30 Oct 2015

News from Senator Grassley's Office Oct 29, 2015

By Grassley Press

Leahy & Grassley Press Treasury, IRS on the Use of Cell Phone Tracking Technology

WASHINGTON - Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ranking Member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) are once again pressing a top cabinet official about a government agency's use of cell-site simulator technology, which can sweep up the cell phone signals of innocent Americans.

Following news reports that the Internal Revenue Service is using cell-site simulators, or "Stingrays," the senators sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew on Thursday seeking information about the department's legal justification for using the technology and what privacy controls are in place.  The senators also asked about which other agencies within the department use the technology.

"We were surprised to learn that IRS investigators may be using these devices," the senators wrote.  "While the devices can be useful tools for identifying the location of a suspect's cell phone or identifying an unknown cell phone, we have previously expressed concerns about the privacy implications of these devices, as well as the inconsistent practices and policies across the federal, state and local agencies that employ them.  The devices indiscriminately gather information about the cell phones of innocent people who are simply in the vicinity of the device."

Grassley and Leahy have long raised concerns regarding the use of cell-site simulators, and their oversight has led to the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security implementing new rules requiring agents to obtain a search warrant in many cases before employing the technology.

A copy of the October 29 letter to Lew can be found online.

Klobuchar, Grassley Call on Federal Trade Commission to Protect Consumers from Anticompetitive Pay-For-Delay Patent Settlements

Senators urged the FTC to aggressively challenge any anticompetitive settlements where brand-name drug companies pay generic drug companies to delay marketing lower cost generic drugs

 

WASHINGTON, DC - Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senator Amy Klobuchar today called on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to protect consumers from anticompetitive pay-for-delay patent settlements. In a letter to FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez, the senators urged the FTC to aggressively challenge any anticompetitive settlements where brand-name drug companies pay generic drug companies to delay marketing lower cost generic drugs. Klobuchar and Grassley have introduced the Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act to help put an end to these pay-off agreements, bring more affordable generic equivalents on the market, and ensure consumers have access to the cost-saving generic drugs they need.

 

"We are writing to encourage the Federal Trade Commission to maintain its vigilance in protecting American consumers from anticompetitive pay-for-delay patent settlements, which keep more affordable generic equivalents off the market," the senators wrote. "This issue is extremely important to consumers; competitive drug prices are necessary for affordable health care. We commend the FTC for its work in this area but encourage you to aggressively challenge any pharmaceutical patent settlement that is anticompetitive."

Klobuchar and Grassley have long supported efforts to combat anti-consumer pay-for-delay settlements. The senators are the lead sponsors of the Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act, which would crack down on anti-competitive pay-offs and make sure consumers have access to cost-saving generic drugs they need. The bipartisan legislation would make it illegal for brand-name drug manufacturers to use anti-competitive pay-off agreements to keep more affordable generic equivalents off the market. Klobuchar and Grassley introduced similar legislation in 2010 following a resurgence of patent settlement agreements. In July 2013, the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights held a hearing to scrutinize pay-for-delay deals.

Full text of the letter is below:

Dear Chairwoman Ramirez:

We are writing to encourage the Federal Trade Commission to maintain its vigilance in protecting American consumers from anticompetitive pay-for-delay patent settlements, which keep more affordable generic equivalents off the market. The FTC should be proud of its work in this area.

Unfortunately, neither the Supreme Court's decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis nor the earlier Third Circuit decision In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation appears to have stopped this practice. You reported 29 settlements in 2013 that potentially involved pay-for-delay provisions, impacting $4.3 billion in U.S. sales. Combined with deals from prior years, dozens of agreements may be delaying access to generic drugs, which can be as much as 90 percent cheaper than their brand-name counterparts. As you have documented, agreements with payments to the generic company delay its entry into the market an average of nearly 17 months longer than agreements without payments.

However, in the two years since Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, the FTC has challenged only one pay-for-delay pharmaceutical patent settlement. Although we appreciate the important work the FTC has done in filing amicus briefs on these issues, enforcing the law in this area is critical to protecting consumers.

We understand the challenges that the FTC still faces in stopping this practice, which is why we have introduced the Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act. This bill would require pharmaceutical companies to justify any pay-off and impose penalties on companies that break the law. Given the substantial incentives for companies to enter these pay-for-delay agreements, the Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act would provide the appropriate legal standard and deterrence to protect competition and American consumers.

