Senate Lawmakers Open To Extending FBI Director

By Philip Bunnell

FBI Director Robert Mueller appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday to testify about his future at the agency. Earlier this year, President Obama asked Congress to sign off on another two-year term for Mueller, who will reach his ten-year tenure limit this year. 

While some civil liberty groups have expressed concern over the FBI’s increased surveillance during Mueller’s tenure, and others over the established precedent of ten year terms for FBI directors, the committee seemed warm to another two years for Mueller.

Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said that he was “pleased that Republicans and Democrats have expressed support” for an extension. Al Franken (D-Minn.) raised some concerns over FBI surveillance, but also noted that the President called for Mueller to be extended to a time, “when [Obama] will not be president,” and thanked the Director for his service.

Mueller acknowledged that the surveillance had expanded under his tenure, but that rejected any allegations of abuse. Mueller did say that, initially, the agency did not execute National Security Letters in a constitutional way but quickly remedied that.

The committee’s top Republican, Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), was more reluctant, but still supportive. 

Grassley cited J. Edgar Hoover, the controversial FBI director who headed the agency for over 40 years, as a reason that the extension should be considered carefully. However, Grassley continued, “against this backdrop, I joined as a co-sponsor of… a bill that would extend the term of the current FBI Director for two years.” 

Grassley later warned that although the bill had wide bipartisan support, “I have resisted efforts to simply pass it with minimal deliberation.”

Senate Republican Defends "Yes" Vote On Financial Reform

Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), one of four Republicans in the Senate that voted yesterday to pass financial reform, sent a statement to reporters on Friday justifying his support for the bill.

“There’s no question this bill has flaws," he said. "But a message needs to be sent to Wall Street that business-as-usual is over. After what happened leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, something’s got to change."

During the nearly three week long debate on the bill, Grassley offered a number of amendments aimed at increasing transparency within the financial regulatory sector, three of which passed. One of those amendments would put in place for employees of credit-rating agencies the same whistle-blower protections enjoyed by corporate employees.

Though earlier in the week he voted multiple times against cutting off debate on the bill, Grassley said the need to reform the way Wall Street works is what ultimately convinced him to change his mind.

"Taxpayers need protection," he said. "Big banks and financial institutions took advantage at the expense of average Americans, and the system let them get away with it. This bill takes a step in the direction of trying to fix things."

Senate Begins Grilling Of Sonia Sotomayor

Republican senators today began their attacks on Judge Sonia Sotomayor, nominated to replace Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court. On the first day of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democratic senators praised Sotomayor’s record, saying it demonstrated “judicial modesty,” while Republicans expressed skepticism.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), now the ranking Republican on the committee, called Sotomayor’s comments on use of experience and background in judicial decisions “shocking and offensive” and distributed a thick stack of her past speeches to the media. The speeches were marked up to highlight passages where Sotomayor spoke about the differences her background would produce in her decisions. Sessions criticized the use of any factors outside of the facts and law of a case in making rulings.

Senators Sessions and John Cornyn (R-Texas) both said they planned to ask Sotomayor about her views on a range of issues, including abortion, property rights, the right to bear arms, and capital punishment. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) as well said he was “deeply concerned by [Sotomayor]’s assertion that the law is uncertain.”

Speaking more generally, Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) criticized President Obama’s “empathy” standard used to select Sotomayor as his nominee. Graham went so far as to say that he would have to vote against Sotomayor under that standard, which he called “absurd” and “dangerous,” since it would encourage voting on the basis of agreement on issues and would therefore discourage potential nominees from expressing their opinions. He did, however, worry about Sotomayor’s speeches made while she has been a sitting judge, since those might cast doubt on her objectivity when deciding cases. Graham did recognize that “unless [Sotomayor has] a complete meltdown,” she would be confirmed, bringing laughter from audience.

Democrats generally supported the nominee by describing her record as centrist and reserved, and repeating her personal story of being raised by a poor, single mother and working to raise herself up to a federal judgeship. By the time it was Sotomayor’s chance to speak, the audience had heard the story several times.

