mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: 25 years ago today the whistle-blower protection act was signed into law. i want to come to the floor to discuss some of the history that led to that legislation. the lessons learned over the past 25 years and the work that still needs to be done to protect whbles. -- whistle-blowers. and i emphasize that last part because there still needs to be at that lost work done. the whistle-blower protection act was the result of years of effort to protect federal employees from retaliation. 11 years before it became flaw 1989, congress tried to protect whistle-blowers as part of the civil service reform act of 1978. i was then in the house of representatives. there i met a person named ernie fitzgerald who had blown the whistle on the lockheed c-5 aircraft program going $2.3 billion over budget. ernie was fired by the air force for doing that, and as he used to say, he was fired for the act of committing truth. when the nixon tapes became public after watergate, they revealed that pr

mr. grassley: it's a jobs bill -- the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you. it's a national security issue. it's sending messages around the world that we are not going to be dependent upon the rest of the world for our energy, and it's all those things and probably a lot more, and i thank the senator from north dakota for putting this afternoon together but over a long period of time being a spokesman for the keystone x.l. pipeline, not only here in the senate but i have seen you on sunday news shows speaking to the entire nation about the value of the keystone x.l. pipeline. so i think today we're saying enough is enough. we're saying it's time to end the unjustified and now we know political delay of the construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline. i'm glad so many of my colleagues are coming to the floor today to call for the approval of this project. the transcanada corporation applied for a presidential permit from the u.s. department of state to construct and operate the keystone x.l. pipeline way back september, 2008. and here we ar

mr. grassley the president commitment to. >> did he tell you that specifically? >> something about ethanol. [laughter] >> ethanol and for producers were the two top things. we have an important commitment and could i yield, i would be more than happy to do so. so i hope you will recognize me later. >> and my five minutes start over again? [laughter] >> okay. >> the two things i would like to discuss with you is one of sunshine and the other is an obscure part of obamacare and i welcome you and i'm glad to have you here because i wish we could see you more often. yesterday the department again process of releasing medicare payment data and this is something that the chairman has spoken about. something that we have been working on for years. no one should be afraid of this data coming out and no one should be afraid of explaining the existing payment structure. the benefit of asking this as we consider the policy changes as needed i believe trent currency works and with us you have accountability and i hope people will now at that work to improve this is some inst

mr. chairman for your -- >> senator grassley. >> mr. k, i wrote you and secretary lou on february 20th. i asked about the administration's decision to delay the employer mandate until 2017 for businesses with 50 to 99 employees. that category of businesses is not specified in the health care law at all. in order to qualify for the delay you require employers to certify that they didn't lay off employees to get below 100 employee thresholds. this certification seems like unnecessary information unless you think the employer mandate will cause businesses to lay people off. a, do you think that businesses will lay off their employees in order to avoid paying penalties under the health care law? and if not, why are you requiring the certification? and b, what is the legal justification for a new category of businesses with 50 to 99 employees and certification process? >> senator, as you know, tax policy issues like this are all the domain of the treasury department. those decisions were made by the treasury department. i did not participate in those. as a general matter i do not think that

mr. grassley: mr. president, i'm glad to yield. i think that's very basic economics. you increase supply, you reduce price. and the other matter is, though, it makes us more energy independent, because we send hundreds of millions of dollars every day to import oil, and there's no sense of doing that when you can get it right here in north america. mr. sessions: well, i thank you. and, senator hoeven, thank you for your steadfast, consistent, principled leadership on this important issue. you've been there consistently. i don't think there's anybody in this body that understands the details of this issue more than you. and it's just a positive thing for america. it just is. and i just want to thank you for that effort. we've gone now reviewing this for five years. five years of review. and not just -- i want to say that legally, as i see this situation, it's this. there's no federal law at this time dealing with this issue. presidents have issued executive orders that created a mechanism that allowed the state department to give a review of it, but clearly there is no

grassley. senator menendez. >> thank you mr. chair and i'm going to join senator nelson and bestowing gifts upon you and hopefully the chairman will remember that as we continue on. just briefly congratulate you again on assuming the chair. secondly on bringing us to a bipartisan beginning here in this markup and for pursuing a two-year extension because certain date is one of the elements of unlocking greater economic attentional and while i hope the ultimate certainty is the tax reform that we all seek at least an interim having a two-year provision makes a lot of sense. i look forward to offering one or two amendments including with senator toomey to help small business and have a dialogue with my colleagues on ferc to to set a foundation for what i hope to be a success in the future. >> thank you senator menendez and i know you are doing important work and i look forward to working with you. senator toomey. >> i too want to say in a body that is not considering nearly as much legislation as it ought to on the floor and far t

mr. chairman, me and 35 other senators including senators roberts burr isakson and grassley on this committee and essentially what it would do is make herman at the existing moratorium on state and local taxes on internet access as well as multiple discriminatory taxes on internet commerce. i don't intend to ask for a vote on this but i'm raising it to cassette believe it's a critically important issue and an issue that we need to address very soon. the reason for that is the existing tax moratorium known as the internet tax freedom act is due to expire on november 1 of this year. first enacted in 1998, this moratorium has been extended three times with broad bipartisan support most recently in 2007 when it was extended for seven years. keeping consumer access to the internet free from taxation use of the internet a critical gateway to jobs jobs education health care and entrepreneurial activities and as ranking member of the commerce committee one of my top priorities along with the senator from west virginia is expanding high-speed internet access to burr america a rule that will be impeded