This issue is extremely important to consumers; competitive drug prices are necessary for affordable health care. Again we commend the FTC for its work in this area but encourage you to aggressively challenge any pharmaceutical patent settlement that is anticompetitive.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

-30-
30 Oct 2015

News from Senator Grassley's Office Oct 28, 2015

By Grassley Press

Grassley Addresses ISIS' Looting of Antiquities, Presses Need for Pending Legislation

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today spoke at a forum of historical experts and educators on the looting of antiquities to fund ISIS and his bill with Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania to help stop the peddling of ill-gotten antiquities in the United States.  The Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Act (S. 1887/H.R. 1493) would improve coordination between U.S. government agencies on this issue and restrict the import of cultural property that was smuggled out of Syria since the beginning of the conflict there. This bill has already passed the House.

The text of Grassley's remarks follows.

Remarks of Sen. Chuck Grassley

Forum, "Death of History: Witnessing Heritage Destruction in Syria and Iraq"

hosted by the Penn Cultural Heritage Center of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, the Smithsonian Institution, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the U.S. Committee of the Blue Shield

Oct. 28, 2015

Thank you for this opportunity.   I'd like to thank Senator Casey for his leadership on this issue.  I'd also like to thank House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel for their leadership on the House side.  I'd like to thank the University of Pennsylvania Museum, the Smithsonian Institution, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the U.S. Committee of the Blue Shield for their efforts.

The brutal and barbaric acts carried out by ISIS are beyond comprehension.  The senseless and inhumane brutality these individuals carried out against innocents is truly shocking and disgraceful.  It's estimated that in the past year, ISIS has executed more than 3,000 people, including women and children.  Many more have been kidnapped, enslaved, abused and raped.

It's also an outrage that ISIS is destroying and selling the archeological heritage that has survived for thousands of years.  It's even more reprehensible that there are people engaged in a black market to buy these artifacts, thereby underwriting this brutal Islamist militant group.

The chaos and disorder in Syria and Iraq has opened the door to opportunists who wish to enrich themselves in dealing with stolen and looted antiquities.  The least we can do, here in Congress, is shut down the U.S. market for these artifacts.  Americans should not be underwriting brutality.

The atrocities require action on two fronts.  First, we need to put an end to the destruction and looting of irreplaceable artifacts and historical records like those from the Mosul Museum, Nineveh, and Nimrud.  These objects are a material record of humanity.

Second, we need to destroy ISIS rather than support its funding.  That's why I worked with Senator Casey and Senator Purdue to introduce a Senate companion to the House bill that would place trade restrictions against the importation of looted archeological and ethnological materials.  It's a similar measure to one that I won enactment of in 2003 when Iraq's antiquities were being looted.

I thank you all for your help in bringing awareness to this critical issue.  Together, I hope we can reduce the market for these exceptional antiquities, and stop the flow of funds to this ruthless group.

 

-30-

Grassley Sponsors NOAA Sexual Harassment Prevention Bill Following Alleged Misconduct

 

WASHINGTON - Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley is cosponsoring legislation to address and prevent sexual harassment and assault at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The proposal follows allegations of sexual assault involving NOAA staff and contractors, and addresses inadequate reporting and protection protocols for victims.

"The trauma faced by victims of sexual abuse and harassment shouldn't be compounded by inadequate and obsolete procedures and protocol for reporting abuse," Grassley said.  "This bill will help ensure that victims have an advocate and a place to go where they can feel safe."

Late last year, Grassley and Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune raised concerns about claims of sexual abuse and harassment involving individuals working on NOAA assets. They also questioned the effectiveness of the current reporting system that directs victims to disclose misconduct through the chain of command, which may include the alleged perpetrator.

To improve responses to sexual misconduct at NOAA and prevent future instances of abuse, Grassley is cosponsoring the NOAA Sexual Harassment and Assault Prevention Act.  The bill requires NOAA to adopt policies similar to the Coast Guard's Sexual Assault Response and Prevention Program, which includes:

·         A victim advocate program;

·         A 24-hour reporting hotline;

·         Clear response procedures;

·         The victim's right to be protected from the accused; and

·         A process for a victim to request a unit transfer.

