Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary

On the Nominations of

Jacqueline Nguyen, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit;

Kristine Gerhard Baker, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas;

John Z. Lee, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois

Monday, May 7, 2012

 

Mr. President,

 

Today, the Senate is expected to confirm three additional judicial nominees.  With the confirmation of Judge Nguyen to the 9th Circuit, Ms. Baker to the Eastern District of Arkansas, and Mr. Lee to the Northern District of Illinois, we will have confirmed 83 judicial nominees during this Congress.

 

It is somewhat ironic that today, according to press accounts, the White House is holding  a forum and strategy session with administration officials  and 150 supporters from across the country concerned about the judicial vacancy rate.

 

I wonder if at this strategy session, the White House took a look in the mirror, when addressing the vacancy rate.  Only the President can make nominations to the Senate.  While we have a responsibility to advise and consent, Senators cannot nominate individuals to fill vacancies.  I would note the President has failed to do this in 47 of the 76 remaining vacancies, including 21 of 35 seats designated as judicial emergencies.  That is more than 60 percent of current vacancies with no nominee.

 

The White House and the Democrats in the Senate are fond of their claim that "millions of Americans" are living in districts with vacancies.  Of course, what the other side fails to tell you is that 88 million Americans live in judicial districts where vacancies exist because the President has failed to nominate judges.  Most of those seats have been vacant for more than a year.  Once again, if the White House is serious about judicial vacancies, it holds the key to nominations for those vacancies.  It has failed in too many instances, to use that key.

 

Furthermore, according to the press accounts, in its invitation, the White House accused Republicans of subjecting consensus nominees to "unprecedented delays and filibusters."  This is a statement without factual basis and ignores the record of judicial confirmations.

 

I would note that after today's confirmations, there are 12 nominees on the executive calendar that might fall into the category of "consensus nominees."  Seven nominees on the calendar had significant opposition in committee, and clearly are not consensus nominees.  The substantial majority of those 12 nominees were reported out of committee fewer than 10 legislative days ago.  Not only is there no filibuster against any of the consensus nominees, but I am not sure how there can be any accusation of delay.

 

Let me remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle of the obstructionism, delay and filibusters, which they perfected.  The history of President Bush's nominees to the Ninth Circuit provides some examples.

 

President Bush nominated nine individuals to the Ninth Circuit.  Three of those nominations were filibustered.  Two of those filibusters were successful.  The nominations of Carolyn Kuhl and William Gerry Myers languished for years before being returned to the President.  A fourth nominee, Randy Smith waited over 14 months before finally being confirmed after his nomination was blocked and returned to the President.  After being renominated, he was finally confirmed by a unanimous vote.

 

President Obama, on the other hand, has nominated six individuals to the Ninth Circuit. Only one of those nominees was subject to a cloture vote.  After that vote failed, the nominee withdrew.  Today, we confirm the third nomination by President Obama to the Ninth Circuit.   Those three confirmations took an average of about 8 months from the date of nomination.  For all of President Obama's Circuit nominees, the average time from nomination to confirmation is about 242 days.  For President Bush's Circuit nominees, the average wait for confirmation was 350 days.  One might ask why President Bush was treated differently than this President.

 

Another example of past Democratic obstruction and delay is in Arkansas.  Today, we confirm President Obama's nominee to the Eastern District of Arkansas within about six months of her nomination.  I would note that President Bush's nominee, J. Leon Holmes, sat on the executive calendar for more than 14 months awaiting confirmation.  From nomination, his confirmation took over 17 months.  Again, why was President Bush's nominee treated worse than this President's nominee?

 

I can only conclude that the White House has selective memory, or a different definition, when it accuses Republicans of unprecedented delay and obstruction.  I am disappointed that the President continues to blame Republicans for vacancies which have no nominee and chooses to follow a political strategy of blaming, rather than working with the Senate to nominate consensus nominees.