mr. chairman. thank you to you and senator grassley for holding this very important hearing. competition in the cable industry is one of the most critical issues that this committee faces for a very simple reason. cable is the primary way americans get pay tv and broadband internet access. this issue literally touches people's lives every day, and it touches their wallets every month. as senator lee, the ranking member of our subcommittee, and i have said from the day the merger was announced, the proposed merger between comcast and time warner cable, the two largest cable companies in the country, presents unique issues. from my perspective, while the companies' service areas don't overlap, this can't not be our only focus of our discussion today. the combined company would control about 30% of the pay television market and 40% of the wire line broadband market with some estimates putting it at 50%. its size and scope would give it the power to affect prices, service, and content offerings throughout the industry. and the future of online video competition. there are a numbe

mr. chairman. thank you to you and senator grassley for holding this very important hearing. competition in the cable industry is one of the most critical issues that this committee faces for a very simple reason. cable is the primary way americans get pay tv and broadband internet access. this issue literally touches people's lives every day, and it touches their wallets every month. as senator lee, the ranking member of our subcommittee, and i have said from the day the merger was announced, the proposed merger between comcast and time warner cable, the two largest cable companies in the country, presents unique issues. from my perspective, while the companies' service areas don't overlap, this can't not be our only focus of our discussion today. the combined company would control about 30% of the pay television market and 40% of the wire line broadband market with some estimates putting it at 50%. its size and scope would give it the power to affect prices, service, and content offerings throughout the industry. and the future of online video competition. there are a numbe

mr. schumer will support wall street on this, which is understandable, what about the other senators? chuck grassley>> he could say whatever he wants, there could be political backlash on this. but it is very difficult for congress to correct the complexities of the national and global tax system. our audience is saying why? >> why can't they fix it? why isn't there a way you can mark to --incent a stay here. >> it is not all where they are incorporated where you make money. they will pay some tax in the united states. the look at the tax code -- your tax planning and documents reflect an inordinately complex thing and you are just an individual. i think it is not so easily fixed. although politicians might like to ask for the moment, because it is in the news, as if it me isbp at >> what struck how outspoken pfizer's executives are on the tax savings. would that kind of old news prompt politicians to move? >> same answer. i think it will prompt a little bit of political banter. i don't think these things are easily fixed or changed. there is a lot of -- complexity. >> with her democrats and republi

mr. stimson had to resign over this issue. it was two years later in 2009 when the guy who stepped in it was named charles grassley. >> would you provide me and members of the committee with the following information. the names of political appointees in your department who represent detainees or who work for organizations advocating on their behalf. >> after barack obama became president and eric holder became attorney general, it was republican senator chuck grassley of iowa who in 2009 decided to try to make an issue out of the fact that some of the constitutional lawyers who had argued on these detainee issues heaven forbid were now getting jobs in the new administration. i mean, to be fair, the bush administration had also hired a bunch of high-end constitutional lawyers and the republicans weren't scandalized by the bush administration hiring them. but with this new president and eric holder there, chuck grassley got confused which country he works in and decided to try to turn it into a scandal that lawyers who worked on detainee issues were getting government jobs. chuck grassley started it and then liz cheney was the o

grassley was a no. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] the clerk will report is the results of the vote. >> mr. chairman the final tally is six ayes -- eight nose. >> mrs. amendment number two and would simply do it's a minor amendment would add my chair membership to transportation benefits. as you know the code allows employers to provide compensation for transportation costs for their employees on a tax-free basis. they include taxes who see it with parking en masse transit and since 2008 associated with storage at the employee regularly bikes to work however last summer at the irs move to costs associated with memberships were not eligible as part of the draft and indicated legislative action is necessary to broaden the definition even though they had accepted that definition for previous years. all the men would do is just that. it would send the 20 dollar amendment available to bike owners for those participating in a bike share program. many employers across the country could offer a tax is a benefit to their employees. obtusely this is important to new york city. it's hardly new york ci

mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: reserving right to object and i would offer an alternative. but before i do that, i'd like to say to my colleagues in the united states senate that, first of all, there is controversy about this nominee. let's make that clear. and, second, the majority leader said maybe the people of this country don't really understand what's going on. they understand what's going on. we're working under the rules that the majority changed by ignoring the rules of the united states senate in november. so as the majority leader knows, we have not yielded back postcloture time on judicial nominations since the so-called nuclear option was triggered last november. we have followed the rules of the united states senate, the regular order, on all judges before the senate in the last five months. just exactly the way the rules were changed in november. so there are 30 hours of postcloture debate on this nomination. therefore, i would ask if the -- i would ask if the consent could be modified so th

mr. grassley: thank you madam president. there are reports that after we return either from this break or the next, that the senate may take up the so-called fair sentencing act. so i rise today to start discussing this bill with my colleagues particularly those who do not serve with me on the judiciary committee. over the past 30 years this nation has achieved tremendous success in cutting crime. there are fewer victims who suffer fewer physical and financial injuries. neighborhood safety has improved reducing fear and helping economic growth. these gains have been hard won. congress played a major role, enacting mandatory sentencing guidelines mandatory minimum sentences, providing assistance to law enforcement and building more prisons. the mandatory guidelines combined with abolishing parole led to lengthier sentences and what's really fair about it all, we had fewer disparities in sentencing. no longer would the sentence depend on whether the criminal faced a tough or lenient judge and factors such as the defendant's ra