[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2079-2081]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           POSITION REVERSALS

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in recent weeks, we have seen the Obama 
administration reverse quite a few of its positions on very important 
issues, so I am going to go through several of those positions that 
have been reversed to remind people of the number and the consequences 
of those reversals, and also to remind people that when Presidents make 
promises, they do not always keep them.
  This has continued to be a recurring pattern, where the 
administration's deeds have not lived up to its words. Here is the 
record:
  The administration reversed its position on employer funding for 
employee contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs 
under the new health care law. Those of us who opposed the President's 
law when it was passed in 2009 and 2010 warned Catholic groups that, if 
it passed--meaning if the health care reform bill passed--religious 
institutions would be required to pay for these services.
  For some religious institutions, payment or providing these services 
would violate their constitutional right to freely exercise their 
religion under the first amendment. Sure enough, when the Department of 
Health and Human Services issued a regulation implementing the 
President's health care law, religious-affiliated entities, such as 
colleges, hospitals, and charitable organizations, were required to pay 
for these services. If these institutions did not pay, then they would 
face a $2,000 fine per employee, per year under the health care reform 
bill.
  Many Catholic entities objected. They correctly saw the rule as a 
threat to their freedom of conscience, protected by the first 
amendment. But many non-Catholics also were angered. They knew and 
feared that if the health care reform bill proposed by President Obama 
allowed the government to run roughshod over some people's freedom to 
practice their religion, it could do the same for practices of other 
religions beyond Catholicism. The regulation was a direct assault on 
freedom of conscience, and the American people knew it.
  It was no longer a contraceptive issue. The issue was freedom of 
religion. So last week the President ordered a change. No longer would 
the employer, such as religiously affiliated institutions, have to pay 
for coverage of services to which it conscientiously objected. Instead, 
the cost supposedly would be paid by insurance companies. Of course, 
somebody will ultimately have to pay the cost.
  After the President's reversal, employers will still pay insurance 
companies to provide for coverage and, more directly hitting the 
institutions, those that are self-insured will still have to pay not 
indirectly but very directly.
  Since the substance has not changed, the change appears to be 
designed to undercut opposition rather than to respond to legitimate 
objections to the earlier policy. Then we get back to basics: There is 
no such thing as a free lunch. We have to wonder how carefully the 
original policy was vetted by the administration.
  As a result, President Obama has been accused of waging war on 
religion. This particular policy violated the rights of religious 
entities and individuals, and the administration considers the matter 
somehow to simply be closed by the press announcement 1 week ago. But 
the Catholic bishops and

[[Page 2080]]

many other religious organizations violently disagree. So Congress may 
have to overturn the policy if we want to abide by the strict words of 
the Constitution and freedom of religion, because if we don't, I expect 
the President's new policy will be challenged in the courts on the 
first amendment, free exercise clause, and the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act.
  Moving on to another change of policy. Another recent policy shift 
occurred on a different first amendment issue beyond freedom of 
religion. Turning to the right of free speech.
  The Supreme Court ruled that the first amendment required that 
corporations and labor unions be allowed to make independent 
expenditures on behalf of candidates. President Obama severely 
criticized that ruling of a couple years ago, and right after it was 
made he even objected in his State of the Union Address right in front 
of the same Supreme Court Justices. Even the New York Times has said 
his criticism at that time of the Citizens United decision was probably 
wrong. Nonetheless, President Obama has repeatedly said he thinks the 
ruling harms democracy.
  But now, President Obama has changed his mind. He is encouraging, 
under Citizens United, donors to give to a super PAC that supports his 
candidacy. He now says Democrats need to match the Republicans to tap 
these sources of campaign funds.
  Here, though, he has made more than a 180-degree turn. He has gone 
beyond simply asking donors to give to super PACs that independently 
support his candidacy. Under the new policy, even White House staffers 
and Cabinet Secretaries can attend super PAC events.
  At these events, corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals can 
pay large sums for access to key administration policymakers. These 
administration officials do not directly ask for money, of course, but 
they help to raise unlimited funds from corporations and unions. Of 
course, this is allowed under Citizens United, but it is the very same 
decision the President criticized and now he is going against his own 
criticism.
  I do not know what principled position would allow a President to 
condemn a decision and then have his administration officials help 
corporations and unions capitalize on that decision for his benefit.
  I suspect, of course, that the President would say he will still 
oppose that decision, even if he indirectly obtains the benefits of the 
Citizens United case. But I think it is very important that we 
understand letting a President have it both ways is not principled.
  Let us consider another issue--the issue of lobbyists. In December 
2011, through a fundraising e-mail, President Obama wrote:

       We don't take a dime for D.C. lobbyists or special-interest 
     PACs--never have and never will.