 

I will put the remainder of my statement in the record which discusses the qualifications of today's nominees.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Jacqueline Nguyen, presently serving as a United States District Judge, is nominated to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit.  Judge Nguyen received her A.B. from Occidental College in 1987 and her J.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law in 1991. She began her legal career as an associate in the Litigation Department at the Los Angeles law firm of Musick, Peeler & Garrett where she handled litigation matters involving commercial disputes, intellectual property, and construction defects.  From 1995 until 2002, Judge Nguyen was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California.  There, she handled the investigation and prosecution of human trafficking, immigration fraud, mail and tax fraud, and money laundering cases.  In 2000, Judge Nguyen became Deputy Chief of the General Crimes Section.  In that position, she handled the training and supervision of all new Assistant U.S. Attorneys and various types of criminal cases involving violent crimes, drug trafficking, firearms violations, and fraud.

 

In 2002, Governor Gray Davis appointed Judge Nguyen to the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles.  In 2009, she was nominated by President Obama to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California.  The Senate approved her nomination on December 1, 2009 by a vote of 97 -0.  In her capacity as a judge, she has presided over thousands of cases.

 

The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated her as Qualified for this position.

 

Kristine Gerhard Baker is nominated to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.  Ms. Baker received her B.A. from St. Louis University in 1993 and her J.D. from University of Arkansas School of Law in 1996.  She served as a Law Clerk for the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, then the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.  In 1998, she became an associate in the law firm Williams & Anderson, LLP where she handled commercial litigation cases involving breach of contract and fraud. In 2000, Ms. Baker joined the law firm Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow PLLC.  Her focus at the firm has been devoted to complex commercial litigation cases, including cases involving employment discrimination, securities violations, unfair competition, products liability, Fair Housing Act claims and Freedom of Information Act claims.  She has handled in administrative proceedings and in federal and state court claims for discrimination, harassment and wrongful termination as well as claims arising under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave her a substantial majority rating of Well Qualified and a minority Qualified.

 

John Z. Lee is nominated to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois.  Mr. Lee received his A.B. from Harvard College in 1989 and his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1992. He began his legal career as a trial attorney for the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), Environment & Natural Resources Division.  There he represented the United States in federal courts on issues primarily involving environmental statutes.  He also served as Special Assistant to the Counsel to former Attorney General Janet Reno.

 

In 1994, he left the public sector to take a job as an associate at Mayer Brown.  In 1996, he joined a new firm, Grippo & Elden, as an associate.  In 1999, he moved to his current firm, Freeborn & Peters.  There he made Income Partner in 2001 and Equity Partner in 2004.  In private practice, Mr. Lee has focused almost entirely on litigation, expanding his expertise to complex commercial disputes, including cases involving antitrust, intellectual property, employment and business tort issues.  Most of these cases were in federal courts, particularly the Seventh and Ninth Circuits.  He also represented clients in criminal investigations of antitrust and financial regulations violations.  In private practice, he represents public and private companies, individual businesspersons and low-income clients pro bono. He has an ABA rating of Substantial Majority Qualified, Minority Not Qualified.

 

-30-

Justice Department IG Expected to Investigate

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is pressing for answers in the alleged mistreatment and detainment by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) of a University of California-San Diego student.

In a letter to DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart, Grassley specifically asks about an investigation by the Department of Justice Inspector General and the DEA's cooperation with the Inspector General.   He also inquired about the DEA's general detention policies and the detailed actions by the DEA in the case of the California student.

"Judging from the press reports, the Inspector General will have a lot to look into," Grassley said.  "And, if the allegations are true, the DEA and its agents need to be held accountable for the treatment of this young man."

The Senate Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Here's a copy of Grassley's letter to Leonhart.

 

May 4, 2012

Via Electronic Transmission

The Honorable Michele Leonhart

Administrator

Drug Enforcement Administration

700 Army Navy Drive, Room 12060

Arlington, VA 22202

 

Dear Administrator Leonhart,

I write today regarding reports of the alleged mistreatment of Daniel Chong, a University of California-San Diego college student, by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in San Diego.  If the reports are accurate that Mr. Chong was left for five days in a five-by-ten foot windowless cell without the basic human necessities of food, water, or a bathroom, the actions of the DEA raise serious and troubling questions.

