Wednesday, March 14, 2012

 

Senator Chuck Grassley today released the following statement after the Senate Majority Leader cancelled 17 cloture votes on nominees for district court judgeships.  Grassley argued in a floor statement last night that the votes were a "manufactured crisis" when the Senate should be debating legislation that will help create jobs, help lower gas prices, and help get the debt under control.

 

"The good news for taxpayers is that the Majority Leader is finally realizing that the American people want the Senate to focus on jobs and the economy, instead of a cheap political ploy to force votes on judge nominees who would have been considered under regular Senate procedures.  Sky-rocketing gas prices, 8.3 percent unemployment and a $14 trillion debt should keep our focus solely on creating jobs for Americans and keeping government regulation under check.  It's time the Senate get to work for the American people, instead of the president's reelection."

 

Here's a copy of the text of Grassley's floor statement last night.

 

Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee

Remarks on District Court Cloture Petitions

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

 

Mr. President, I rise to speak regarding judicial nominations, and to respond to some of the claims made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

 

If you listened to some of our colleagues over the last couple of days, you would think the sky is falling.  They act as if the Senate is treating President Obama's judicial nominees differently than nominees have been treated in the past.

 

That is simply not true.

 

A fair and impartial look at the numbers tells a far different story.  The fact of the matter is that President Obama's nominees are being treated just as well, and in many cases, much more fairly than the Democrats treated President Bush's nominees.  I want to take just a couple minutes to set the record straight.

 

Let me start by taking a brief look at the 17 cloture motions the Majority has filed.  Seven of those nominees were reported out of the Judiciary Committee within the last month, and three of them were reported last week.

 

That is without precedent.  To our knowledge, the Majority has never filed cloture on district court nominees within a month of them being reported out of the Judiciary Committee.  That accounts for seven of the 17.

 

What about the other 10?  Well, what our colleagues fail to mention is that they could have gotten a majority of those nominees confirmed at the end of last Session.  Our side cleared quite few nominees, and we offered to confirm them as a package at the end of last Session.  However, the President refused to offer assurances that he would not bypass the Senate and make so-called recess appointments.

 

In other words, it was the President who chose not to confirm those nominees at the end of last Session.  If the President believes we should have confirmed more nominees last fall, he should look to his own Administration for an explanation.

 

That is the background on the 17 cloture motions before the Senate.

 

But let me comment on something that I read in one of our daily newspapers that covers the Congress.  A famous reporter said in the second paragraph of a report I read today that the Republicans are filibustering nominations. I told the writer of that article that you can't filibuster anything that's not before the United States Senate, and these nominees were not before the United States Senate until the leader of the majority filed these cloture motions.

 

So wouldn't you think, that if you believed you needed to stop debate, that you would at least let debate start in the first place?  But no.  The game that's played around here is that, in order to build up the numbers, so you can claim that the minority is filibustering, when the minority is not actually filibustering.

 

But, let me take a step back and address some of the claims I have heard from the other side.  I cannot believe some of the comments I am hearing, so I believe it is important to set the record straight.

 

First of all, everyone around here understands that it takes a tremendous amount of time and resources for the Senate to consider Supreme Court nominees.  For that reason, when a Supreme Court nomination is pending before the Senate, the Judiciary Committee considers little else.

 

During President Obama's first three years in office, the Senate considered not one, BUT TWO nominations to the Supreme Court.  Those nominations occupied the Judiciary Committee for approximately six months.

 

The last time the Senate handled two Supreme Court nominations was during President George W. Bush's second term.  During President Bush's entire second term, we confirmed only 120 lower court nominees.  Under President Obama, we have already confirmed 129 lower court  nominees.

 

Let me repeat that.  We have confirmed 129 of President Obama's judicial nominees in just over three years.  That is more than were confirmed under George W. Bush's entire second term.

 

And again, the comparison between President Obama's first three years to President George W. Bush's second term is the appropriate comparison.

 

These were the only two time periods in recent memory when the Senate handled two Supreme Court nominations during such a short time period.

 

But, even if you compare the number of President Obama's nominees confirmed to President Bush's first term, it is clear that President Obama has fared very well.

 

More specifically, even though the Senate did not consider any Supreme Court nominations during President Bush's first term, we have confirmed approximately the same number of President Obama's lower court nominees as we did President Bush's, relative to the nominations President Obama has made.

 

In other words, although fewer lower court nominees have been confirmed under President Obama, the President made approximately 20 percent fewer judicial nominations during his first 3 years than President Bush did in his first term.

 

As a practical matter, if the President believes he hasn't gotten enough confirmations, then he should look no further than the pace at which he has made nominations.

