The United States trade representative today said the administration would submit the United States-Korea free trade agreement to Congress "in the next few weeks." The submission would trigger a mandatory schedule for congressional action.  Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa made the following comment on this development.  Grassley is former chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Finance, with jurisdiction over international trade.  He is a senior member of the committee.

"The trade representative's comment today about action on pending trade agreements is very good news, if it's not more lip service.  The rest of the world has been moving forward with trade expansion, while this administration has put the United States on the sidelines, and it's been at the expense of America's workforce.  Employers and entrepreneurs in manufacturing, agriculture and the service sector need new market opportunities to grow businesses and create jobs.  The President's made a commitment to doubling U.S. exports.  That's impossible to achieve on the margins, without trade agreements.  The trade representative said the President intends to submit the U.S.-Korea trade agreement to Congress 'in the next few weeks.'  This is the most specific timeframe the White House has offered on the agreement since reworking it last year.  The White House should hold to this timeframe.  A big, new export market is exactly what U.S. producers need right now.  If and when the agreement comes to Congress, I'll do everything I can to help get it approved."

Friday, February 4, 2011

WASHINGTON ? Senator Chuck Grassley this week introduced the Justice for Survivors of Sexual Assault Act of 2011, along with Senator Al Franken of Minn., to help clear the backlog of untested rape kits around the country.  Senators Dianne Feinstein of Calif., Michael Bennet of Colo., Richard Burr of N.C., Bernie Sanders of Vt., and Bob Casey of Pa, also cosponsored the bill.

"There's a problem when rape kits sit on shelves for years at a time, while perpetrators roam the streets potentially harming others," Grassley said.  "The delays we're seeing are unacceptable, so we're working to end the backlog and help victims of sexual assault find justice in a timely manner."

Grassley said that it takes approximately one week to process a DNA evidence sample, so there is no reason every rape kit shouldn't be tested in a timely manner.

The Justice for Survivors of Sexual Assault Act of 2011 would also prohibit the current practice?permitted by federal law?that allows jurisdictions to bill rape victims and then force victims to seek reimbursement from state crime victims' funds.  It would also require jurisdictions receiving Debbie Smith funds to report backlog levels to the Department of Justice and specify how much of their Debbie Smith grant funds have been used to analyze DNA from sexual assault cases.

-30-

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

In one of the first orders of business of the 112^th Congress, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly approved a good government measure I've pursued for more than a decade.

In a move that will pull back the cloak of secrecy that effectively hog-ties the people's business in the U.S. Senate, anonymous "secret holds" will no longer be allowed.

A hold is a request by individual senators to their respective party's leader in the Senate to object on their behalf as a sort of proxy.   Until now, senators didn't have to disclose their identities when placing a hold.  Now, under the reform I co-authored, the Senate is under a binding resolution that automatically will trigger public disclosure of who is behind an objection to legislation or a nomination pending before the U.S. Senate. Specifically, the senator's identity will be published in The Congressional Record within 48 hours. Previously, lawmakers could bear no public accountability.

My reason for ending secret holds is simple: If a lawmaker finds it necessary to delay action on a pending bill or nomination to build consensus, gather more information or argue for a different approach or policy, he or she should have the guts to make the hold public. Requiring a non-negotiable end to the anonymity of holds will bring better, more effective transparency to the legislative process.

A hold is effective because much of the Senate's business operates by unanimous consent.  The reform will still allow each senator to exercise his or her prerogative to withhold consent on legislation or a nomination.  It's important to preserve senators' rights to represent their constituents and work for the best interests of the country.  But now such holds must withstand the light of day. The public has a right to know what their senators are objecting to and why.

In the U.S. Senate, I have championed many reforms in Washington that improve good governance and keep an important distinction in mind.  As stewards of the public purse, lawmakers work in Washington for the people. The people don't work for Washington. That's why I work year after year to hold office holders and the federal bureaucracy accountable.

Today I'm building on a crusade launched more than 20 years ago to bring Congress under the same laws it passes for people on Main Street. President Clinton signed my reform legislation into law in 1995. The Congressional Accountability Act applies a dozen federal workplace, employment and civil rights laws from which Congress routinely exempted itself, including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Veteran's Employment and Reemployment Rights at Chapter 43 of Title 38 of the U.S. Code, and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1989.

I'm also fighting to end another double standard that flies in the face of integrity and good governance. In the last Congress, the President and Democratic congressional leaders pushed through a sweeping federal health reform law that makes significant changes to the nation's health insurance system. Despite my efforts to ensure the new law would apply to the White House and those who drafted the bill in Congress, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 exempts the West Wing and congressional leadership staff from key elements of the law.

Talk about hogwash. Public officeholders who make the laws that apply to the rest of the country ought to have to taste their own medicine. That's why in January I reintroduced my legislation that would require the President, members of his cabinet and top congressional staff to obtain their health coverage through the same health insurance exchanges as many other Americans when health plans for the general public are made available.  The special carve-out sends an arrogant message to grass roots America:  It says health care reform is good enough for you, but not for us.