According to media reports, Amy Roderick, a DEA spokeswoman states "seven suspects were brought to county detention after processing, one was released and the individual in question was accidentally left in one of the cells."  In the same article, Mr. Chong himself states that, from his cell, he heard occasional footsteps, doors opening and closing, and the sound of muffled voices and that he even saw shadows beneath the door.  If that is true, it is difficult for me to comprehend how no one could have heard what he says were his own repeated cries for help over his course of time in the cell.  I appreciate that Acting Special Agent-in-Charge William Sherman has expressed his "deepest apologies" to Mr. Chong and has willingly opened an internal investigation into the matter, but I am not sure that will be enough to put the matter to rest.

The physical and psychological trauma that Mr. Chong was subjected to because of the apparent neglect by the DEA is the most troubling to me.  The article asserts that Mr. Chong resorted to survival skills to stay alive and when he was eventually found he was immediately "taken to the hospital and treated for cramps, dehydration and a perforated lung - the result of ingesting some broken glass."

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, I have a distinct responsibility in conducting oversight over the DEA.  Further, given the alleged actions give rise to serious constitutional violations; I would appreciate expeditious responses to the following questions.

·         What is DEA's written policy on the detention of suspects at DEA facilities?  Please provide a copy of all relevant policy and training manuals that reference procedures for handling detainees in DEA custody at DEA facilities.

·         Is there a shift supervisor responsible for oversight of the facility and the detainees?

·         What are the policies and procedures of the facility for the handling of a detainee, from intake to discharge?

·         Is there a log system in place to maintain and track the detainees?  If yes, please explain the process.

·         Routinely, holding cells are monitored by surveillance cameras for the protection of both the detainee and the law enforcement official.  Is this technology available at the DEA facility?  If so, is someone responsible for monitoring the cameras?

·         Is there a system in place to indicate when someone is located inside a holding cell (ie. strobe light indicator)?

·         What was the reason that Mr. Chong was originally apprehended in the raid?  Was he interviewed or the subject of questioning?  If questioned and determined to be innocent, why was he returned to the holding cell instead of being released?

·         Was Mr. Chong searched for weapons and contraband before placing him in the holding cell?  Was the holding cell searched for weapons and contraband before receiving Mr. Chong?

·         Can you explain where the methamphetamines came from?  Was it inventoried as evidence or contraband on DEA records?  If so, please provide the chain-of-custody records for the methamphetamines found in the holding cell?

·         How would it have been possible for Mr. Chong to hear others in nearby rooms and for them not to have heard his reported cries for help?

·         Mr. Chong asserts that "when they opened the door, one of them said: 'Here's the water you've been asking for."  How was Mr. Chong finally discovered?  Was Mr. Chong discovered by someone from the DEA?  Please provide a timeline showing the time when Mr. Chong was received into the county facility until the time he was discharged.

·         It is my understanding that the Department of Justice Inspector General (OIG) has initiated an investigation into the DEA's conduct in this matter.  What if any contact has the DEA had with the OIG?  Will DEA cooperate with the OIG's inquiry?

Thank you for your cooperation and attention to this important matter.  I look forward to your prompt response no later than May 11, 2012.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley

Ranking Member
Friday, May 4, 2012

Sen. Chuck Grassley and Sen. Herb Kohl, authors of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, today made the following comments on news that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) needs more time to implement the act and will not begin data collection until 2013.  CMS' statement is available here.

Grassley said, "It's disappointing that CMS won't even collect data at all this year.  The process has dragged on long past the statutory deadline for implementation.  Consumers need to know more about the financial relationships between their doctors and drug companies sooner rather than later.   It's important that CMS get this right in every way, including the usefulness and accuracy of the information.  Given all of the extra time, CMS will have no further excuses for not accomplishing these goals."

Kohl said, "While I am disappointed by this delay and the timeline, I do look forward to working with CMS to finalize the rules so that data collection can begin in January 2013."