 

Maybe he should've spent less time on the 100 or so fundraisers he's been holding all over the country recently, and more time on making judicial nominations.

 

The fact of the matter is this: IF a backlog exists, then it is clear that it originates with the President.

 

If you need even more evidence that the President has been slow to send judicial nominees to the Senate, all you need to do is examine the current vacancies.  My colleagues have been on the Senate floor talking about the so-called "vacancy crisis."

 

But, what my colleagues fail to mention is that the White House has not even made nominations for over half of the current vacancies.

 

Let me repeat that:  Of the 83 current vacancies, the White House has not submitted nominations for 44 of them.

 

As a result, it is clear that IF there is a "vacancy crisis," once again the problem rests with the White House.  If the President believes there are too many vacancies in the federal courts, he should look no further than his own Administration for an explanation.

 

Now, what about the other side's claim that nominees are waiting longer to get confirmed than they have in the past?

 

Once again, this is just not true.

 

The average time from nomination to confirmation of judges during the Obama Administration is nearly identical to what it was under President Bush.  During President Bush's Presidency, it took on average, approximately 211 days for judicial nominees to be confirmed.

 

During the first three years of President Obama's Presidency, it has taken 218 days for his judicial nominees to be confirmed.

 

I'm sure this will be news to many of my colleagues.  If you have listened to the other side, you would think we have somehow broken new ground.  We haven't.  We are treating President Obama's nominees virtually the same as President Bush's.

 

It's not our primary concern to worry about whether one President is being treated differently than the other. We just proceed with our work.  But the numbers you see here is a result of our work.  The fact of the matter is that the numbers aren't much different than other presidents.  To suggest we are treating President Obama's nominees a whole lot differently is intellectually dishonest.

 

The fact of the matter is that the Senate has been working its will, and regularly processing the President's judicial nominees in much the same way it has in the past.

 

Given that the President's nominees have received such fair treatment, why would the Majority Leader choose to take the unprecedented step of filing 17 cloture petitions on district court nominees?

 

Why would the Majority Leader choose to manufacture controversy where none exists?

 

The answer is simple.  These votes are nothing short of a stunt.  They are a smokescreen.

 

They are designed to accomplish two goals: First, as even Democrats concede, the President cannot run for re-election on his own record, so these votes are designed to help the President's re-election strategy by somehow portraying Republicans as "obstructionist."

 

Second, the other side simply does not want to talk about the extremely important and very real problems facing this nation.

 

Look at any poll. Go to any town meeting.  People in this country and my state of Iowa are concerned about the economy and jobs. With 8.3 percent unemployment, they are right to expect us to work on jobs.

A small business tax bill passed the other body.  Why aren't taking that up?  It's ready and would likely pass the Senate without much dissent.

Why aren't we taking up a budget this year?

It's been four years since the Senate has passed a budget. This is budget week.  Instead of talking about a budget, we're spending time talking about judicial nominees who aren't going to be filibustered.   We ought to be considering a budget. 

But the Majority refused to produce a budget.  It's been more than 1,040 days.

 

The American people are sitting at home and watching this debate.  They want to know how we are going to get the unemployment rate down.

 

They are not concerned about whether the Senate will confirm one of the President's district court nominees this week, rather than next.

 

They want to know what we are doing to help their father, or mother, or brother or sister get back into the workforce.

 

Given that millions of Americans remain out of work, why aren't we considering and debating the JOBS bill the House just passed?

 

Why aren't we tackling the Energy crisis?

With $4 gas in this country, we ought to be talking about drilling here, drilling now.  We ought to be talking about building a pipeline.  We ought to be talking about how we can stop sending

 $833 million every day overseas to buy oil. We ought to be talking about extending the energy tax extenders that sunset as of December 23.

 

Unlike the so-called "vacancy crisis," the energy crisis is not manufactured.  It is real.  The rising cost of gasoline matters to millions and millions of Americans.

 

If they are fortunate enough to have a job in this economy, millions of Americans are trying to figure out how they will afford to get to work with the rising cost of gasoline.

 

Rather than spend time working on Energy crisis, which is all too real for millions of Americans, we are spending time on this manufactured controversy.

 

And what's even worse, this is the week we're supposed to be debating a Budget.  But, you'd need a high powered microscope to find any budget that the Majority has put together.  The Majority has failed to produce a budget, so they manufacture a so-called "crisis" on nominations to throw up a smokescreen to hide their failure.

 

Mr. President, I will have more to say about this as we move forward with this debate.  But for now I will conclude by saying this.

 

A fair and impartial examination of how the Senate has treated President Obama's nominees reveals that, contrary to what you'll hear from the other side, the President's nominees are being treated more than fair.

