00:00:27 Unidentified Speaker ALREADY, -- ALL READY. WELCOME TO THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB. I AM BOB WEINER OF THE NEWSMAKERS COMMITTEE, AND I WILL BE MODERATING TODAY PLUS HIS NEWS CONFERENCE WITH SENATOR CHUCK GRASSLEY OF IOWA, CHAIR OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS ACTIONS. IT IS OPEN TO CLUB MEMBERS AND WE WANT TO THANK C-SPAN AND OTHER MEDIA FOR COMING TODAY. IN ADDITION TO CHAIRING THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, SENATOR GRASSLEY SERVES ON FINANCE, BUDGET, AGRICULTURE AND JOINT TAX. COCHAIR OF THE CAUCUS AND ALSO A FOUNDING MEMBER OF THE SENATE WHISTLEBLOWER CAUCUS PERFORMED IN THIS CONGRESS. SENATOR GRASSLEY HAS PRESSED FOR JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS, ALTERNATIVES TO TEENS IN JAIL, COURTROOM CAMERAS, ANTITRUST, DRUG CONTROL, HUMAN TRAFFICKING PROTECTIONS, AND ENCOURAGEMENT OF AMERICAN AGRICULTURE APPEARED A COUPLE OF MAJOR PIECES OF LEGISLATION HE HAS AUTHORED THAT BECAME LAW, A PROTECTION ACT IN THE MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT. HE HOLDS A RECORD FOR NOT MISSING A VOTE FOR ANY SENATOR IN THE OFFICE. HE LISTS HIS OCCUPATION AS A FOREIGNER. -- FARMER. HE IS KNOWN FOR HIS NO-NONSENSE STYLE AND HE STRIVES FOR BIPARTISANSHIP. HE SERVED IN THE HOUSE TO 1980 WHEN HE WAS FIRST ELECTED TO THE SENATE AND HAS SERVED SINCE. HE WILL BE RUNNING FOR ANOTHER TERM. HIS PRESS SAYS HIS CRITICS CALL HIM TO CONSERVATIVE OR TOO LIBERAL. HE IS ONE OF THE FEW WHO DOES IT JUST ABOUT RIGHT. I AM PROUD TO HOST SENATOR GRASSLEY TODAY. WHEN I WAS CHIEF OF STAFF, SENATOR GRASSLEY WAS A NEW HOUSE MEMBER ON THE COMMITTEE. THEY FIRST THING HE DID WAS TO ASK ME TO HAVE BREAKFAST WITH HIM A COUPLE OF TIMES. HE SAID, YOU ARE A LIBERAL AND I AM CONSERVATIVE BUT WE HAVE A LOT IN COMMON TO HER TORT. HE AND THE CHAIRMAN WORKED TOGETHER TO ABOLISH MANDATORY RETIREMENT FOR SENIORS. THE MAJOR SENIOR RIGHTS BILL PASSED IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE. DESPITE THE OPPOSITION OF THE BIG LABOR UNIONS AND THE ROUNDTABLE, IT WAS QUITE AN ACCOMPLISHMENT. FAST LOWERED 15 TO 20 YEARS WHEN I WAS A SPOKESMAN FOR THE WHITE HOUSE DRUG POLICY OFFICE, I SAW SENATOR GRASSLEY, NOW IN THE SENATE, MAKE METHAMPHETAMINE AND REQUIREMENT -- IT PLUMMETED IN AMERICA UNDER HIS LEADERSHIP AT THE SENATE NARCOTICS OFFICE -- CAUCUS. A CAMPAIGN HELPED CAUSE YOUTH DRUG ABUSE TO PLUNGE 30% IN THREE YEARS. AND THE GENERAL SENDS A ONE HELLO TO YOU AND THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU HAVE DONE. WE HAVE ALL SEEN SENATOR GRASSLEY EXPOSED ABUSE IN THE GOVERNMENT. IT IS NONPARTISAN OVERSIGHT AT ITS BEST. AND IT IS GOING AND GOING AND GOING. A FEW YEARS AGO, WE ARE AT THE CAPITAL CHALLENGE AND HE SAYS YOU'RE RUNNING INCREASES YOUR LIFESPAN AT 10 YEARS. HE JOKED BACK THAT YARD HE GOT BACK. THE STAFF, WHO DID A GREAT JOB IN ORGANIZING TODAY'S EVENT, TOLD ME HE IS STILL RUNNING. I WANT TO SAY IT IS 10 YEARS AFTER THE RUN THAT YOU KEEP EXTENDING YOUR LIFE. I ALSO WANT TO THANK PENNY, WHO HAVE KNOWN FOR YEARS. I WANT TO THANK JOHN HUGHES, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB. COME AND SAY HELLO. THE CHAIRMAN OF THE NEWSMAKERS COMMITTEE, JOANN, NATIONAL PRESS CLUB STAFFER. ALL OF THEM HEALTHY TODAY'S PROCESS. OUR NATIONAL PRESS CLUB SENIOR, HE WILL BE TAKING THE MIKE THAT WILL BE USED FOR QUESTIONS BY THE AUDIENCE. LET'S SEE. ALSO, IS. HERE? -- IS ERIC HERE? IF YOU CAN STAND, THEY HAVE HAD SEVERAL MONTHS AT AN INTERNSHIP AND HAVE DONE A SPECTACULAR JOB. [APPLAUSE] THIS TONY HERE? NO. OK. MY WIFE, IF YOU WOULD RAISE YOUR HAND, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, FROM IOWA. THE SENATOR IS AT THE CENTER OF THE ACTION. HAVING SENT TO THE FLOOR THE RECENT HUMAN TRAFFICKING LAW AND THE LORETTA LYNCH NOMINATION FOR STARTERS, WE JUST LEARNED LORETTA LYNCH IS BEING CONFIRMED TODAY AT 10:30 THIS MORNING. SWORN IN. THAT IS RIGHT. IF TIME PERMITS, HE COULD DISCUSS THE RATIONALE FOR THE TIMING, ALSO THE COLLECTION, WHICH THE PRESS RECENTLY REPORTED YOU ARE AT THE CENTER OF. A SWIRL OF ACTIVITY AT THE CLUB TODAY ON THAT. MAYBE HOW THAT RELATES TO EDWARD SNOWDEN, A COMPLICATED RING. EXECUTIVE ACTIONS HE DID GENERATE. AND YOU WILL SOLVE ALL OF THIS, WHAT TO DO ABOUT POLICE AFTER AMERICAN KILLINGS, OVERALL MINORITY DISPARITIES, TEENS IN JAIL, JUDICIAL CONFIRMATIONS, IMMIGRATION, AND YOU GET TO DO ALL OF THAT IN AN HOUR. WE WANTED TO HEAR ABOUT ALL YOUR ALTERNATIVES TO TEENS IN JAIL. WE UNDERSTAND YOU HAD NEWS ON THAT. SENATOR GRASSLEY WILL SPEAK FOR 20 OR 30 MINUTES. I WILL MODERATE THE QUESTIONING. PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND YOUR ORGANIZATION. JUST A QUICK NOTE, ON MAY 7, WE WILL BRING IN THE DIRECTOR OF AGING ON THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH WHO WILL TALK ABOUT A FASCINATING SUS -- SUBJECT, WHETHER HUMAN LIFESPAN EXTENDED IN OUR LIFETIME. AND WHAT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IN THE FUTURE AND WHAT ARE THE REASONS FOR THAT? SENATOR GRASSLEY, IT IS AN HONOR TO HAVE YOU TODAY AND THE FLOOR IS YOURS. I DO WANT TO MENTION SENATOR GRASSLEY IS A LITTLE UNDER THE WEATHER TODAY. THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY HE MAY NOT BE A WILL TO COME BECAUSE OF HIS COLD, SO WE ALL REALLY APPRECIATE HIM BEING HERE ON THAT BASIS. SENATOR GRASSLEY: I SELDOM GET SICK SO IT IS SURPRISING TO ME AS WELL. THANK YOU FOR THE INTRODUCTION. GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY. GLAD TO BE REMINDED YOU'RE FROM IOWA. I BECAME CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IN JANUARY. PUNDITS MADE A BIG DEAL ABOUT THE FACT I'M A FIRST NONLAWYER IN THE HISTORY