The bill also ensures victims have access to relevant harassment response personnel throughout the agency, including in aviation and marine centers.  It extends these protections to all agency employees and anyone who works with or conducts business on behalf of NOAA, including officers, wage mariners, volunteers, researchers and interns.

To improve diversity at the agency, the bill authorizes new recruiting and retention tools to help recruit minority candidates and retain senior female officers, all without increasing spending.

For more information on the NOAA Sexual Harassment and Assault Prevention Act, see the following documents:

·         Bill Text

·         Section-by-Section

-30-
28 Oct 2015

NOTICE OF COMMITTEE EXECUTIVE BUSINESS MEETING

By Grassley Press
An Executive Business Meeting has been scheduled by the Committee on the Judiciary for Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

By order of the Chairman.

AGENDA

Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226

October 29, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.?

I. Nominations

Brian R. Martinotti, to be a United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey

Julien Xavier Neals, to be a United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey

Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., to be a United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska

Edward L. Stanton III, to be a United States District Judge for the Western District of Tennessee

-30-

27 Oct 2015

Senate Continues to Make Good Progress on Judicial Nominations

By Grassley Press

Prepared Floor Statement Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Statement for the Record

President Obama's Judicial Nominations and Lawrence Vilardo of New York, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of New York

Monday, October 26, 2015

 

Today, the Senate confirmed the 316th judicial nominee during President Obama's presidency, so I wanted to take this opportunity to provide an update on judicial nominations progress. These 316 confirmations are in contrast to the only 292 judicial nominees the Senate had confirmed by this point in 2007 during George W. Bush's presidency. So, at this point in their respective seventh year of Presidency, President Obama has 24 more judicial nominees confirmed than President Bush did.

Furthermore, contrary to what one might hear, there is no judicial vacancy crisis. This year has the lowest average vacancy rate during Obama's Presidency, and is among the lowest in the last 25 years. Both the district and circuit courts are over 92 percent filled.

As I have said before, the Senate Judiciary Committee is moving at the same pace this year that it did under Democrat control in 2007 during the last two years of President Bush's presidency. By this point in 2007, the committee had held 10 hearings for a total of 29 nominees (26 judicial nominees and 3 executive nominees). We have held 9 hearings for a total of 29 nominees (24 judicial nominees and 5 executive nominees) including hearings for both the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General.

I just wanted to set the record straight and remind all my colleagues that the Senate continues to make good progress on judicial nominations.

-30-
26 Oct 2015

News from Senator Grassley's Office Oct 22-26, 2015

By Grassley Press

IRS targeting scandal accountability lacking, Grassley bill would help

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following comment on the Justice Department's announcement of a lack of criminal charges against Lois Lerner in the IRS targeting scandal.  Grassley, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is a senior member and former Chairman of the Finance Committee, with jurisdiction over the IRS.

"The lack of accountability for the targeting scandal will hit a lot of Americans as plain wrong.  Anybody who deals with the IRS is entitled to the expectation that IRS employees respect taxpayer rights, and that those employees are well aware of those rights.  None of that was true in the targeting scandal, yet the responsible IRS employees, including Lois Lerner and her bosses, were allowed to move on.  Where was the IRS commissioner while the agency was treating conservative groups so poorly?  As a legislator, I'm working to fulfill my responsibilities to fix the IRS mess.  I have pending legislation that would improve the way the IRS treats taxpayers in key areas.   The bill includes extending a remedy to social welfare organizations to force answers in instances where the IRS fails to act on an application in a timely manner or makes a negative determination on their tax-exempt status.   My bill updates the '10 deadly sins' of actions by IRS employees that require mandatory termination to include official actions taken for political purposes.  These provisions and many others would help turn around the disastrous state of business at the IRS as exposed in the targeting scandal."

More information on Grassley's Taxpayer Bill of Rights Enhancement Act of 2015 is available here.

-30--

Grassley on Prisons' Pork Removal: 'How Did this Stupid Decision Get Made?'

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley made the following statement after the Bureau of Prisons officially responded to his request for information regarding the decision to remove pork from the federal prisons' menus.  After Grassley learned of the removal and asked questions, the bureau reversed its decision and put pork back on the menu.

Grassley's letter to the Bureau of Prisons is here.  The bureau's response is here.