The senators developed the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which was signed into law in 2010, after revelations of significant under-reporting of the amount of payments received by certain doctors from drug and device companies.  The new law requires public disclosure of the financial relationships between physicians and the pharmaceutical, medical device and biologics industries. The law required the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish reporting procedures for applicable manufacturers to submit information, as well as procedures for making that information available to the public, by October 1, 2011. CMS issued the guidance in December after more than a year of pushing for a timely release from Grassley and Kohl.

Grassley and Kohl have written to the acting CMS administrator with questions about implementation, including when CMS will begin data collection.

The text of the Grassley-Kohl April 4 letter to the acting CMS administrator is available here.

The acting CMS administrator's May 3 response is available here.

Grassley Seeks Detailed Accounting of IRS Whistleblower Office Obstacles

 

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa has asked the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department to answer a detailed series of questions aimed at understanding why the IRS whistleblower office has been so slow in processing cases and making rewards.  Grassley expressed his "extreme disappointment in the management of the program" in a letter to the agency.

 

"The IRS does not have a problem attracting whistleblowers," Grassley said.  "The IRS has a problem processing whistleblower information and compensating whistleblowers in a timely manner.  I'm hearing frustration from whistleblowers, and my worst fears are coming true.  The lack of progress is demoralizing whistleblowers, and they might stop coming forward.  That would be a bad outcome for the taxpayers."

 

Grassley's latest inquiry was prompted in part by revelations that the director of the IRS whistleblower program was a panelist at the Offshore Alert Conference at the Ritz-Carlton in Miami Beach.  "It seems the whistleblower office director's time might be better spent reviewing hundreds of existing cases instead of attending a conference that isn't directed at potential whistleblowers," Grassley said.

 

Grassley wrote to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to seek a status update on several benchmarks that would indicate progress in the whistleblower program.  The letter is the latest step in Grassley's oversight of the whistleblower office.

 

Grassley wrote the 2006 law improving the IRS whistleblower office.  He modeled the improvements after the successful 1986 whistleblower amendments to the federal False Claims Act, which have brought back more than $30 billion to the federal treasury and deterred even more fraudulent activity.

 

The text of Grassley's latest letter is available here.

 

The text of Grassley's September 2011 letter to the IRS is available here.  The IRS' November 2011 response is available here.

 

The text of Grassley's letter to the Treasury secretary in June 2010 is available here.

 

-30-

Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the following statement after information from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee indicated a possible vote about holding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.  Holder has refused to provide subpoenaed documents related to the congressional investigation of Operation Fast and Furious.

 

Grassley first began investigating alleged gunwalking in January 2011 after whistleblowers came forward to alert Congress about gunwalking in Arizona.  The Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder initially denied gunwalking occurred, but have since withdrawn the denials and admitted that ATF whistlebowers were right to complain about the reckless tactic.  Despite the constitutional responsibility of Congress to conduct oversight of the executive branch, the Justice Department has stonewalled every step of the investigation.  In fact, the Justice Department has provided 80,000 pages of documents to the Inspector General in connection with its investigation of Operation Fast and Furious, but has provided only 6,000 pages of documents to Congress.  The department has provided no legal justification for withholding each of those 74,000 pages.

 

"The subpoena authority of the House Oversight Committee, and the Chairman's willingness to use it, helped shed light on Operation Fast and Furious and the Justice Department's desire to allow guns to walk into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.  Congressman Issa deserves credit for moving forward on contempt.  The Attorney General and the Justice Department are thumbing their nose at the constitutional authority provided to the legislative branch to conduct oversight.

 

"The Attorney General is facing a real test of leadership here.  He has a choice to make.  He can force the department to come clean, or he can force a high-stakes political conflict between the legislative and executive branches.  It's past time to hold accountable those public officials responsible for our own government's role in walking guns into the hands of criminals.  The family of Agent Terry deserves more than what they're getting from this administration."

Grassley Concerned that Fraudulent Practices May be Used to Circumvent Protections of H-1B Visa

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley is pressing the U.S. Departments of State and Homeland Security to look into possible improper use of B-1 visas by certain companies looking to import cheaper foreign labor.