Another way I'm working to get Congress started out on the right foot is legislation several other senators and I have reintroduced to stop automatic pay raises for federal lawmakers. Although I helped to block the automatic pay raises for 2010 and 2011, it's time for Congress to swallow a permanent dose of common sense. Workers in the private sector don't have the luxury of receiving an automatic pay raise year after year. Neither should members of Congress. Our bill would require a public roll-call vote in the U.S. Senate before a pay raise is approved.

Making sure Washington lives by the same standards that apply to the rest of the country will dismantle cavalier policymaking that can be arrogant and uninformed. Conducting the people's business with transparency and holding public officeholders to account will help restore public confidence and improve public services. Bringing my Iowa-tested reality check back to Washington week after week sure helps me separate the wheat from the chaff.

Monday, January 31, 2011

WASHINGTON - January 27, 2011 - Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Wyden have scored a major victory in their bipartisan effort, which started more than a decade ago, to end the secrecy of Senate holds, a practice that allows individual senators to object to Senate action on legislation or nominations and, thereby, prevent a measure from moving forward.

The Senate passed a binding resolution sponsored by Grassley and Wyden today by a vote of 92 to 4.  It is the first time a Senate vote for the reform sought by Grassley and Wyden was on a freestanding resolution, and the change took effect upon passage.  The Standing Order created by the Grassley-Wyden legislation will require senators to make their objections in writing and the objections to be printed in The Congressional Record two days after they are made, whether or not the bills or nominations have been brought up for floor consideration.  Grassley said the goal is to increase transparency and achieve greater accountability.

"Holds are an important right of individual senators as they work to represent their constituents and for the best interests of the country, but the right ought to be exercised in the light of day," Grassley said.  "Disclosure will be good for the legislative process.  The requirements of our resolution will be meaningful in helping to make the public's business public."

Grassley and Wyden started their crusade against secret holds more than 10 years ago and have been joined in recent years by Senators Claire McCaskill and Susan Collins in making an effective case.

Over the years, Grassley and Wyden have made progress but also met opposition.  Leadership pledges to end the practice were disregarded.  In 1997, a Senate-passed Grassley-Wyden amendment to stop the secrecy was gutted by a legislative conference committee.  In 2006, Wyden-Grassley reform legislation passed the Senate as an amendment only to be altered to the point of ineffectiveness by 2007-passed legislation.

All along, Grassley and Wyden have made their own holds public information by routinely putting statements in The Congressional Record whenever they placed a hold.

The text of the floor statement delivered today by Grassley follows here.

Floor Statement of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

Thursday, January 27, 201

Mr. President.  I'm pleased to see this day come where the Senate will finally have the opportunity for an up or down vote on our freestanding Senate Resolution to require public disclosure of holds.

Senator Wyden and I have been at this for a long time.  We've made progress at times, and we have also had many disappointments where things didn't work out like we had hoped.  It's also been good to have Senator McCaskill join us in helping push this issue to the forefront recently.

Ending secret holds seems like a simple matter, but that hasn't proven to be the case.  Because secret holds are an informal process, it is easier said than done to push them out into the open using formal Senate procedures.  It's kind of like trying to wrestle down a greased hog.  However, after a lot of thought and effort, two committee hearings, and many careful revisions, I think this resolution does a pretty good job of accomplishing our simple goal.

That goal is really just to bring some more transparency into how the Senate does business.  This isn't the only proposal we are considering today related to Senate procedure, and I don't want there to be any confusion.  This proposal is not about altering the balance of power between the majority and minority party; neither does our resolution alter the rights of individual senators.

Over the time I've been working on this issue, I have occasionally encountered arguments purporting to defend the need for secret holds.  However, the arguments invariably focus on the legitimacy of holds, not secrecy.  I want to be clear that secrecy is my only target and the only thing that this resolution eliminates.

I fully support the fundamental right of an individual senator to withhold his or her consent when unanimous consent is requested.  Senators are not obligated to give their consent to anything they don't want to,and no senator is entitled to get any other senator's consent to their motion.

I think the best way to describe what we seek to do with this resolution is to explain historically how holds came into being, as senators have heard me do before.  In the old days, when senators conducted much of their daily business from their desk on the Senate floor, it was a simple matter to stand up and say, "I object" when necessary.  These days, most senators spend most of their time off the Senate floor.  We are required to spend time in committee hearings, meeting with constituents, and attending to other duties that keep us away from the Senate chamber.  As a result, we rely on our respective party's leaders here in the Senate to protect our rights and prerogatives as individual senators by asking them to object on our behalf.

Just as any senator has the right to stand up on the Senate floor and publicly say, "I object," it is perfectly legitimate to ask another senator to object on our behalf if we cannot make it to the floor when consent is requested.  By the same token, Senators have no inherent right to have others object on their behalf while keeping their identity secret.

If a senator has a legitimate reason to object to proceeding to a bill or nominee, then he or she ought to have the guts to do so publicly.  We need have no fear of being held accountable by our constituents if we are acting in their interest as we are elected to do.

Transparency is essential for accountability, and accountability is an essential component of our Constitutional system.  Transparency and accountability are also vital for the public to have faith in their government.

As I've said many times, the people's business ought to be done in public.  In my view, that's the principle at stake here.