"I'll give the bureau credit for at least admitting they screwed up.  They claimed at one point that the cost of pork was too high, and that the surveys showed that prisoners didn't like pork.  None of that is accurate, so it begs the question, 'How did this stupid decision get made?'  And, considering how things work in this town and the previous lack of candor, I don't buy their answer that the costs to implement the survey were negligible."

-30-
23 Oct 2015

Q/A on the REACH Act for rural hospitals

By Grassley Press

With U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

 

Q: Why are you working to advance Medicare reforms for rural hospitals?

A: This past year, I've heard a good deal of feedback from my town meetings in Iowa that acute health care services in rural areas of our state are at risk. A shrinking pool of patients is exposing a funding shortfall that is hurting small town hospitals. Many people who live in small town Iowa would rank the top four most important institutions in their community as the school, the bank, the hospital and their place of worship. Iowa farmers are spending countless hours bringing in the fall harvest.  As too many farm families know, tragic accidents occur around farm machinery, grain bins, tractor roll-overs and power-take-off shafts, when clothing or appendages get caught up in the rotating device.  That's when timing and access to critical health care are especially critical. As the population growth in Iowa continues to migrate toward urban, metropolitan hubs, policymakers need to address how the demographic shift affects services in our rural areas. That includes making sure Medicare recipients in sparsely populated communities aren't left without critical health care services, as an example. That's especially true for emergency medicine. The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that 60 percent of trauma deaths take place in rural areas, where only 15 percent of the population lives. Arguably, distance and response time to the nearest E.R. play a contributing factor to saving lives and limbs.  By not requiring rural hospitals to maintain inpatient care for participation in the Medicare program, my Rural Emergency Acute Care Hospital (REACH) Act would give eligible hometown hospitals a lifeline to help keep their doors open. In addition to providing emergency medicine, they may also expand their purpose and sustainability by converting space for other medical services to serve their community, such as telemedicine, nursing home care, skilled nursing facility care, infusion services, home health and hospice. A more favorable Medicare payment prescription would resuscitate around-the-clock emergency health care services in rural areas of the country and help keep good-paying jobs and vital medical services available close to home.

 

Q: How would the REACH Act help?

A: The REACH Act recognizes the unique challenges facing health care providers serving rural communities. Access to primary health care services, particularly emergency medicine, is a critical issue of concern for people who live and work in less populated areas of the country. And rural areas, especially in Iowa, have a greater share of older residents who receive health care services paid for by Medicare. Without a doubt, Medicare creates a big footprint across the network of hospitals and health care providers serving 531,209 Iowans. Medicare spends $4.3 billion per year in Iowa and a lion's share of rural health care providers depend on Medicare business to stay in business.  As an outspoken advocate for rural America and a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, which has legislative jurisdiction and oversight authority of the federal health insurance program for older and disabled citizens, I make it known loud and clear that Medicare needs to measure up to the needs of Iowa taxpayers, beneficiaries and providers. To serve rural residents and modernize Medicare policies to better reflect community needs, I introduced the REACH Act this summer.  It would create new flexibility and fix the payment structure so that reimbursements for rural emergency outpatient health care services are not tied to inpatient volume. Basically, a boost in the reimbursement formula (110 percent of reasonable costs) would help rural providers keep their doors open for business, including ambulance and telehealth services. Specifically, free-standing 24-hour emergency medical care outlets in our rural communities would get higher payment injections to help them pay their bills, make payroll and serve local residents. Individual states would apply for certification to participate. My bill also adds incentives to encourage emergency medical professionals to practice in rural areas. The goal of these changes is a budget-neutral proposal with no additional spending overall.

Q: Which rural hospitals would be eligible to participate under the REACH Act?

A: If adopted, my bill would designate as a rural emergency hospital any facility that is a critical access hospital, or a hospital with at most 50 beds located in a county. In addition, a rural emergency hospital must provide 24-hour emergency medical care. And, the facility does not provide acute care inpatient beds. It also must follow protocols for the timely transfer of patients to appropriate inpatient service providers. My bill would require that Medicare Part B cover rural emergency health care services and the ambulance services to transport patients who require inpatient care to a critical access hospital or full-service hospital. Finally, the facility must receive approval from the state and certification by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Friday, October 23, 2015


22 Oct 2015

News from Senator Grassley's Office Oct 22, 2015

By Grassley Press

Judiciary Committee Clears Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act

 

WASHINGTON - The Senate Judiciary Committee today passed the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, which grants judges greater sentencing flexibility for certain low-level drug offenders and establishes recidivism reduction programs, while targeting violent criminals. The bill passed the committee by a vote of 15-5.  The bill passed today includes minor clarifications to the original bill text.