In a letter to Department of State Secretary Hillary Clinton and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Grassley cited a Seattle Times story that outlined questionable practices by The Boeing Company in using the B-1 visa instead of the H-1B visa to bring in workers from Moscow.  The story said that officials from U.S. Customs and Border Protection interviewed several arriving individuals and found that their stories about what they would do in the country did not correspond with the terms of their visas.  The Customs and Border Protection agents turned away these workers, but it has been reported that despite Boeing not changing its practices an additional 250 Russian contract engineers have entered the United States to work with the company.

In his letter, Grassley reiterated his concern that the "B-1 in Lieu of H-1B" program was being abused to bring in foreign workers without the protections of the H-1B visa program.  Grassley first raised questions about the program to Clinton and Napolitano on April 14, 2011.  The State Department indicated it was working with Homeland Security to "consider removing or substantially amending" the Foreign Affairs Manual.  The Department of Homeland Security suggested it would work to "develop guidance clarifying the scope of activities permissible in the B-1 business visitor classification."  At this time, nothing official has been done to remedy the situation.

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

 

April 30, 2012

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary

U.S. Department of State

2201 C Street NW

Washington, D.C. 20520

 

The Honorable Janet Napolitano

Secretary

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

245 Murray Lane, Mailstop 0150

Washington, D.C. 20528-0150

 

Dear Secretary Clinton and Secretary Napolitano:

I write again to express my concerns about the B-1 visa program, particularly the so-called "B-1 in lieu of H-1B" policy, and seek your cooperation to determine if some companies are abusing this avenue to bring in cheaper foreign labor.

Last April, I wrote to both of you about the "B-1 in lieu of H-1B" policy, and asked that the policy, which is included in the State Department Foreign Affairs Manual but omitted in Homeland Security guidance, be reconsidered.  To date, nothing on this issue has been done, despite a fairly positive response from the State Department that they were working on "removing or substantially amending the FAM."

I remain concerned about fraudulent actions that some companies may be taking in order to get around the requirements and U.S. worker protections of the H-1B visa program.  While my previous letter on this issue focused on a lawsuit pending against Infosys, it has come to my attention that The Boeing Company ("Boeing") may have employed similar tactics to bring in foreign workers.

According to a report in the Seattle Times, 18 Russian engineers arrived in Seattle on October 14, 2011, with B-1 visas.  Officials from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) interviewed the arriving individuals and found that their stories about what they would do in the country did not correspond with the terms of their visas.  Records provided by the Seattle Times to my office reveal the following notes between the foreign nationals and CBP officials (who took statements under oath in a sworn affidavit):

·         One individual admitted that, prior to her trip, she was told by her company (Nik, Ltd.) that she would perform the same work in the United States as she did in Russia.  This person admitted that she would be working alongside Boeing employees.  She also said she was instructed by her company not to state that she would be working in the United States.

·         One individual stated that he was invited by Boeing and presented an invitation letter to attend training, but admitted that it "was not the whole truth."

·         Several individuals admitted that they intended to work at Boeing five days a week, eight hours a day.

·         One individual stated that the letter he presented to the U.S. Consulate in Moscow was not entirely correct in its context, and that he would be working, not training.  When asked by the CBP officer if an American could perform the work, he stated that "Boeing needs to hire one" and that "it was his belief that it was cheaper to hire Russian engineers."

·         One individual told officers that he would not do any hands-on work at the Boeing plant in Everett, Washington, but later, under oath, he admitted that he would.

It was apparent to CBP officers that these foreign nationals were not traveling to the United States to receive or provide training; attend a conference, meeting or trade show; be a speaker, lecturer, or researcher; or perform sales or sign contracts; which are the types of activities appropriate for a B-1 visa.  It's my understanding that all 18 B-1 visa holders were turned away on October 14, 2011.  In light of the report and the CBP documentation, I was dismayed to read earlier this month a follow-up story in the Seattle Times stating that Boeing has not changed its practices, and that about 250 additional Russian contract engineers have entered the country to work with Boeing.