OF THE SENATE TO BE CHAIRMAN OF THAT COMMITTEE. I WOULD LIKE TO THINK OF THE FACT I'M A NONLAWYER, THAT THAT IS A WAY TO INJECT A LITTLE BIT OF IOWA COMMON SENSE INTO THE CHAIRMANSHIP. MOST PEOPLE DO NOT REALIZE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS THE ONE COMMITTEE I SERVED ON CONTINUOUSLY SINCE I HAVE BEEN COLLECTED INTO THE SENATE. MANY COMMITTEES DIVE DEEP INTO A NARROW SET OF ISSUES THAT ARE IMPORTANT, OF COURSE, BUT NOT ALWAYS ON THE FOREFRONT OF THE MIND OF ALL AMERICANS. THE DISH AREA COMMITTEE, BY CONTRAST, HESTER'S DICTION OVER A BROAD SET OF ISSUES THAT ARE OFTEN FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR NATIONAL IDENTITY, ISSUES SEWN INTO THE GREAT AND DIVERSE FABRIC OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. MANY OF THE TOPICS WE DEBATE INVOKE DEEPLY HELD VIEWS. THE COMMITTEE OVERSEES A JUDICIAL SYSTEM THAT SEEKS JUSTICE FOR THE INJURED AND THE ACCUSED. IT UPHOLDS AMERICA'S'S REPUTATION AS A WELCOMING MATT TO THE WORLD BY ENSURING OUR IMMIGRATION SYSTEM IS INVITING TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WHO SHARE A LOVE OF FREEDOM AND RESPECT FOR THE RULE OF LAW. IT FOSTERS INGENUITY AND INNOVATIONS THAT GROW OUR ECONOMY BY DECIDING THE RIGHTS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. HE HOLDS THE KEY TO THE CONSTITUTION, THE DOCUMENT THAT IS ABLE BLUEPRINT FOR A THRIVING DEMOCRACY AND IS A GUARDIAN OVER INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND OUR LIBERTIES. THE FOUNDING CHARTER OF FREEDOM HELPS GUIDE AMERICA THROUGH OUR DARKEST HOURS, AND PAVES THE WAY TO OUR MOST TRIUMPHANT ACHIEVEMENTS. ARGUABLY, QUITE LIKE NOTHING ELSE, OUR CONSTITUTION PROMISE OF JUSTICE AND EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW OFFERS HOPE FOR THE VICTIMS OF INJUSTICE IN OUR SOCIETY. AS CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, I BELIEVE OUR PANEL BEARS A UNIQUE RESPONSIBILITY TO UPHOLD THAT PROMISE FOR ALL AMERICANS, FOR AMERICANS STRUGGLING ON THE DOWNSIDE, FOR TROUBLED YOUTH WHO WONDER IF THE STRUGGLE TO CLIMB AMERICA'S IS LATERAL -- LADDER OF OPPORTUNITY AND TO STAY ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE LAW IS EVEN WORTH IT HEAR IT FOR THE INNOCENT VICTIMS WHO SEE THE GOVERNMENT AS A BIG GOLIATH, FOR THE POOR DEFENDANTS WONDERING IF THEY TRULY HAVE A CHANCE WHEN THEY APPEAR BEFORE THE COURTS. I SEE MY CHAIRMANSHIP AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP SECURE AMERICA'S'S BLESSINGS OF FREEDOM AND LIBERTY. THE WORDS WE THE PEOPLE APPLIES TO ALL AMERICANS. I CANNOT THINK OF A BETTER PLATFORM TO EMBRACE AND EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES TO VICTIMS OF INJUSTICE FAN ON THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. I PLAN TO MAKE THE MOST USE OF THE NEXT TWO YEARS OF THE 114TH CONGRESS TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE LIVES OF AMERICANS. LET'S START WITH THE YOUNGEST OF THOSE FACING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT WAS ORIGINALLY ENACTED IN 1974. WHILE IT HAS BEEN REAUTHORIZED SEVERAL TIMES SINCE THEN, AND HAS RECEIVED FUNDING, IT HAS NOT REALLY BEEN REVISITED AND UPDATED SINCE 2002. THIS IS A PROGRAM THAT NOT ONLY HELPS PREVENT AT RISK YOUTH FROM ENTERING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, BUT ALSO, ONE OF THE MINERS ALREADY IN THAT SYSTEM. I AM LEADING A REAUTHORIZATION EFFORT IN A BIPARTISAN WAY, THE WHITE HOUSE OF RHODE ISLAND. WE INTRODUCED A BILL LAST COMMERCE TO START A STARTING POINT. LAST WEEK, WE HELD A HEARING IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO FOCUS ON FIXING ISSUES WITHIN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE GRANT PROGRAM THAT WHISTLEBLOWERS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION. WHISTLEBLOWERS TESTIFIED TO WIDESPREAD MISMANAGEMENT AND FAILURES. THEY CITED INSTANCES OF FRAUD AND NEGLECT AND CORE REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE TAXPAYER-FUNDED PROGRAMS. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S NEGLIGENCE RELATES TO AN IMPLEMENTATION OF FOUR CRITERIA STATES MUST MEET IN ORDER TO RECEIVE FUNDS. ACCORDING TO THESE WHISTLEBLOWERS, A FEW STATES MEET ALL THE GRANT ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA. BUT THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAM, WHICH ADMINISTERS THE PROGRAM, TURNS ITS HEAD THE OTHER WAY WHEN STATES ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE. WORSE YET, STATES KNOW ABOUT THE BLANKET AMNESTY. APPARENTLY, THEY DID NOT EVEN TRY TO FOLLOW THE LAW. AFTER I WROTE FOUR LETTERS ON THIS ISSUE, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FINALLY OWNED UP TO SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS. THEY ADMITTED HAVING A POLICY IN PLACE WAY BACK SINCE 1997 THAT ALLOWED STATES TO OBTAIN SEVERAL FUNDS IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW. THEY ASSURED ME THEY WILL END THE PRACTICE. OTHER ISSUES REMAIN. WE ARE GOING TO START WRITING THESE WRONGS THIS WEEK. THE WHITE HOUSE AND I PLAN TO INTRODUCE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND LEGACY PREVENTION ACT, REAUTHORIZATION, AND THIS WEEK, OUR BILL WILL RESPOND TO ISSUES HIGHLIGHTED BY WHISTLEBLOWERS AT LAST WEEK'S HEARING BY INCREASING ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW. THE BILL ALSO SEEKS TO IMPROVE THE TREATMENT OF YOUTH UNDER THE ACT, IMPROVING CONDITIONS FOR JUVENILES, AND INCORPORATING NEW SCIENCE ON ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT, WE ARE ALSO LOOKING TO UPDATE PROGRAMS ALREADY ESTABLISHED BY THE LAW AND AUTHORIZE FUNDING FOR A FIVE-YEAR TIME. ANOTHER REFORM AREA HAS BEEN IN THE PRESS BOTH NATIONALLY AND IN MY STATE OF IOWA, THROUGH