The bill is the product of a thoughtful bipartisan deliberation led by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin.  Original cosponsors include Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.).  Other cosponsors include Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.).

"Today's bipartisan Committee vote demonstrates the broad consensus that we can thoughtfully addresses the most serious and complex matters in prison sentencing. This bill preserves sentences necessary to keep violent offenders and career criminals out of our communities while addressing over-incarceration concerns and working to reduce recidivism. I'm grateful for the hard work and support of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and look forward to action by the full senate to move this historic reform forward," Grassley said.

"Today, on a bipartisan basis the Judiciary Committee took a big step toward solving a massive problem. This compromise bill represents many years of work on criminal justice reform. The United States incarcerates more of its citizens than any other country on earth. Mandatory minimum sentences were once seen as a strong deterrent. In reality they have too often been unfair, fiscally irresponsible and a threat to public safety. Given tight budgets and overcrowded prison cells, our country must reform these outdated and ineffective laws that have cost American taxpayers billions of dollars. This is how the Congress is supposed to work.  I thank Chairman Grassley for his steadfast leadership, Senator Lee for his partnership on sentencing reform, and all of the bill's other cosponsors for their hard work and dedication.  We are committed to getting this done," Durbin said.

"Successful reforms in Texas and other states have taught us that it's not enough to be tough on crime, we have to be smart on crime, too. This legislation will protect law enforcement's ability to aggressively target violent offenders and serious criminals, but will also help break the cycle of inmates who repeatedly find themselves back behind bars after returning to society. This is a consequential moment of cooperation and collaboration for the Senate, and one that will help make our communities safer and save taxpayers' dollars," Cornyn said.

"I'm proud that this legislation includes policies based on the proven strategies that Senator Cornyn and I have seen succeed in Rhode Island and Texas.  These policies will better equip inmates to pursue productive, crime-free lives after prison - helping to reduce prison populations, cut costs, and make communities safer.  I thank Senator Cornyn for working with me to include those policies, and Senator Grassley for leading so effectively the collaborative process that has led us here today," Whitehouse said.

"When we over-punish crime we only undermine the legitimacy our criminal justice system. The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act reflects my belief that we can make our justice system more fair and efficient without reducing public safety. I am grateful for the support of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have worked together for the past several months so we can report this bill to the full Senate," Lee said.

"This is a long overdue first step on the road towards reforming our criminal justice system. This legislation puts discretion back in the hands of judges, where it belongs, it provides necessary reform for non-violent drug offenders, and it reduces recidivism. Those common sense principles enjoy strong bipartisan support, and I hope that support will translate into swift action on the Senate floor in the near future," Schumer said.

"We maintain the tools law enforcement needs to continue making sure that the worst drug traffickers and violent criminals stay off of our streets.  We also provide flexibility in sentencing for those offenders that deserve it.  I'm proud to support this important legislation," Graham said.

"I would like to see an end to all mandatory minimums, but the reforms in this bill represent real progress that I can support.  A critical component is the opportunity for judges to apply our reforms retroactively on a case-by-case basis.  Our concerns with proportionality and racial disparity require that these reforms apply to old sentences as well as to new ones," Leahy said.

"For decades, our broken criminal justice system has held our nation back from realizing its full potential. Today, with the passage of the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act by the Senate Judiciary Committee, we took another promising step forward for reform. Mass incarceration has had a crippling effect on taxpayers, our economy, our children, public safety and communities of color all while devaluing the very idea of justice in America. It is time we right this devastating wrong and restore integrity, justice, and compassion to our criminal justice system. I'm hopeful that this bill will soon be considered by the full Senate," Booker said.

"I want to thank Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Leahy for continuing to move this important process forward. By making common sense changes to our criminal justice system, we can change thousands of lives for the better, while still ensuring that hardened and violent criminals are kept where they belong. I look forward to continuing our work on this important issue over the coming months," Scott said.

Prior to the markup, on Monday the Senate Judiciary Committee held a public hearing where a broad array of experts and advocates who weighed in on the merits of the bill.

