Capitol Words a project of the Sunlight Foundation

Sen. Charles E. 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 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

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.

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.

Sen. Daniel Coats

Mr. President, I am not sure what the order is here. I am happy to defer to whatever has been agreed to.

Sen. Daniel Coats

I will try to do less, and I thank the Chair.