Given these reports and my ongoing concern about this issue, I ask for your help in answering the following questions about Boeing and the use of B-1 visas:

1.      How many B-1 visas has Boeing petitioned for in the last five years?  How many have been approved and how many denied?

2.      How many B-1 visa holders, other than those encountered by CBP on October 14, have been turned away at a port of entry in the last five years?

3.      What other previous trips had each of the 18 workers (from October 14, 2011) made to the United States?  Under what visa classification and for how long were their previous stays in the United States?

4.      How often, if at all, does the Department of Homeland Security conduct site visits of companies that regularly receive B-1 visitors?  Has or will the Department of Homeland Security conduct an on-site review or I-9 audit of Boeing?  If not, why not?

5.      In light of the recent reports about certain companies using B-1 visas to circumvent other employment visa programs, are CBP officers receiving updated guidance on how to handle B-1 visa entries?  Are consular officers receiving guidance or training to detect fraud by B-1 visa applicants?

It's my hope that your Departments will provide as much information to my office as possible about this matter, including any other relevant information not requested in this letter.  In doing so, we can work together to ensure that companies are abiding by the law and not ignoring American workers at home who may be able to do these high skilled jobs.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley

United States Senator

Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the following statement after the U.S. Secret Service released new conduct rules.  Grassley has been pressing for an independent investigation of the Colombia prostitution scandal and other misconduct that recently has been alleged.  The Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over the Secret Service.

"It's too bad common sense policy has to be dictated in this manner.  New conduct rules are necessary to preventing more shenanigans from happening in the future, and whether these are the best, and most cost effective, rules to stop future misconduct remains to be seen.  That's why a sheet of paper with new rules doesn't negate the previous actions, and why it remains necessary to hold the agency and the agents accountable following a complete and independent investigation."

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following statement on his inquiry of the Federal Communications Commission's handling of the LightSquared wireless project.  Today is the one-year anniversary of Grassley's first letter to the agency on its decision-making regarding the project.

"Exactly one year ago today, I wrote my first letter to the FCC on LightSquared.  At that time, headlines were describing interference concerns between LightSquared and Global Positioning System devices.  LightSquared's primary backer was in the news over having attracted the Securities and Exchange Commission's attention.  I wondered why the FCC had given expedited preliminary approval to a project led by someone under SEC investigation and with seemingly serious interference concerns.  I began seeking the FCC's insight into its decision-making on this project.  The agency turned out to be among the least responsive I've ever come across in 30 years of conducting constitutional oversight of the executive branch of government.  The commission suggested my staff go through the Freedom of Information Act and said it would take two years to get a response.  The commissioner told me the commission responds only to the chairmen of the two House and Senate committees of jurisdiction.  In effect, that leaves 99.6 percent of Congress out of luck if we have questions about the agency's decision-making.

"As I began my investigation, facts came to light that raised more questions about the FCC's actions.  E-mails showed that LightSquared's CEO sought meetings with the White House while mentioning attendance at fundraisers for President Obama.  Then, news reports showed the White House pressured a four-star general to downplay the threat LightSquared posed to GPS.

"I continued to seek the information on the general principle that the public's business ought to be public.  The FCC continued to stonewall, so I placed a hold on two FCC commissioner nominees in an effort to get the information I requested.  Still, the agency stonewalled.

"House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans made a comprehensive document request of the FCC on LightSquared and are giving me access to the documents as the agency provides them.  I appreciate the access.

"At first, the documents were evasively superficial.  The submissions contained thousands of pages of already public information, including news clips.  The FCC played games to inflate its page count, which is not the mark of a responsive agency.  Gradually, the document submissions began to include some substantive information.

"So far, the documents I have seen begin to give some answers about why the FCC gave such fast preliminary approval to LightSquared.  The documents show that rather than being an objective arbiter, the commission appeared to be enthusiastic about the LightSquared project and wanted to see it materialize.  The prospect of a new broadband provider that could challenge current providers was appealing to the FCC, according to the documents.  It's impossible to draw a complete picture of the FCC's considerations in green-lighting LightSquared because the documents available so far do not offer a comprehensive view.  However, it appears the FCC wanted LightSquared to succeed.