THE WRITING OF THE REGISTER. INVESTIGATIONS BY JOURNALISTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES ADVOCATES HAVE EXPOSED PERVERSE INCENTIVES THAT HAVE NUDGED ENFORCEMENT OF THESE LAWS WAY OFF KILTER WITH BASIC FAIRNESS. THESE LAWS ARE IMPORTANT CRIME-FIGHTING TOOLS THAT ENABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT TO SEIZE CASH OR PROPERTY CONSIDERED LINKED TO ILLNESS -- THE THEORY BEHIND THIS IS TO CHOKE OFF THE FUNDING STREAM USED AND THAT COULD BE DRUGS, HUMAN TRAFFICKING, MONEY LAUNDERING, AMONG OTHER THINGS. I AGREE IT IS A WORTHY AN IMPORTANT PUBLIC POLICY TO HELP FOR THE CRIME THIS WAY. IT SEEMS THAT SOMETIMES, THIS TOOL IS INCREASINGLY BEING USED AS A FUNDING SOURCE FOR THE GOVERNMENT WITH THIN REGARD OF PEOPLE'S'S CIVIL RIGHTS. I'M WORKING TO DRAFT BIPARTISAN REFORM TO FIX THE FLAWS. FOR STARTERS, THE QUID PRO QUO AND FUNDING SHOULD BE LIMITED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES OPERATION SHOULD NOT BE FUNDED BASED UPON ASSETS. IN ADDITION, REAL PROCEDURAL REFORMS MUST BE ENACTED FOR PEOPLE WHOSE ASSETS ARE SEIZED, INCLUDING PROMPT TIMELINES FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION, AND THE ABILITY TO CHALLENGE PROMPTLY BEFORE A JUDGE AND INDIVIDUALS WHO CANNOT AFFORD A LAWYER, TO GUIDE THEM THROUGH THE SYSTEM SHOULD BE PROVIDED ONE. PART OF ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM LIES IN REVERSING THE RECENT DECISION IN THE SUPREME COURT THAT ALLOWS THE GOVERNMENT TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM SHOWING THAT THEY NEED ACCESS TO THEIR FUNDS FOR THE SIMPLE REASON OF DEFENDING THEMSELVES BY HIRING A LAWYER. WE ALSO NEED TO CODIFY CHANGES IN THE USE OF THE PROGRAM, AND STRUCTURING CASES WERE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS LIKE ONE THAT GOT NATIONAL ATTENTION, IOWA'S CAROL, GETTING UNFAIRLY CAUGHT UP IN FORFEITURE FOR DEPOSITING MONEY IN THE BANK WITHOUT INDICATION OF ANY UNDERLYING CRIME. A POOR LADY RUNNING A SMALL RESPITE THAT DID EVERYTHING CASH WISE, DEPOSITED THE FUNDS, AND SHE WAS SUSPECTED OF LAUNDERING MONEY, BECAUSE SHE WAS NEAR $10,000. I AM ALSO LOOKING AT AN AREA OF LAW TO HELP DEFENDANTS NOT BEING PROVIDED WITH CONSULT, AS THE CONSTITUTION'S SIXTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES. THAT AMENDMENT -- IT CALLS FOR ANY DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH MISS DEMEANORS, FACES A POSITIVE JAIL SENTENCE TO HAVE A LAWYER APPOINTED TO REPRESENT THEM. THE SUPREME COURT ESTABLISHED THIS FLOOR -- THIS RULE FOR MORE THAN 40 YEARS AGO. WE ARE LEARNING STATES AND LOCALITIES REGULARLY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THIS REQUIREMENT. AS A RESULT, POTENTIALLY INNOCENT INDIVIDUALS PLEAD GUILTY TO CRIMES. THEY ALSO ACCRUE A CRIMINAL RECORD, WHICH CAUSES THEM ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES, INCLUDING DIFFICULTY FINDING A JOB, AND CRADLE CRIMINAL HISTORY -- GREATER CRIMINAL HISTORY THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED IN ANY FUTURE SENTENCING DETERMINATION. SOME MISDEMEANORS ARE TREATED AS FELONIES IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM IF A PERSON BECOMES A REPEAT MISDEMEANOR OFFENDER. IF SOME OF THOSE EARLIER MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS WERE UN-COUNSELED, SOMEBODY MIGHT BE CONVICTED OF A FELONY WHO DID NOT ACTUALLY COMMIT A FELONY. THE COMMITTEE WILL CONVENE A HEARING IN THE COMING WEEKS TO EXPLORE THE PROBLEM AND LOOK AT POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS. ALONG THE SAME LINES, LET ME EXPLAIN ANOTHER ISSUE WE ARE WORKING TO ADDRESS. WE ARE SEEING STUDIES THAT SHOW 32% OF AMERICAN ADULTS HAVE CRIMINAL RECORDS IF ARREST RECORDS ARE INCLUDED IN THE FIGURE. IT MEANS A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE OFTEN PUT IN UNFAIR SITUATIONS BECAUSE THOSE RECORDS ARE SENT TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR INCLUSION IN A DATABASE AND SEARCHED FOR BACKGROUND CHECKS. IF AN EMPLOYER USES A DATABASE FOR HIRING PURPOSES, THE RECORDS COULD BE INACCURATE. THE DATABASE INCLUDES ARREST RECORDS THAT NEVER RESULTED IN A CONVICTION. IT IS NOT FAIR THAT AN ARREST NOT RESULTING IN A CONVICTION IS INCLUDED IN A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK. WHILE THERE IS A PROCESS I WHICH PEOPLE CAN CONTEST THEIR RECORDS, BEING IN THE DATABASE, THERE ARE FLAWS IN THE PROCESS THAT NEED TO BE LOOKED AND CHANGED. OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS, I'VE BEEN ACCUSED OF BEING A ROADBLOCK TO SENTENCING REFORM. LET ME BE VERY CLEAR ON THIS POINT. I HAVE TOLD MY COLLEAGUES AND ALSO HAD A DISCUSSION DIRECTLY WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SIT DOWN AND TALK ABOUT HOW WE COULD MOVE FORWARD. I AM READY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE ISSUES. WHAT I'M NOT WILLING TO DO AS AN ACROSS-THE-BOARD CUT IN MANDATORY MINIMUM SPIRIT I AGREE SOME SHOULD BE CUT, BUT I ALSO THINK SOME SHOULD BE RAISED. LET ME GIVE YOU EXAMPLES. WITH A HEROINE EPIDEMIC STRANGLING SOME AMERICAN COMMUNITIES, AND WHITE-COLLAR CRIMINALS GETTING PALTRY SENTENCES, THE LAST THING WE NEED IS TO TAKE AWAY A TOOL THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PROSECUTORS USED TO GET THE BAD GUYS. LET ME END WITH THIS. WHEN I FIRST BECAME CHAIRMAN, I TALK A LOT ABOUT THE DUAL ROLES AT THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES DO NOT JUST INCLUDE WRITING LAWS. WE ARE ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THOSE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY IMPLEMENTED AND CARRIED OUT BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. IT IS SOMETHING I DO NOT THINK WE IN CONGRESS DO ENOUGH OF ANYBODY