  But one of his campaign bundlers, former Representative Ron Klein, 
has raised between $200,000 and $500,000 for the Obama campaign. Do you 
know what. Mr. Klein is a registered Federal lobbyist.
  On the 2008 campaign trail, President Obama pledged there would be no 
revolving door between lobbying and serving in his administration. He 
issued an Executive order to bar former lobbyists from joining his 
administration to work at agencies they recently lobbied. Yet he issued 
a waiver allowing William Lynn, who had been a top lobbyist for a major 
defense contractor, to manage day-to-day operations at the Pentagon. 
More recently, he made Cecilia Munoz the head of his Domestic Policy 
Council. Ms. Munoz was a registered lobbyist through 2008. The 
administration has admitted to granting waivers for only a few 
lobbyists. Yet it has declined to identify all lobbyists to whom it 
granted waivers.
  The promise of transparency doesn't apply in this case, evidently. So 
the President's actual policy is, ``No lobbyists in my administration, 
unless I absolutely want them.''
  Then there is the President's public commitment to transparency in 
government. I just mentioned one violation of that transparency. Now we 
go on to talk about his transparency problem.
  President Obama issued an Executive order to department heads. The 
order reads:

       My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented 
     level of openness in government. We will work together to 
     ensure the public trust and establish a system of 
     transparency . . . ''

  But that is not policy the administration followed in responding to 
Freedom of Information Act requests. The Obama Justice Department 
advised agencies to tell Freedom of Information Act requesters seeking 
certain national security- or law enforcement-related documents that 
those documents did not exist.
  He said to tell them these documents do not exist, even if the agency 
knew the documents did exist.
  The process seems to have been to make a grand pronouncement and 
score political points. Then, when they think no one is paying 
attention, the policy shifts. I do not know who was responsible for 
vetting this blatantly dishonest policy, but the predictable firestorm 
ensued and, thank God, the administration has now backed down.
  This is not the only instance of the administration failing to 
practice what it preached concerning FOIA requests. A different Obama 
Executive order gave these directions:

       The government should not keep information confidential 
     merely because public officials might be embarrassed by 
     disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or 
     because of speculative or abstract fears.
       Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect 
     the personal interests of government officials at the expense 
     of those they are supposed to serve.

  That is not how the Department of Homeland Security handled FOIA 
requests. Homeland Security FOIA requests were sent to the Secretary's 
office for political appointees to review. Career FOIA staff were not 
allowed to respond to the requests without the approval of political 
appointees.
  The House Governmental Reform and Oversight Committee has 
demonstrated these political officials misused FOIA exemptions to 
prevent the release of embarrassing records. This was in direct 
violation of the President's promise.
  Moving on. As a candidate, President Obama stated that:

       [i]t is a clear abuse of power to use [signing] statements 
     as a license to evade law that the President does not like or 
     as an end-run around provisions designed to foster 
     accountability. I will not use signing statements to nullify 
     or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law.

  However, in his first year in office, President Obama signed an 
omnibus appropriations bill that contained a standard provision that 
Federal funds could not be used to pay the salary of Federal employees 
who attempted or threatened to prevent another Federal employee from 
communicating with Congress.
  This provision has always provided important protection for 
whistleblowers against waste, fraud, and abuse in government, and 
somehow these whistleblowers, under the President's signing statement, 
wouldn't dare talk to Senator Grassley or other Senators about waste, 
fraud, and abuse. So how are we supposed to find out about it? 
Whistleblowers are very helpful.
  It happens that President Obama's signing statement contended that 
this provision did not detract from his authority to direct department 
heads to supervise employee communication with Congress. Worse, it said 
this authority would be used when employee communication would reveal 
``confidential information.''
  This signing statement, if carried out, would undermine congressional 
instructions as enacted into law, and it would harm the ability of 
Congress to conduct its constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the 
executive branch.
  Then just this week, the President flipped again on yet another 
subject. In 2009, he said he was ``pledging to cut the deficit we 
inherited in half by the end of my first term in office.''
  At the time he was sworn in, the deficit was $1.3 trillion. The 
fiscal year 2013 budget the President has just proposed would create a 
$900 billion deficit--much more than half of the 2009 level that he 
promised to cut in half. This is true even after he proposes to raise 
taxes, since the amount of the new government spending he seeks is so 
enormous.

[[Page 2081]]

  This is a long list of flip-flops, of failure to keep commitments, 
and hypocrisy. There are others as well.
  I give the President the benefit of the doubt in his altered views of 
the PATRIOT Act, Guantanamo, and other national security issues. He 
holds an office in which he sees daily the unrelenting national 
security threats the country faces. But for the other issues I have 
raised, the consistency of the Obama administration is its 
inconsistency.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am not sure what the order is here. I am 
happy to defer to whatever has been agreed to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 7\1/2\ minutes remaining 
on the Republican side.
  Mr. COATS. I will try to do less, and I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________