The bill narrows the scope of mandatory minimum prison sentences to focus on the most serious drug offenders and violent criminals, while broadening and establishing new outlets for individuals with minimal non-felony criminal histories that may trigger mandatory minimum sentences under current law.  The bill also reduces certain mandatory minimums, providing judges with greater discretion when determining appropriate sentences, and preserves cooperation incentives to aid law enforcement in tracking down kingpins.

In addition to reducing prison terms for certain offenders through sentencing reform, qualifying inmates can earn reduced sentences through recidivism reduction programs outlined in the CORRECTIONS Act introduced by Cornyn and Whitehouse. The bill also makes retroactive the Fair Sentencing Act and certain statutory reforms that address inequities in drug sentences.

For more information on the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, see the following documents:

·         Text of Bill Passed in Committee

·         One-page bill summary

·         Section-by-section

-30-

Judiciary Committee Clears Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act

The Senate Judiciary Committee today passed a landmark sentencing and prison reform bill.  The bipartisan bill cleared the committee by a vote of 15 to 5.

The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act has garnered support from a broad range of organizations and people interested in reform.  It all started more than eight months ago when several of us started looking at ways we could build consensus to address the rising costs and inequities of prison incarceration.

The bill is the product of thoughtful bipartisan deliberation that will promote opportunities to reduce recidivism while protecting our communities from violent career criminals.

Stiff sentences can serve an important role in protecting public safety and bringing justice to crime victims.  So this bill will preserve the primary mandatory minimums to keep some certainty and uniformity in federal sentences and to encourage criminals to cooperate with law enforcement.

But our current system has also produced some specific instances of severe and excessive sentences.   And there are elements of the criminal justice system that can and should be improved.  So, we lower some of the harshest enhanced mandatory minimums.  This bill does not eliminate a single mandatory minimum, but it cuts back on a number of the most severe ones.

This is an important bill that shows the Senate can work to address problems.  And, I hope the full Senate will soon consider this important bipartisan legislation.
22 Oct 2015

News from Senator Grassley's Office Oct 21, 2015

By Grassley Press

Grassley Seeks Full Accounting of 88 Department of Homeland Security Employees on Paid Administrative Leave for More Than a Year

 

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa is asking the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for a full accounting of why each of 88 employees has been on paid administrative leave for more than a year.  Grassley's request comes after an inadequate explanation from the agency on its use of paid administrative leave.

DHS' explanation of the reasons for such extended periods of paid leave was "too broad and vague to assess whether other actions might have been more appropriate," Grassley wrote to Secretary Jeh Johnson.

In his letter, Grassley said DHS failed to explain how it met applicable Office of Personnel Management authority "to use administrative leave 'for those rare circumstances' in which the employee 'may pose a threat to the employee or others, result in loss of or damage to Government property, or otherwise jeopardize legitimate Government interests,' or how its actions were consistent with the numerous" Government Accountability Office decisions "limiting administrative leave to brief duration."  Grassley's letter continued, "DHS also failed to explain why such extended amounts of time were needed to conduct investigations into security issues, misconduct, or fitness for duty."

In a response to Grassley in January, DHS reported 88 employees who had been placed on paid administrative leave for a year or more:

·         Four of these employees were on administrative leave for approximately 3 years or more, 2 of whom continued to be on administrative leave at the time of DHS' response.

·         An additional 17 employees were reportedly on administrative leave for approximately 2 years or more, including 5 who remained in this status at the time of DHS' response.

·         These 88 employees were across the department's components, suggesting systemic misuse of paid administrative leave.

Last October, Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa wrote to 17 agencies and the inspector general for one agency featured in a report from the Government Accountability Office, issued at their request.  The GAO report examined data from fiscal years 2011 to 2013 from more than 100 federal agencies.  GAO found:

·         Three percent of federal employees took between 1 month and 3 years of paid administrative leave.  Of those, 263 employees charged between 1 and 3 years of paid administrative leave.

·         Salary estimates for paid administrative leave for fiscal years 2011-2013 totaled nearly $3.1 billion.  Salary estimates for the 263 employees who took between 1 and 3 years totaled $31 million.

·         Of employees taking relatively higher amounts of leave at selected agencies, GAO found the most common reasons for charging higher-than-average amounts of paid administrative leave included personnel matters (such as investigations into alleged misconduct or criminal actions), physical fitness-related activities, and periods of rest and recuperation for employees working in overseas locations.