WHO KNOWS MY EFFORTS UNDERSTANDS WHY THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAS SUCH A HEAVY FOCUS ON THIS VITAL FUNCTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE RANCH. I THINK I HAVE A REPUTATION AS SOMEONE WHO DOES EQUAL OVERSIGHT OF BOTH REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT ADMINISTRATIONS. I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE CURRENT RESIDENTS OF 1600 PENNSYLVANIA. THE PREVIOUS OF MENSTRUATION WAS NOT FOND OF MY LETTERS AND OVERSIGHT EITHER. WE NEED TO KEEP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WORKING FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. AFTER IMMERSING MYSELF IN THE LEGISLATIVE AND OVERSIGHT JURISDICTION OF THE SENATE FINANCE OR SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FOR THE LAST 34 YEARS, I LOOK FORWARD TO CHANT BEING -- CHAMPIONING THESE IDEAS OR OTHERS AND MAKING EYE -- THE DIFFERENCE IN THE LIVES OF AMERICANS ARE I AM HAPPY TO TAKE YOUR QUESTIONS NOW. BOB: AND YOU WILL MAKE IT BIG -- A BIG DIFFERENCE, SENATOR. THANK YOU, ESPECIALLY FOR COMING UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF YOUR VOICE AND YOUR COLD OR YOU DID GREAT. -- COLD. YOU DID GREAT. WHY DON'T WE TACKLE THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. THEN WE CAN GET INTO EVERYTHING ELSE. WHAT IS YOUR FEELING ON THE DELAY OF THE LYNCH CONFIRMATION UNTIL JUST TODAY? WASN'T IT SORT OF ANNOYING TO YOU THAT NATIONAL LEADERSHIP DECIDED THEY WOULD PLAY THE POLITICS OF USING ONE BILL TO FORCE THE OTHER, AND SIX MONTHS OF A DELAY IN THE CONFIRMATION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL? WHAT IS YOUR THINKING ON THAT? GENERAL GRASSLEY -- SENATOR GRASSLEY: SOME OF THIS WILL BE A PUSH BACK OF THE POLITICAL PARTY. I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT AS PART OF THIS. IT WAS A LONG TIME, BUT LET'S SUBTRACT TWO MONTHS OUT OF THAT TIME BECAUSE THIS ADMINISTRATION AND THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS IN NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER COULD HAVE DECIDED TO DO THAT. I ALSO ADMIT THAT WE REPUBLICANS SAID IT WOULD ALL BE HELD OLDER, BUT THEY HAD A BIGGER AGENDA THAT THEY WERE GLAD TO BE HELD OVER BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO GET 13 JUDGES APPROVED AND A COUPLE OF PIECES OF LEGISLATION OUT OF COMMITTEE WHILE THEY WERE STILL IN THE MAJORITY. THAT IS THEIR CHOICE, BUT I DO NOT THINK REPUBLICANS SHOULD BE BLAMED FOR THE FIRST TWO MONTHS. THEY COULD HAVE GOTTEN THE JOB DONE. THERE IS NO EU COULD HAVE FILIBUSTERED IT. -- NO WAY YOU COULD HAVE FILIBUSTERED IT. LET'S GO OVER MY ROLE AS COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN WE WOULD HAVE THE NOMINATION UP FOR CONSIDERATION A SECOND TIME BECAUSE ALL OF THESE NOMINATIONS GO BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE. THEY COME BACK UP. AS SENATOR LEAHY ASKED ME, I SAID ON JANUARY 20 SEVENTH WE HAD THE HEARING ON JANUARY 27. I SAID WE WILL BE PUT ON THE AGENDA AS SOON AS ALL OF THE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO OUR QUESTIONS COME BACK. I FORGET JUST WHICH WEEK THAT WAS, BUT THEN THERE WAS A WEEK OF CONGRESSIONAL RECESS THAT CAME IN BETWEEN. I CITIZENS WE GET TO THAT RECESS, WE WOULD VOTED OUT OF COMMITTEE. SO WE DID THAT. I KEPT MY PROMISE TO THE DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THAT WE WERE GOING TO MOVE HER WHEN I SAID WE WOULD MOVE HER. IT GETS OUT TO THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE AND AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT, IT IS NOT CHUCK GRASSLEY WHO DECIDES WHEN THE AGENDA COMES UP. IT IS SOMEONE ELSE. I EXCEPT -0-- I ACCEPT THE MAJORITY LEADER'S DECIDING WHEN IT COMES UP. I OBJECT TO IT. AFTER THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING BILL CAME UP, IT GOT OUT OF COMMITTEE 19-0. THEN THE DEMOCRATS DECIDE TO FILIBUSTER A BILL THAT CAME OUT 19-ZERO. AS LONG AS THE FILIBUSTER WHEN ON, WE COULD NOT GET TO THE NOMINATION. WHY FILIBUSTER A BILL THAT CAME OUT COMMITTEE 19-0 COME I DO NOT KNOW. BUT THAT IS WHAT HELD IT UP AND THAT IS ALL I CAN SAY. WHEN IT CAME UP IN THE SENATE, OTHER SENATORS, NOT MINE. BOB: I WILL GO IN ORDER OF A FEW MEDIA HERE. CHRIS, ASKED A QUESTION IF YOU WOULD LIKE. CHRIS: THANK YOU, SENATOR. I WANT YOU TO JUST COMMENT ON SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE HAPPENING IN VARIOUS MINUTES OF COLONIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY. BALTIMORE, YOUR GENERAL REACTION TO IT AND WHAT YOU THINK NEEDS TO BE DONE BY CONGRESS OR ON THE LOCAL LEVEL? GENERAL GRASSLEY: I DO NOT HAVE A SPECIFIC ANSWER. I AM NOT ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO FEDERALIZE EVERYTHING. I WOULD USE IT AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. MOST OF THEM HIGHLY TRAINED AND I'M NOT THE GUY FACING SOME PERSON. I HATE TO SECOND-GUESS WHAT PEOPLE I EXPECT TO PROTECT ME MIGHT BE DOING SOMETHING RIGHT OR WRONG, BUT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION AT THE STAFF LEVEL AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT ANYTHING BE DONE, AND YOU COULD MAYBE ASK ME IN A MONTH OR TWO AND I WOULD BE GLAD TO RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION MORE APPROPRIATELY. IT MAY BE WE WILL DO NOT DECIDE -- WILL NOT DECIDE TO DO ANYTHING. >> IS THERE ANYTHING YOU MIGHT BE LOOKING AT, AT LEAST IN THE EARLY STAGES? SENATOR GRASSLEY: WHETHER TO FEDERAL RELIES -- 00:29:54 Unidentified Speaker FEDERALIZE, TO GIVE A PRESUMPTION WHEN A MINORITY IS KILLED BY POLICEMAN, THAT THAT SHOULD INSTITUTE A FEDERAL INTERVENTION. BOB: AN INTERESTING ANSWER. WHY DON'T WE GO TO BLOOMBERG. STILL HERE? DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> CAN