 

Rather than waste time on a so-called "crisis" that everyone realizes is entirely manufactured, we should be focusing on those issues that matter deeply to the American people: jobs, the economy, and tackling our energy crisis.

 

I urge my colleagues to reject these cloture petitions so that we can get back to the business of the American people.

 

I yield the floor.

 

-30-

Proposal strengthens information sharing and encourages private sector innovation

 

Washington, DC - U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Dan Coats (R-IN), Ron Johnson (R-WI), and Richard Burr (R-NC) today introduced the Strengthening and Enhancing Cybersecurity by Using Research, Education, Information, and Technology Act (SECURE IT), their proposal to protect and secure our nation against cybersecurity attacks.

 

"The SECURE IT Act strengthens America's cybersecurity by promoting collaboration and information-sharing, updating our criminal laws to account for the growing cyber threat and enhancing research programs to protect our critical networks," said Senator John McCain. "This legislation will help us begin to meet the very real threat of cyber attack."

 

"We are all in agreement that we need to make our nation's cybersecurity a top priority. I believe we have come up with a strong common sense approach that will help prevent the spread of cyberattacks from network to network and across the Internet, by removing barriers to sharing information about threats, attacks, and strategies for improvement," Senator Hutchison said.  "Our bill focuses on giving businesses the tools they need to protect themselves from the looming threat of cyber criminals, and increased requirements for notification of threats to federal agencies."

 

"As our nation faces increasing cyber attacks in a critical economic environment, we must ensure that the private sector has the authority it needs to defend its own networks and share cyber threat information to prevent future attacks," Senator Chambliss said. "Now is not the time for Congress to be adding more government, more regulation, and more debt - especially when it is far from clear that any of it will enhance our security. Our bill offers the right solution to improving our nation's cybersecurity by encouraging collaboration, investment, and innovation."

"Our bill represents a new way forward in protecting the American people and the country's cyber infrastructure from attack.  It's a bill that can be supported by all partners that have an interest in cybersecurity. Instead of the heavy hand of the government, our approach promotes information sharing and keeps the taxpayers' wallets close," said Senator Grassley.

 

"Rather than arming Homeland Security with expansive new regulatory authority over every sector of our economy, the SECURE IT cyber bill we've introduced today emphasizes a partnership approach between the government and private entities. By focusing on those areas like information sharing where bipartisan agreement is achievable, we can tackle the cyber issue in a meaningful and constructive way," said Sen. Murkowski.

 

"After September 11, we broke down the barriers to information sharing and provided our intelligence and law enforcement professionals with the tools they need to keep us safe.  Today, we must break down similar barriers that exist in cyber security to respond to the increasing number of attacks against private companies and the federal government," said Senator Coats. "The SECURE IT Act will enable robust information sharing without creating costly layers of government bureaucracy or imposing new regulatory burdens on American businesses."

 

"This bill recognizes that industry is at the center of any solution. It's a sensible step forward that allows industry to invest in innovation and job creation rather than compliance. Imposing a costly and bureaucratic regulatory regime is the wrong approach to national security. New regulations will slow down innovation and investment while companies wait years for the government to introduce outdated standards," said Sen. Johnson. "The regulatory process simply cannot keep up with the rapid pace of technology."

 

"Cyber security is essential to our national security, and this bill takes a step in the right direction to ensure that our nation has the proper defenses in place to address threats to our nation's systems and infrastructure.   This bill takes fiscally responsible measures to protect against cyber threats by enhancing research and development, updating enforcement tools and penalties to reflect current threats, and promoting voluntary information sharing between the public and private sector without creating unnecessary bureaucracy or regulations," said Senator Burr.

 

Co-sponsors of the proposal are U.S. Sens. John McCain, Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Saxby Chambliss, Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Dan Coats, Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, and Ron Johnson, Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, and Richard Burr, Ranking Member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.

 

The SECURE IT Act will:

 

·         Improve cybersecurity by collaborating with industry and eliminating barriers to enhanced information sharing.

 

·         Create expedited information sharing for private sector using existing structures and reporting relationships.

 

·         Require federal contractors who provide telecommunications or cybersecurity services for the federal government to report to the government cyber threat information related to those services.

 

·         Strengthen criminal statutes for cyber crimes.

 

·         Update the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) and preserve the roles of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Department of Commerce in disseminating security standards for the federal government.

 

·         Leverage and strengthen existing programs in cybersecurity research and development.

 

Here is a copy of the text of Grassley's statement at today's press conference.

 

The group you see here today saw a need to develop cybersecurity protections that focused on avoiding new federal government bureaucracies, reforming existing programs, and not adding additional, burdensome regulations that may stifle innovation and growth in the private sector.