"Each agency handles administrative leave on its own terms in the absence of clear guidance that should apply to everyone," Grassley said.  "The result is employees' getting paid to stay home, sometimes for more than a year, while management keeps them in limbo.  This is detrimental to taxpayers and good government.  The agencies should account for each case of paid leave, especially those lasting more than a year.  The explanations will help Congress arrive at solutions to stop abusively long leave."

Grassley is working with Sen. Jon Tester on potential legislation that would force agencies to make a decision on whether an employee is a danger to fellow employees and must be removed from the workplace or whether that person can be reassigned while his case is resolved.  "The goal is to make sure federal employees are working for taxpayers and not lingering on paid leave at taxpayer expense," Grassley said.

Grassley's letter to DHS is available here.  DHS' prior response is available here.

-30-

Prepared Statement by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee

Hearing on Judicial Nominations

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

 

 

Good morning and welcome to the 9th nominations hearing this year.

Today we will hear from four nominees to federal district courts:

-           Gary Brown, for the Eastern District of New York

-           Rebecca Ebinger, for the Southern District of  Iowa

-           Len Strand, for the Northern District of Iowa

-           Mark Young, for the Central District of California

Welcome to all of you and your families and congratulations on your nominations.

I'm especially pleased to have two nominees for vacancies in Iowa.

I'm biased of course, but I must say in my humble opinion Judges Strand and Ebinger are two of the best judicial candidates President Obama has nominated during his Presidency.

To fill the two judicial vacancies in Iowa, I set up a Judicial Selection Commission and invited all interested Iowa lawyers to apply. The applicants were vetted by highly qualified members of the Iowa legal community.

After spending hundreds of hours reviewing the applications, the Commission interviewed the 39 Iowans who submitted their applications. 11 candidates were then selected for a lengthy second round of interviews.

At the end of the process, the Commission sent their recommendations to me. In consultation with Senator Ernst, I was proud to recommend Judges Strand and Ebinger to the White House. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Commissioners for the time and effort they devoted to the process.

Just to give you a sense of the time and effort that went into the process, Cindy Moser, who chaired the Commission, logged nearly 2,000 miles driving back and forth from Sioux City to Des Moines.

And I'd like to acknowledge one of the Commissioners who came from Iowa to be here today: Jeff Goodman.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank the President and his staff, including the White House counsel, for working with me to move these nominations forward. This is how our constitutional process of advice and consent is designed to work.

And the proof is in the pudding. Judges Strand and Ebinger have the highest credentials and character and will serve the state of Iowa with honor and distinction.

I'll introduce the Iowa nominees and then will turn to the other Senators for their introductions.

Judge Strand received his B.A. from the University of Iowa in 1987 and his J.D. from the University of Iowa College of Law in 1990. Upon graduation, he joined one of the most prestigious law firms in Iowa as an associate. During his time at the law firm, he received several awards, including "Super Lawyer" for Iowa and the Great Plains Region for 6 years straight.

In 2012, Judge Strand was appointed as a Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. In this capacity, he has handled hundreds of cases, which has prepared him well to handle cases as a District Court Judge.

Judge Ebinger received her undergraduate degree in 1997 from the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service and her J.D. from Yale Law School in 2004. She then served as a Special Assistant United States Attorney in the United States Attorney's office for the Northern District of Iowa in Cedar Rapids. There, she prosecuted criminal cases involving narcotics, immigration, firearms offenses, and violent crimes. She then clerked for Judge Michael Melloy on the Eighth Circuit for two years, also in Cedar Rapids.

Following her clerkship, she moved to the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Iowa as an Assistant United States Attorney. During this time, her practice shifted primarily to white collar crime. She also handled intake for all child support enforcement cases and sex offender registry violations. Judge Ebinger received a number of awards for her work with the United States Attorneys Office.

In 2012, she was appointed to serve as a district judge in Iowa state court and she was retained as a district judge in the 2014 election. As state court judge, she presides over a court of general jurisdiction handling civil law and equity, criminal and family court proceedings. She has presided over 40 cases that have gone to verdict or trial.

-30-

Opioid abuse prevention plan from the White House

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the Caucus on International Narcotics Control, today made the following comment on the White House's new opioid abuse prevention plan.