YOU TALK ABOUT ANY PLANS TO REINTRODUCE THE POLITICAL INTELLIGENCE WILL? YOU OFFERED IT AS AN AMENDMENT, 00:30:41 Unidentified Speaker IT WAS ADDED IN THE SENATE AND THEN TAKEN OUT OF THE FINAL BILL. WHERE IS THAT NOW? SENATOR GRASSLEY: I STILL HAVE CONVERSATIONS ON THAT. I THINK SHE HAS INTRODUCED A BILL IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. I DID NOT INTRODUCE THE BILL ORIGINALLY APPEARED IT WAS AN AMENDMENT TO ANOTHER BILL. I DO NOT THINK I HAVE TO INTRODUCE A BILL TO SHOW MY INTEREST IN IT. I THINK THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN POLITICAL INTELLIGENCE GOT A LOT SMARTER NOW. THAT DON'T ME DON'T NEED LEGISLATION, BUT IT IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO SORT OUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING. IT WAS VERY OBVIOUS WHEN I GOT THE AMENDMENT THROUGH THE UNITED STATES SENATE. >> YOU MEAN IT IS MORE COMPLICATED TO TRY TO COME UP WITH LEGISLATION? >> NOT ONLY THAT, BUT A LOT OF THINGS HE HAD DONE IN CONGRESS, PARTICULARLY 00:31:38 Unidentified Speaker ON OVERSIGHT, WHEN YOU HAVE GOT A GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOURNALISM AND THOSE OF US 00:31:44 Unidentified Speaker IN OFFICE, IT REALLY HELPS TO GET THINGS DONE. IT WAS HIGHLIGHTED QUITE A BIT AND WAS NOT DIFFICULT TO SELL THAT TRANSPARENCY OUGHT TO BE INVOLVED HERE BECAUSE TRANSPARENCY BRINGS ACCOUNTABILITY. IT IS NOT QUITE AS OBVIOUS NOW AS IT WAS THEN. BOB: WHY DON'T WE GO TO "THE WASHINGTON TIMES." SENATOR GRASSLEY: WE WILL GET OMAHA. DO NOT WORRY. THAT IS OK. QUESTION IS BOUNCING OFF WHAT YOU SAID A COUPLE OF MINUTES AGO, PRELIMINARY STAGES OF DECIDING WHETHER TO FEDERALIZE WHEN A MINORITY IS KILLED BY POLICEMAN, ARE YOU SUGGESTING WE SHOULD DO AWAY WITH INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS, THAT THEY CANNOT BE TRUSTED? THAT IS WHAT I HEAR A LOT. SENATOR GRASSLEY: MY ANSWER WAS, SOME OF THE THINGS TURN OUT THERE FOR CONSIDERATION, I DO NOT THINK I WOULD DO AWAY WITH INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS, AS LONG AS THERE ARE ROLES FOR OVERSIGHT FOR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND MOST OF THESE ARE IN A ROLE. SOMETIMES THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT STEPPED IN AND SOMETIMES THEY HAVE NOT. YOU ALREADY HAVE FEDERAL OVERSIGHT OF THAT. >> I DEGREE. YOU -- I AGREE. SOMETHING ELSE WE ALSO 00:33:23 Unidentified Speaker SEE IF THERE IS A FRICTION NOW BETWEEN THE POLICE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ESPECIALLY AFTER, AS ERIC HOLDER MADE IN FERGUSON. I'VE HEARD ABOUT THIS AS WELL. CAN YOU SPEAK TO SOME OF THE FRICTION NOW? SENATOR GRASSLEY: I DO NOT THINK IT IS A QUESTION OF DOING THINGS DIFFERENTLY. YOU DO NOT THROW GASOLINE ON A FIRE. BOB: THE SENATOR FROM OMAHA, YOU SAID? THERE WE GO. SENATOR GRASSLEY: HE JUST GOT ENGAGED HERE. >> YOU MENTIONED POSSIBLY AFTER YOU GUYS LOOK AT THIS AT THE STAFF LEVEL, AND OPTION MIGHT BE DOING NOTHING. HOW CONCERNED ARE YOU ABOUT THE LEVEL OF ANGER OUT THERE ON THESE 00:34:24 Unidentified Speaker INCIDENCES AND THE PROTESTS YOU WOULD SEE. HOW THAT BE SEEN IF CONGRESS DOES NOT TAKE ACTION, AND WHO IS IT UP TO THEN? SENATOR GRASSLEY: YOU HAVE ASKED ME TO DO EXACTLY WHAT CHRIS HAS TO READ I CANNOT BE MORE SPECIFIC THAN WHAT I AM. I JUST CANNOT BE. I THINK IT IS SOMETHING YOU HAVE GOT TO THINK ABOUT AND NOT HAVE HASTY ACTION. IT DOESN'T MEAN WE WILL HAVE TO TAKE ACTION. BUT I THINK COMMON SENSE AMONG LAW ENFORCEMENT. BUT I'M NOT ONE TO PILE ON POLICE. WHEN THE DECISION HAS TO REMADE AND YOU ARE NOT THERE, BUT SOME OF THE STUFF USED YOUNG TELEVISION IS VERY NERVE-RACKING, AND VERY DIFFICULT TO SAY, EVEN WHEN YOU DO NOT HAVE MURDERS, MINORITIES, BUT YOU HAVE GOT A POLICEMAN CHASING SOMEBODY THAT PROBABLY DID A MISDEMEANOR, WE HAVE HAD THESE CASES IN IOWA. SOMEONE PASSES HANDS ARE UP IN AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT. YOU HAVE GOT TO USE COMMON SENSE IN YOUR WORK AS A POLICEMAN. BOB: OK. PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR NAME AND ORGANIZATION. >> E MENTIONED THE ACTIVE LITTLE WHILE AGO AND ANOTHER PART OF THAT WAS TO REINSTITUTE PARTS OF THE ON A SERVICES FRAUD OVERTURNED AND 00:36:06 Unidentified Speaker THE HOUSE TOOK THAT OUT AT THE LAST MINUTE. DO YOU SEE THAT COMING OUT ANYWHERE GOING FORWARD? VERY CLOSE TO YOU READING THE INDICTMENT, A LOT OF ATTORNEYS ARE TELLING ME IT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO BRING SOME OF THESE CASES BECAUSE THE COURT NARROWED FRAUD. THOUGHTS THERE? I SPOKE TO IT -- SENATOR GRASSLEY: I SPOKE TO IT IN MY REMARKS. WHITE-COLLAR CRIME IS BEING SOFT PEDALS. -- SOFT PEDDLED. INTENDED TO INCREASE WHITE-COLLAR CRIME. IT IS AN AREA WE ARE LOOKING AT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS MORE EQUITY IN THE AREA. THAT IS ONE OF THE AREAS I AM SUGGESTING MAYBE WE NEEDED INCREASE IN MANDATORY MINIMUMS. YES. CLASSICAL. I WAS WONDERING, DO YOU BELIEVE WITH THE PASSAGE OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT, THERE IS ENOUGH LEGISLATION NOW ON THE BOOKS TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES, AS LONG AS IMPLEMENTATION IS DONE CORRECTLY, OR DO YOU BELIEVE ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION IS NEEDED? SENATOR GRASSLEY: I WOULD NOT RULE OUT ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION. I GO BACK TO I THINK CARRYING OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE LAWS WE ARTY HAVE. IT IS LIKE I TOLD PEOPLE IN JUDICIARY COMMITTEE LAST WEEK. I SAID A PERFECT EXAMPLE, WE HAD TWO WHISTLEBLOWERS TESTIFY. ARE THEY GOING TO BE PUNISHED FOR TESTIFYING? ONE OF THEM IS STILL IN A POSITION WITH