 

We felt the best approach was to focus on strengthening Cybersecurity defenses. We do this by coordinating the public and private sectors to work together.  Creating a collaborative partnership between the private sector and the federal government will foster an information sharing system that helps detect, eliminate, and prevent cyber threats.  Our legislation is something that all partners involved in protecting our cyber networks can fully stand behind.

 

As the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, I have focused my involvement on the criminal law provisions, legal barriers to information sharing, civil liberty and privacy protections, as well as whistleblower protections.

 

Our bill will break down the legal barriers, such as antitrust and liability issues.  In the past, these barriers prohibited business and industry from sharing cyber threat information with the government or industry partners.  The bill includes provisions to ensure that confidentiality and personal privacy are engrained in the information sharing.  It also includes a provision ensuring that no preexisting whistleblower protection law is changed by this legislation.  We also update criminal statutes and streamline the existing, confusing penalty structure in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.  And, it reins in prosecutions.  These prosecutions have raised concerns by advocates on both sides of the political spectrum.  If left unchanged, they could lead to average citizens being prosecuted as federal felons.

 

Beyond the Judiciary Committee provisions, and very importantly, our legislation adheres to our core principle of keeping the government's regulatory reach out of the private sector.  We avoid complicated regulatory regimes that will stifle innovation and job growth.

 

Our approach has been laid out for many months.  It achieves consensus and can gain the support of many Senators.

 

-30-

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following comment on the announcement from the United States Trade Representative that the trade agreement between the United States and South Korea will go into effect on March 15.  Grassley and others have long-awaited the trade agreement for its significant benefits to U.S. farmers, businesses, and services providers.  Congress approved the trade agreement's implementing legislation in October 2011 after long delays in President Obama's submission of the legislation to Congress.  Upon approval of the implementing legislation, the President was authorized "to exchange notes with Korea providing for the entry into force at such time as the President determines that Korea has taken measures necessary to comply with provisions of the agreement that are to take effect on the date of the entry into force," according to the trade representative's office.  Grassley is a senior member of the Finance Committee, with jurisdiction over international trade, and former chairman and ranking member of the committee.

 

Grassley comment:

 

"This is good news.  U.S. workers deserve the boost from this new market access.  They'll rise to the challenge with quality goods and services.  The implementation of this trade agreement was a long time in coming.  It's ironic that the same Administration that was slow to present the implementing legislation gave the agreement such a fast turn-around from legislative approval to the effective date.  I hope the speed of implementation doesn't cause problems.  Anything that's not spelled out now could be the source of trade disputes later."

 

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley today called on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to rescind the Obama Administration's health care rule that will force religious affiliated organizations to either abandon their freedom of conscience or pay a fine of up to $2,000 per employee.

The rule issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, as part of the department's implementation of the sweeping Affordable Care Act of 2010, mandates that religious-affiliated charities, schools and hospitals provide coverage for controversial contraceptive products.

"The federal government does not have the right to tell religious groups to provide a service that violates their faith," Grassley said.  "This rule emphasizes one of the many concerns Americans have with the 2010 health care law, that it is a dramatic overreach into personal freedoms and liberties."

In a letter to Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Grassley said the mandate as written will result in litigation that could be avoided with a regulation that shows respect for religious freedom.  Here is the text of his letter.

 

February 7, 2012

The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius

Secretary, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

200 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20201

 

Dear Secretary Sebelius,

I write to express serious reservations with the rule issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on January 20, 2012, mandating that religious-affiliated charities, schools, and hospitals provide coverage for controversial contraceptive products.  This decision would force many groups, including charities, schools, and hospitals, to provide coverage of contraceptive and abortifacient products despite strong objections to these drugs rooted in religious beliefs.

The federal government does not have the right to tell religious groups to provide a service that violates their faith.   It is disturbing that under the broad HHS requirement and narrow exemption, religious affiliated organizations will face a choice that Americans should not confront: adhere to their freedom of conscience or pay a fine of up to $2,000 per employee.  As currently written, this mandate will result in litigation that could be avoided if HHS issued a regulation that showed greater respect for religious freedom.

This rule highlights this Administration's continued invasive role in designing the health care benefits available to Americans and underscores one of the numerous concerns Americans have with the Affordable Care Act.  That the definition of a preventative benefit services has morphed into a requirement to force Americans to buy a product that violates their conscience demonstrates the dramatic overreach of the law into Americans' personal freedoms and liberties.  This burdensome and morally dubious regulation stands against more than 200 years of our nation's proud history of religious and individual liberty.  I strongly urge you to rescind this rule and ensure that any future issuance of a revised rule respects the conscience of not only medical providers, but healthcare consumers and faith-based organizations as well.

 

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley

United States Senator