreover, I implore you to place an immediate moratorium on the OPT program until you can personally certify that the program is secure and that the Department can locate all foreign students with OPT authorization.

Finally, the GAO provided me with a law enforcement sensitive (LES) report in January.  However, due to concerns of officials in your Department, the GAO was instructed to redact certain information and worked with the GAO to publish a public report.  I would appreciate being kept apprised of the issues that were raised in the LES report but not in the public report. Please send updates and information to XXX of my staff at XXX.

I look forward to a speedy response.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member

[1] GAO Report 14-356, page 14.

[2] GAO Report 14-356, page 30.

[3] GAO Report 11-411.

[4] GAO Report 12-572.

[5] GAO Report 12-572.

[6] GAO Report 14-356, page 15.

[7] GAO Report 14-356, page 15.

[8] GAO Report 14-356, page 15.

[9] GAO Report 14-356, page 15.

[10] GAO Report 14-356, page 16.

[11] GAO Report 14-356, page 15.

[12] GAO Report, page 16.

[13] GAO Report, page 21.

[14] GAO Report, page 18.

[15] GAO Report, page 19.

[16] GAO Report, page 25.
11 Mar 2014

Grassley: Improve Justice for Victims of Sexual Assault in the Military

By Grassley Press
WASHINGTON - Arguing that "we're past the point of tinkering with the current system," Senator Chuck Grassley today worked to build bipartisan support for the Military Justice Improvement Act in advance of a vote of 55 to 45 by senators which defeated the bill on a procedural motion that required three-fifths of the votes for passage.

 

Click here to watch Grassley's floor statement.

 

The legislation sponsored by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand with Grassley as an original co-sponsor, would have empowered victims to come forward by taking the judicial process for sexual assault cases outside the chain of command.

 

The proposed reform would move the decision about whether to prosecute any crime punishable by one year or more in confinement to independent, trained, professional military prosecutors.  Thirty-seven crimes that are uniquely military in nature, such as disobeying orders or going Absent Without Leave, would be excepted and remain within the chain of command.  A companion measure is pending in the House of Representatives.

 

"We've had promises from military leaders for years and years about tackling the problem of sexual assault within the current system, but the problem isn't getting better.  The current system has a deterrent effect on reporting sexual assault, and if sexual assault cases aren't reported, they can't be prosecuted," Grassley said.  "Something as serious and life-altering as sexual assault requires bold action.  And when young people make the commitment to serve their country in uniform and put themselves in harm's way to defend and protect America's freedoms, they deserve to know their rights will be protected, including access to justice."

 

Last fall, the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, known as DACOWITS, voted overwhelmingly in support of every component of the Military Justice Improvement Act.  This committee was created in 1951 by the Secretary of Defense and includes civilian and retired military women and men to provide advice and recommendations on matters and policies relating to the recruitment and retention, treatment, employment, integration, and well-being of highly qualified professional women in the Armed Forces.

 

Grassley said that sexual assault in the military isn't a military matter but a law enforcement matter, and that the Military Justice Improvement Act does justice to the U.S. military code of honor, which is based on integrity and fidelity to the rule of law.

 

Below is the text of remarks made today by Grassley during Senate debate, along with a recent opinion column in The Des Moines Register and a recent story about the leadership of Air Force Lt. General Michelle Johnson, an Iowan, in combating sexual assault in the military.

 

Floor Statement of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

Thursday, March 6, 2014

 

I am proud to partner with Senator Gillibrand as an original cosponsor of the Military Justice Improvement Act and I would like to say a few words about why it is needed.

 

I appreciate the fact that a large number of common sense reforms were included in the National Defense Authorization Act.

 

These changes were long overdue.

 

However, we are past the point of tinkering with the current system and hoping that does the trick.

 

We have had promises about tackling the problem of sexual assault within the current system for years and years but the problem isn't getting any better.

 

We don't have the luxury of time to try some new reforms of the current system and hope that has an impact.

 

What's more, the current system appears to be part of the problem.

Let me elaborate on what I mean by that.

 

We know from a recent Defense Department report, 50 percent of female victims stated they did not report the crime because they believed that nothing would be done with their report.

 

Seventy-four percent of females and 60 percent of males perceived one or more barriers to reporting sexual assault.

 

Sixty-two percent of victims who reported a sexual assault indicated they perceived some form of professional, social, and/or administrative retaliation.

 

We can talk about protections for victims and we can enact more protections as we did in the National Defense Authorization Act.

 

But, the fact remains that the current structure of the Military Justice System is having a deterrent effect on reporting of sexual assault.  If sexual assault cases aren't reported, they can't be prosecuted.

 

If sexual assault isn't prosecuted, predators will remain in the military and that results in a perception that sexual assault is tolerated in the military culture.

 

That destroys morale and it destroys lives.

 

If an enemy tried to sew that kind of discord among our military, we wouldn't tolerate it, but we are doing it to ourselves.

 

The men and women who have volunteered to place their lives on the line deserve better than that and our military readiness demands it.