NOTHING TO DO. I SAID TO THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IS WRONG. IT REMINDED ME OF THE GRANDFATHER OF ALL WHISTLEBLOWERS. HE IS TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS AND THEN IN THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION. MIX IN --NIXON DID NOT LIKE IT. HE SAID, "FIRE THE S.O.B." THEN WHEN HE GOT HIS JOB BACK, HE WAS UP IN THE ATTIC OF THE PENTAGON. LAST WEEK, THERE WAS AN EXAMPLE. THE AGENCY DOES NOT MATTER. HIS MOVE FROM THEIR OWN OFFICE TO THE CLOSET, YOU KNOW, THE MESSAGE OUT THERE IS, THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF PEER PRESSURE GOING ALONG. DO NOT MAKE US LOOK BAD. ALL CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES INVOLVED IN THE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT. I ASKED EVERY PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES OUGHT TO HAVE A ROSE GARDEN CEREMONY HONORING WHISTLEBLOWERS. FROM THE TOP OF GOVERNMENT TO THE BOTTOM, THAT WHISTLEBLOWERS IS LEGITIMATE. IF WE DID THAT, WE WOULD HAVE 3000 WHISTLEBLOWERS COME OUT OF THE WOODWORK. THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. YOU HAVE GOT ALL OF THESE. YOU CANNOT KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON. IF YOU HAVE GOT SOMEBODY TELLING YOU SOMETHING IS WRONG, YOU OUGHT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. IF YOU DO NOT, YOU COME TO US AND THEN GET PUNISHED IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW, EVEN IN VIOLATION OF A SPECIFIC LAW THAT SAYS YOU DO NOT GET PUNISHED FOR TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS. WE ALL WORK FOR THE SAME TAXPAYER. SO I DO NOT THINK YOU NEED ANY MORE LAW. SOME COURT DECISIONS YOU MAY HAVE TO OVERWRITE THAT IS BAD, BUT YOU HAVE GOT TO HAVE PEOPLE IN THE BUREAUCRACY JUST DO THEIR JOB. THE JOB IS, IF SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT, CHANGE IT. BUT WAS A LOWERS THE GOVERNMENT TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES AND HOW THE MONEY SHOULD BE SPENT. BOB: LET ME JUMP BACK IN BECAUSE IT BEGS DISCUSSION OF ANOTHER ELEMENT IN THE ROOM -- ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. EDWARD SNOWDEN CONSIDERS HIMSELF A WHISTLEBLOWER AND CONSIDERS HIMSELF PATRIOTIC. HE SAYS HE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS AND KNEW HE WOULD BE PROSECUTED, SO HE FELT, HE SAYS, AND THOSE WHO WRITE ABOUT HIM SAY, THAT HE COULD NOT DO IT ANY OTHER WAY. AS A RESULT OF WHAT HE DID, CONGRESS AND THE COURTS AND THE WHITE HOUSE HAVE MADE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES, THOUGH THE LEGISLATION IS STILL PENDING IN TERMS OF ACCEPTING OR REJECTING. MANY IN THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS CORPS FEEL IT IS NOT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CALLS, BUT THE LISTING OF THE PEOPLE IN THE CALLS, YOUR FRIENDS AND SOURCES, THE PROBLEM IN THE BOOK COLLECTIONS. THERE IS THAT SIDE OF THE ELECTION. BECAUSE EDWARD SNOWDEN BROKE THE LAW, IS HE A WHISTLEBLOWER, OR IS HE SOMEONE WHO WAS ACTUALLY SIMPLY AN ILLEGAL CRIMINAL? IT IS A DIFFICULT QUESTION. I DO NOT EVEN KNOW. SENATOR GRASSLEY: RIGHT NOW, THE LATTER. THE LEGISLATION GOT TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WHICH WOULD APPLY WHISTLEBLOWING LAWS TO NATIONAL SECURITY PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY ARE EXEMPT NOW FROM WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION LAWS. HE COULD HAVE GONE THE WHISTLEBLOWER ROUTE. BUT WHEN HE DID NOT HAVE THAT, HE VIOLATED THE LAW. YOU CAN SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES WHEN YOU VIOLATE THE LAW. BOB: OK. >> HELLO. WHAT ARE THE PROSPECTS FOR GETTING LEGISLATION PASSED TO ADDRESS LITIGATION ABUSE, AND HE SEE 00:42:34 Unidentified Speaker IT GOING A TWO-PRONGED ATTACK DEALING WITH THE LETTERS AND THE ACTUAL POST-FILING KINDS OF ISSUES? SENATOR GRASSLEY: IT WILL BE MORE COMPREHENSIVE THAN JUST DEALING WITH DEMAND LETTERS. IT IS GETTING CLOSE TO A FINAL AGREEMENT AND MAYBE IN TWO OR THREE WEEKS, WE WILL BE INTRODUCING A BILL. MAYBE BEFORE THAT. IT WILL BE COMPREHENSIVE, BUT IT WILL NOT BE LIKE THE HOUSE BILL. IT WILL HAVE SOME OF THE HOUSE PROVISIONS IN. BUT FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WILL NOT BE A PRESUMPTION, AND PROBABLY LESS STRICT ON PLEADING AND DISCOVERY. THE LETTERS MAY BE ABOUT THE SAME IN THE CASE OF DEMAND LETTERS. THAT IS A LITTLE MORE CONTROVERSIAL. BUT TO BE -- THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS, YOU WANT TO KNOW WHO IS SUING YOU AND YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW YOUR PATENT IS BEING VIOLATED, YOU SEE. BOB: FRONT ROW AND WE WILL SWING BACK AROUND. >> YOUR LEADERSHIP INTRODUCED THE PATRIOT RE-AUTHORSHIP LAST WEEK. QUESTIONS ON WHETHER THESE 00:43:57 Unidentified Speaker STRAIGHT NO ADDED SAFEGUARDS COULD PASS THE SENATE. WOULD YOU PUT AN ALTERNATIVE THROUGH YOUR COMMITTEE AT THIS POINT? I KNOW YOU'RE TALKING TO INTEL LEADERS. I WONDER IF THERE HAVE BEEN ANY -- SENATOR GRASSLEY: I AM STILL TALKING TO MEMBERS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. FOR A LONG TIME, MY STAFF AND I WERE TALKING AND SENATORS WERE INVOLVED IN THOSE NEGOTIATIONS. I DECIDED TO NOT GO ALONG WITH WHAT THE HOUSE HAS PUT IN. MAYBE THE HOUSE IS GOING TO DROP THAT BILL LAST WEEK AND THEY DID NOT DROP IT. I WOULD HAVE TO SAY IT IS PRETTY MUCH IN FLUX AT THIS POINT. I AM STILL SEEING WHAT WE COULD DO WITH A COMPROMISE BETWEEN JUDICIARY AND INTELLIGENCE. BOB: EITHER ORDER. CLICK A TWO-PART QUESTION ON THE SAME ISSUE. CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE PROSPECTS FOR POSSIBLE IMMIGRATION BILLS THAT MAY BE COMING THROUGH, AND PART TWO, AND YOU'RE PREPARED