A couple of Democrats took the opportunity to criticize the previous administration. Senator Specter (D-Pa.), a recent defector from the Republican party, spoke of President Bush’s wiretapping program, saying that a split among circuit courts in different areas of the country has prevented adjudication of the legality of those programs. He expressed hope that a new Supreme Court would resolve this disagreement and generally agree to hear more cases. Senator Feingold (D-Wisc.) lauded the Supreme Court’s role as a check on the president, offering as examples the Court’s rulings that Guantanamo detainees have rights to U.S. courts, and saying that an important quality in justices is a willingness to stand up to the president.

In Sotomayor’s short opening statement, she said that her judicial philosophy was simple: “fidelity to the law.” She said that her record would show that she applies the law according to Congress’s intent, applying relevant precedents. She finished by saying she looks forward to answering the senators’ questions.

It's Expensive, Yes, But What is the Cost of Doing Nothing?

Coffee Brown, University of New Mexico, Talk Radio News Service

Dr. Peter Orszag, previously the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, currently the Director of the President's Office of Management and Budget, told the Senate Committee on Finance that the cost of doing nothing about healthcare reform would be fiscal crisis, decreased take-home pay, 46 million uninsured Americans, and an increasing burden on state governments which is already cutting into other services, such as increased tuition costs for college.
"Do you know of anyone in either party who wants to do nothing?" Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asked.
Orszag replied, "No, Sir. That's why I am confident that we can get healthcare reform passed this year."
Grassley said there was not yet any conflict between Republicans and Democrats about healthcare reform, but that that was partly because the president's budget, while "bold", was "not very detailed."

Still, $634 Billion is a lot of money.

Sen. Max Baucus (D - Mont.) said, "Would healthcare reform now lead to substantial savings?"
"Yes," answered Orzack.
"Should we accept short term deficit spending to achieve that?" asked Baucus.
Orzack replied, "The president's budget for healthcare reform is designed to be deficit neutral for the first 5-10 years, then we should begin to see savings. If we could cut one percent per year from medical cost growth, we could realize savings of 20 percent of GDP in 50 years. For forty years, medical costs have risen 2 to 2.5 percent faster than inflation."

The hearing, at which Orszag was the sole witness, turned from general costs to specific strategies.

Baucus asked, "Can we incentivize consumers to be more cost effective?"
"25 percent of beneficiaries use 85 percent of the cost. That's the group to target," Orszag replied.
"Would costs come down if everyone were covered? And how could we do that?" Baucus asked.
According to Orszag, we need to reduce consumer costs, reduce complexity, and encourage enrollment. We can encourage enrollment by subsidies, mandates, and automatic enrollment with an opt-out choice. Social norms need to change, so that people would be as shocked if you had no health insurance, as they now are if you don't buckle your seatbelt. the key to that is massive public awareness campaigns, he finished.

Grassley said he was concerned that Medicare Advantage might be cut too sharply under the new budget. Physicians might opt out of Medicare if reimbursement is too low.
Orszag said that Medicare Advantage was targeted because it paid substantially more than basic Medicare.

Expansion of the public sector would place new pressures on the private sector.

"Would a public plan undermine Obama's promise that people who prefer to can stay with their current plan? Would Obama support a plan that would 'crowd' 18 million people off private plans onto public?" Grassley wondered.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D - Wash.) was also concerned about proposed cuts: "We've found medical homes, home care, and Medicare Advantage to be cost effective, but they face cuts under the new budget."
"Evidence strongly favors integrated care...Long term health care is in the budget...Competitive bidding should reflect local costs," Orszag replied.
He pointed out later, however, that the budget office had found that home care typically had much higher profit margins than other sectors of healthcare, and had been targeted for that reason.

Public funding means public accountability.

Orrin Hatch (R - Utah) said, "A Federal Reserve-style medical board would be a disaster, leave standards of care to the specialty boards. Keep these decisions in the private sector. We should not be be setting prices."
"Those problems are common to all the models. Both public and private systems must change," Orszag said.

Sen. Baucus closed the meeting by pointing out that time is of the essence, and the Senate must move quickly.
"We have our sleeves rolled up; we're ready to go," said Orszag.