 

Taking prosecutions out of the hands of commanders and giving them to professional prosecutors who are independent of the chain of command will help ensure impartial justice for the men and women of our armed forces.

 

I know some senators will be nervous about the fact that the military is lobbying against this legislation.

 

I have the greatest respect for our military leaders, but Congress has given the military leadership more than enough time to try and fix the current system.

 

We can't wait any longer.

 

We also hear that this measure will affect the ability of commanders to retain "good order and discipline."

 

Our legislation in no way takes away the ability of commanders to punish troops under their command for military infractions.

 

Commanders also can and should be held accountable for the climate under their command.

 

But, the point here is that sexual assault is a law enforcement matter - not a military one.

 

If anyone wants official assurances that we are on the right track, we can take confidence in the fact that an advisory committee appointed by the Secretary of Defense himself supports our reforms.

 

On September 27, 2013, the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) voted overwhelmingly in support of each and every one of the components of the legislation before us.

 

DACOWITS was created in 1951 by then Secretary of Defense, George C.  Marshall.

 

The Committee is composed of civilian and retired military women and men who are appointed by the Secretary of Defense to provide advice and recommendations on matters and policies relating to the recruitment and retention, treatment, employment, integration, and well-being of highly qualified professional women in the Armed Forces.

 

Historically, the recommendations by DACOWITS have been very instrumental in effecting changes to laws and policies pertaining to military women.

 

This isn't an outside advocacy group or ad hoc panel.  It's a longstanding advisory committee handpicked by the Secretary of Defense and it supports the substance of our legislation to a tee.


It's easier to support incremental reform.

 

In fact, it is often prudent to try small reforms before making bigger changes.

 

I understand why some senators are nervous about a total overhaul of the military justice system.

 

It isn't something I approach lightly.

 

However, we have waited for years as various initiatives to tackle this problem have been tried.

 

When we are talking about something as serious and life altering as sexual assault, we cannot afford to wait any longer than we already have.

 

The time has come to act decisively to change the military culture.

 

We need a clean break from the system where sexual assault isn't reported because of a perception that justice won't be done.

 

Our men and women serving this country deserve nothing less and they deserve it now.

 

They shouldn't have to wait any longer for justice.

 

For those reluctant to take this step now, I would say: if the more modest reforms proposed by others prove insufficient and we have to come back and enact our reforms at a later time, how will you justify your vote today?

 

Now is the time for bold action and I would urge all my colleagues to join us.

***
11 Mar 2014

Grassley Seeks Documents from Northwestern University on Heart Valve Device

By Grassley Press

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa is asking Northwestern University for documents on a medical device implanted in patients for heart valve repair.  Grassley wrote to the university in 2008 and 2009 about the Myxo device over allegations that the device had not been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before it was implanted in patients as part of an outcomes study.

Since then, new allegations have come to light that Northwestern did not provide all of the documents to Grassley that were squarely within the scope of his request, and that Northwestern failed to provide any notice or explanation of why it was withholding certain documents.  In a letter this week to the presidents of Northwestern University and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Grassley asks for the documents apparently withheld from him in response to his earlier inquiries.

The documents are important to reviewing whether Northwestern's use of the devices was appropriate and whether notification to patients was adequate.

Grassley has a longstanding interest in FDA oversight and patient safety.

The text of his letter is available here.

-30-
11 Mar 2014

Grassley Welcomes Three New Members to Senate Caucus on Foster Youth

By Grassley Press

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), co-chairman of the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth, today welcomed three news members to the caucus:  Sens. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.).

"There's a tremendous need to shape helpful public policy for foster youth," Grassley said.  "The more senators interested in the cause, the better the results we can produce for the kids who seek stable families and good education leading to successful adulthood."

The full members of the caucus are:  co-chairs, Grassley and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.); members, Sens. James Risch (R-Idaho), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Mark Begich (D-Ala.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), and Tim Kaine (D-Va.).

Grassley formed the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth with Landrieu in 2009.  The caucus provides a voice for foster youth in shaping the policies that affect their quality of life.  The caucus has a special focus on older youth who need continued support as they age out of the system.  Among other activities, it sponsors a speakers' series to bring the best ideas from the field to policymakers in Washington, D.C.

Grassley formed the caucus after working on major adoption and foster care policy, including the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 and the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoption Act of 2008.

-30-

Pages

Subscribe & Listen to Reader Podcasts

On Stands Now

 

Tagged Content

Two Ways to Subscribe

1. Subscribe to free weekly e-mail content updates.

You'll get both the current official narrative challenge and What's Happenin' in the Quad Cities.
(Did you know we publish a new Amy Alkon Advice Goddess, Real Astrology, Red Meat cartoon and RCR Crossword every week?) 

* indicates required

View previous campaigns.

2. Get 12 monthly issues mailed first class for $48

Get 12 issues mailed monthly for $48 per year.

Get the printed Reader edition mailed to you (or anyone you want) first-class for 12 months for $48.
$24 goes to postage and handling, $24 goes to keeping the doors open!

Click this link to Subscribe now.