REMARKS, YOU TALK ABOUT OTHER ISSUES BESIDES IMMIGRATION. IS IT FAIR TO SAY THOSE ISSUES WOULD TAKE A HIGH PRIORITY? SENATOR GRASSLEY: YOU KNOW HOW IT IS IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE. GETTING BIPARTISAN BILLS IS PRETTY IMPORTANT. ON ALL THE OTHER ISSUES YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE OFF FROM WHERE WE LEFT OFF LAST YEAR, THINGS THAT DID NOT GET DONE LAST YEAR, MOVING ALONG THAT LINE. JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORMS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE. I DID NOT MAKE IT CLEAR MY OPENING REMARKS, BUT I DID SAY ALMOST FROM JANUARY THAT I WAS GOING TO WAIT UNTIL I PASSED A BILL TO IT WAS A MATTER OF EFFICIENCY. PASSED A BILL OR BILLS, I DO NOT NEED TO PASS EVERYONE OF THOSE BILLS. IT WOULD TRIGGER US MAY BE DOING SOMETHING. BUT WE WORK FOR THREE MONTHS ON THAT BECAUSE YEARS AGO AND IN THE HOUSE DID NOT DO ANYTHING. SO I FIGURED I WANT TO USE MY TIME AND THE COMMITTEE'S TIME WHERE WE COULD ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING. RATHER THAN SPENDING THREE OR FOUR MONTHS ON IMMIGRATION AND HAVE IT DIE IN THE HOUSE. I THINK THE HOUSE MIGHT ACT, BUT THERE IS A FEELING AROUND TOWN THAT THE HOUSE MAY NOT DO ANYTHING. THEN YOU COULD UNDERSTAND I WOULD SPEND A LOT OF TIME THAT COULD BE SPENT, AND PROBABLY THE PRESIDENT DID NOT SIGN THAT PROJECT. >> GOING TO THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, THERE WAS A THING LAST YEAR, INTRODUCED, AND AGAIN THIS YEAR. DO YOU HAVE ANY INTENTION OF 00:47:08 Unidentified Speaker BRINGING VOTER RIGHTS ACT FIXED TO THE COMMITTEE? NOW THAT YOU HAVE GOTTEN CONTROL TO BOTH HOUSES, WHAT ABOUT CAMERAS TO THE SUPREME COURT? SENATOR GRASSLEY: IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU WANT TO FIX IF YOU WANT TO FIX. IF YOU WANT TO FIX MORE MINORITIES VOTING, MORE ARE ALREADY VOTING. THE SUPREME COURT THROUGHOUT THE SECTION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, IF THERE IS SOME OTHER REASON FOR BEING INVOLVED IN DOING SOMETHING FOR THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, I WILL TAKE A LOOK AT IT BUT IT SEEMS TO ME IT HAS GOT TO BE DIFFERENT THAN THE ORIGINAL OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT. IN THE LAST 50 YEARS, IT HAS MADE GREAT PROGRESS. >> WHAT ABOUT SUPREME COURT CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM? SENATOR GRASSLEY: I AM SORRY. I GUESS I DID NOT HEAR THAT. LET'S HOPE THE 00:48:04 Unidentified Speaker BILL WILL GET PASSED. I'M A FIRM BELIEVER IN IT. OUR TWO JUSTICES SAID THEY WOULD RATHER, OVER THEIR DEAD BODY. IT HAPPENS I DO NOT WANT THOSE TWO SUPREME COURT JUSTICES TO DIE, BUT I BELIEVE THAT WE COULD AND HANDS PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE COURT SYSTEM BY HAVING THE SUPREME COURT, VERY MUCH AND SO ON. IT DIVIDES BOTH REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATS. A BIPARTISAN GROUP TO GET IT PASS IN A BIPARTISAN GROUP AGAINST IT HERE NOT QUITE AS EASILY PRINTABLE. >> SENATOR GRASSLEY, I THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. I HAD LOBBIED CONGRESS. 00:49:19 Unidentified Speaker MY NAME IS JANE. I'M A FREELANCE JOURNALIST. WE WERE WORKING FOR THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION ON WHISTLEBLOWERS. ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT CAME UP, AND I BOUGHT YOU WITH YOUR RECENT INVESTIGATION. PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES ARE RECIPIENTS OF A HUGE AMOUNT OF FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS. AND YET, GRANT RECIPIENTS WHO BLOW THE WHISTLE ARE NOT PROTECTED. I MYSELF AMONGST ANOTHER GROUP OF SCIENTISTS, I LOBBY CONGRESSMEN. WE WERE DISENFRANCHISED, LOST. REAR AND JOBS. AT LEAST $400,000 WERE PUT INTO TRAINING. BECAUSE I STOOD UP FOR WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE, AND FABRICATIONS COME FALSIFICATION OF DATA AND ALL OF THAT, WE LOSE OUR CAREERS AND THERE IS NOWHERE TO GO IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. CAN YOU TELL US IF THERE IS ANY HOPE FOR TRANSLATING WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION AT THE PRIVATE UNIVERSITY LEVEL WHERE FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS ARE INVOLVED? SENATOR GRASSLEY: WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF TIMES WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR, WHETHER IT IS NONPROFIT OR FOR-PROFIT HIM IT WOULD NOT MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE. WE HAVE LEGISLATION. IT IS NOT GENERAL LEGISLATION. IF WE HAD THAT, YOU WOULD BE AFFECTED. A LOT OF TIMES, WE GET LEGISLATION PASSED, WALL STREET REFORM, WHERE RISK -- WHISTLEBLOWERS GET PROTECTION. I WOULD BE WILLING TO LOOK AT THAT. BOB: OTHER QUESTIONS, HANDS RAISED? GREAT. CLIENTS HELLO. I AM WITH THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS. I HAVE ANOTHER WHISTLEBLOWER QUESTION. WHICH IS, THE MILITARY WHISTLEBLOWER SYSTEM IS NOT AS STRONG AS IT SHOULD BE. THERE ARE SOME EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN THAT. PUBLIC HEALTH EMPLOYEES INCLUDING SCIENTISTS. I WONDERED IF YOU CONSIDERED SUPPORTING EFFORTS THIS YEAR TO STRENGTHEN THE MILITARY WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT? SENATOR GRASSLEY: I WILL BE GLAD TO LOOK AT IT. I WONDER IF YOU COULD BE ANY MORE SPECIFIC THAN A MEMBER OF THE MILITARY HAS A RIGHT UNDER LAW ALREADY, TO TALK ABOUT CONGRESSMAN, IF THEY WANT TO? CAN YOU DO BETTER THAN THAT? OBVIOUSLY, THE SENATOR PROBABLY HAS GOT A WAY TO DO IT BUT I CANNOT SPEAK TO HER SPECIFICALLY. BUT AGAIN, YOU GET BACK TO SOMETHING, ARE YOU GOING TO LOOK OR SOMETHING BY PASSING THE LAW? GETTING THESE LAWS THE WAY THEY WERE INTENDED TO BE