"It may be that the FCC was so intrigued by the prospect of a new broadband provider that it overlooked technical concerns or the financial implications if the project's chief investor were to undergo SEC sanctions.  I can't say for sure because I don't have enough information to make a determination.

"However, the documents raise an important question.  Is the FCC a neutral arbiter weighing all public interests in each case, or is it a cheerleader for favored projects?  If it is a cheerleader, which is inappropriate, why was such an obviously flawed project selected?

"The documents I've seen so far raise more questions than I had before.  However, since there is now a process in place to obtain all of the relevant documents from the FCC, I intend to lift my hold on the two FCC nominees.  But my inquiry is not over.  I'm told there are 11,000 more pages of documents from the FCC on LightSquared that will be forthcoming to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  I look forward to receiving access to those documents.

"The public deserves definitive answers on why the FCC handled LightSquared the way it did.  Ultimately, the agency decided the GPS interference concerns were too great and withdrew LightSquared's waiver.  LightSquared's primary investor continues to receive intense scrutiny from the SEC.  Now, LightSquared might sue the government.  Investment is lost, and future investors might be reluctant to approach the FCC with projects.

"The FCC badly mishandled LightSquared.  Finding out exactly what went wrong is key toward preventing future debacles.  I hope the pending nominees, and the rest of the commission, will use the LightSquared situation as a case study in what not to do.

"The FCC controls a valuable public resource in the spectrum.  Its decisions affect consumers, companies, and jobs.  It should be fair, neutral, and above all, transparent.  Transparency brings accountability, which the FCC desperately needs."

Senator Chuck Grassley released the following statement after learning that the Department of Labor would be withdrawing the entirety of its proposed regulations that would have put stringent restrictions on young people working on family farms.  Grassley, one of the only working family farmers in the U.S. Senate, has vigorously defended the opportunity for kids to work on family farms.  He has said that generations of Iowans have cut their teeth working on the farm, whether for their own family, or a neighbor's farm and that young people are a valuable part of farming operations.

"It's good the Labor Department rethought the ridiculous regulations it was going to stick on farmers and their families.  It would have been devastating to farm families across the country.  Much of rural America was built on families helping families, neighbors helping neighbors.  To even propose such regulations defies common sense, and shows a real lack of understanding as to how the family farm works.  I'm glad the Obama administration came to its senses."


Thursday, April 26, 202

Senator Chuck Grassley, a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, made the following statement after the committee passed "The Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012."  Grassley is one of the only working family farmers in the United States Senate.  Grassley voted for the bill.

The Chairwoman's legislation that was debated in the Agriculture Committee contained the most important parts of Grassley's efforts to limit farm program payments to small- and mid-size farmers.  The legislation that cleared the committee will limit farm payments under the proposed new commodity program to $50,000 for individuals and $100,000 for married couples.  The bill also includes a provision to begin closing the loopholes that allow people who aren't involved in farming to collect farm payments.  The provision prevents non-farmers from being able to use the management loophole in current law.  A person who doesn't provide labor for the farming operation will still be able to qualify for farm payments by helping manage the farm.  However, there can only be one individual per farming operation qualifying for payments based solely on their providing management.  This provision will help the Department of Agriculture crack down on the general partnerships that have multiple non-farmers trying to qualify for farm payments by exploiting the management loophole.  This will end some of the most egregious abuses of the farm program.

"Today, progress was made in one of the most important areas needed for reform in the farm programs.  I've been pushing to limit farm program payments to those who need it most for many years.  The farm program was never meant to give 10 percent of the farmers 70 percent of the benefits.  We needed a fix that keeps the farm program focused on helping small- and medium-sized farmers get through the ups and downs of farming, all while understanding the fiscal situation the country is in.  This bill takes a meaningful step in the right direction.  There are still areas of improvement that I'll be pushing for, but I appreciate Senator Stabenow and Senator Roberts including this important reform in the bill."

Pages