CARRIED OUT. BOB: OK. OTHER QUESTIONS? ANSWER RAISED. >> A QUICK ONE. I WAS JUST WONDERING. PRESIDENT OBAMA RENOMINATED -- TO BE HEAD OF THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS AUTHORITY. I 00:52:46 Unidentified Speaker WAS WONDERING, I BELIEVE YOUR COMMITTEE LOOKS AT THAT. IS THERE ANY SCHEDULE, SHE HAS BEEN AUTHORITY FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. IS HER CONFIRMATION ON SCHEDULE? SENATOR GRASSLEY: WE WILL HAVE A HEARING NEXT WEEK BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER SHE IS ON THAT. WE USUALLY HAVE FOUR OR FIVE AT ONE TIME. I DO NOT KNOW IF SHE IS ON THAT LIST WERE NOT. I WANT YOU TO KNOW WE TAKE THEM UP THE WAY THEY COME UP TO US. PARTICULARLY, IT IS TRUE OF JUDGES, AS AN EXAMPLE. THE PRIORITIES ARE WHAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE WHITE HOUSE. >> YOU GETTING FROM THE DEMOCRATS -- WHAT IS YOUR PLAN THIS YEAR AND HOW FAST YOU ARE GETTING THEM TO THE FLOOR? >> 00:53:47 Unidentified Speaker THIS YEAR, THERE IS NO CHANGE. BUT I SUPPOSE, COME JULY OF 2016, THERE WILL 00:53:59 Unidentified Speaker PROBABLY BE CUT OFF AFTER JULY, BECAUSE YOU WOULD ALLOW THOSE JUDGES TO BE FILLED BY A NEW PRESIDENT. WERE YOU ASKING JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS? >> YES, THEY SAID YOU ONLY HAVE DONE TWO THIS YEARS. -- THIS YEAR. BUT IN TERMS OF OPEN TO THAT 00:54:32 Unidentified Speaker POINT, HOW MANY DO YOU EXPECT A WEEK, OR HOW WILL YOU HANDLE IT? SENATOR GRASSLEY: WE WILL HANDLE THEM ON THE SAME BASIS WE HAVE. ONE THING YOU WANT TO REMEMBER, AND THIS GETS BACK TO THE QUESTION HE ASKED ME NUMBER ONE. THE ANSWER I GAVE THERE, THEY DECIDED THEY DID GET THEM APPROVED. THOSE WENT BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND CARRIED OVER. THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY NOW. THEY CHANGED THE RULES AFTER ELECTION GENERALLY, JUDGES DO NOT GET APPROVED AT THAT POINT. THEY GO OVER TO THE NEW CONGRESS. I KIND OF RESENT THE FACT THEY ARE SAYING WE DO NOT PULL OUT THE NUMBER OF JUDGES THEY DID. IF YOU LOOK OVERALL JUST OVER 300 JUDGES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY REPUBLICANS UNDER THIS PRESIDENT. ONLY TWO HAVE DISAPPROVED. YOU'RE IN A SITUATION COMPARED TO WHAT BUSH HAD APPROVED AT THIS TIME, 270 SOMETHING, AS AN EXAMPLE. I THINK THE NUMBERS WE COULD TALK ABOUT ARE VERY POSITIVE. BOB: IN THE BACK AGAIN. >> I HAD A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION. GOING BACK ONE MORE TIME TO YOU ARE IN THE PROCESS OF THINKING ABOUT HOW TO DEAL WITH MINORITIES BEING KILLED BY 00:56:21 Unidentified Speaker POLICEMAN, THERE ARE A LOT OF MINORITIES KILLED BY POLICEMAN AND I LIVED IN BALTIMORE. 20 OF OFFICERS. I WONDER IF DOJ MIGHT STRUGGLE WITH THAT KIND OF A LARGE-SCALE UNDERTAKING? SENATOR GRASSLEY: WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? BOB: WOULD DOJ STRUGGLE WITH THE UNDERTAKING OF A LARGE NUMBER OF KILLINGS, IS THAT YOUR QUESTION? >> RIGHT. SENATOR GRASSLEY: YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SIX OR SEVEN DIFFERENT STATES IN THE LAST MONTHS. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 00:56:54 Unidentified Speaker HAS THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT AND THEY HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO DO IT IF THEY FEEL THE FEDERAL LAW HAS VIOLATED AND THEY COULD INVESTIGATE. THEY ALREADY DECIDED TO GET INVOLVED IN SOME AND SOME THE DECIDED NOT TO GET INVOLVED. I MADE APPLICATION TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FOR A LAWYER FOR THE FAMILY IN DES MOINES WHO ARE NOT MINORITY, BUT THERE SOME WAS DROWNED WHEN HE WAS HE WASN'T PROPERLY TIED INTO HIS LIFE JACKET AND HE DROWNED. THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A FEDERAL INVESTIGATION. I CAN'T MAKE A DECISION FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. IT'S AN AWFUL DECISION HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE. I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN A PROMOTING THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATIONS. >> WE HAVE ONE OR TWO AT MOST QUESTIONS. >> I WANTED TO FOLLOW-UP ON SENTENCING REFORM. 00:58:12 Unidentified Speaker SENATORS OHCHR AND RAND PAUL ARE PUSHING FOR THAT ISSUE. 00:58:18 Unidentified Speaker THE UNITED STATES LEADS THE COUNTRY IN PEOPLE IN PRISON. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE IN THERE FOR NONVIOLENT OFFENSES. YOU SAID YOU WANTED TO TALK TO THE WHITE HOUSE. DO YOU THINK THIS BIGGER ISSUE OF SENTENCING REFORM WILL MOVE THIS YEAR? GRASSLEY: I WANT TO SIT DOWN AND TALK TO THEM. I DO KNOW HOW FAR IT HAS AGGRESSIVE THIS POINT. I AM WILLING TO DO SOME LEGISLATION IN THAT AREA. >> I THINK WE WILL TAKE ONE MORE QUESTION IF THERE IS ONE. FINAL QUESTION. >> LAST YEAR WE SPOKE ABOUT THE NEED FOR BENEFICIAL 00:59:14 Unidentified Speaker OWNERSHIP LAW. SINCE THEN, THE U.K. HAS PASSED A LAW TOWARD THAT END. 00:59:22 Unidentified Speaker I DID NOT KNOW IF YOU HAD ANY PLANS TO TRY TO PUSH THAT OR MAKE THAT A PRIORITY. GRASSLEY: WHAT'S THE LAW? >> IT WOULD BASICALLY CREATE A REGISTRY OF AN OFFICIAL OWNERS FOR CORPORATIONS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM. GRASSLEY: I DON'T KNOW IF 00:59:44 Unidentified Speaker THE ISSUE IS THE SAME FOR THE UNITED STATES. I THINK IT'S PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE OR IT YOU NEED TO KNOW WHO IS RUNNING A COMPANY. TRANSPARENCY BRINGS ACCOUNTABILITY. >> SENATOR GRASSLEY, THANK YOU FOR A WONDERFUL PRESENTATION. IT WAS A LOT OF FUN. 01:00:09 Unidentified Speaker I THINK WE COVERED EVERY ISSUE ON THAT LIST AND WE DID IT IN AN HOUR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE ARE ADJOURNED. >>