"The opioid problem has many contributing factors, and fighting it requires measures on multiple fronts.  There's a lot of good news in what the White House is putting forward today.  I've been among many senators who urged the Administration to re-instate the National Prescription Drug Take-Back Day for unused medicines.  I'm glad to see that program back in place.  It's been very popular in Iowa.  Getting unused medicines out of the medicine cabinet prevents diversion from teen-agers and others prone to abuse.  The Administration is promoting physician education and training and increased access to the overdose drug naloxone for law enforcement and first responders.  These are positive steps.

"The Administration has had a change of heart on doctors' prescribing opioids to increase their patient satisfaction survey scores.  This has been a concern in Medicare.  When I wrote to the Administration about this problem last year, the Administration didn't seem to think this was a problem.  Now there's an acknowledgement that a review of this area is appropriate.  I hope the Administration will continue to take an open-minded approach to fighting opioid abuse."

Details of the White House plan are available here.

Grassley's most recent comment on the National Prescription Drug Take-Back program is available here.

Grassley's letter (with Sen. Dianne Feinstein) to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on patient satisfaction surveys is available here.

CMS' response on patient satisfaction surveys is available here.

-30-

Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee

Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for S.754, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, and to thank the bill's managers for their leadership and hard work on the bill.

The cybersecurity challenges that threaten us are real.

We receive almost daily reminders of the importance of effective cybersecurity to protect our private data, and the safety and security of the entire nation, from cyber-attacks.  These attacks have compromised the personal information of so many Americans, as well as sensitive national security information.

The legislation before us will encourage the government and private sector to work together to address these cybersecurity challenges.

This bill helps create a strong legal framework for information sharing that will help us respond to these threats.

The bill authorizes private companies to voluntarily share cyber threat information with each other and the government.  In turn, it permits the government to share this type of information with private entities.  The bill reduces the uncertainty and legal barriers that either limit or prohibit the sharing of cyber threat information today.

At the same time, the bill includes significant privacy protections to strike a balance between maintaining security and protecting our civil liberties.  For example, it restricts the government from acquiring or using cyber threat information except for limited cybersecurity purposes.

I salute the leadership of the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Intelligence Committee, Senators Burr and Feinstein, for their efforts on this bill.

This isn't easy work.  In the 112th Congress, I co-sponsored cybersecurity legislation, along with several of my colleagues, which involved working across several committees of jurisdiction.

Last Congress, as then-Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, I continued to work with the Intelligence Committee and others on an earlier version of this bill.  Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership never gave the Senate an opportunity to debate and vote on that bill.  But Senators Burr and Feinstein were undaunted.

This Congress, they diligently continued to seek input from relevant committees of jurisdiction, including the Judiciary Committee.  They incorporated the views of a broad range of senators, and worked to address the concerns of stakeholders outside Congress, which has produced their manager's amendment.

This is a bill that enjoys broad, bipartisan support.  It may not be a perfect bill from any individual Senator's point of view, but it's a good bill that addresses a very real problem.

It's time for us to do our job and vote. This is how the Senate is supposed to work.  Now is the time for action, because the question isn't whether there will be another cyber-attack; it's when.

-30-
21 Oct 2015

Put An End To Sanctuary Cities

By Grassley Press

Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee

Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act

Monday, October 19, 2015

Mr. President,

Tomorrow, we will have the opportunity to vote to proceed vote to a bill that deals with sanctuary cities and immigration policies that are a serious threat to public safety.  We will move to take up the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, a bill that should put an end to sanctuary jurisdictions, give law enforcement the tools they need to detain criminals, and increase penalties for dangerous and repeat offenders of our immigration laws.

Sanctuary jurisdictions are states and local political subdivisions with statutes, policies, or practices that prevent law enforcement officers from cooperating with the federal government on immigration matters.   Some of these sanctuary policies are created when a local government unit - such as the city or county executive body - passes an ordinance prohibiting their officers from communicating with the feds.  Some sanctuary policies come about simply because local law enforcement initiates its own policy of providing safe harbor for illegal immigrants.  Some sanctuary policies develop because law enforcement officers are afraid they'll be sued if they enforce immigration laws and detain an individual for their unlawful immigration status.   These policies and practices have allowed thousands of dangerous criminals to be released back into the community, and the effects have been disastrous.

America saw these policies play out in July when Kate Steinle was innocently killed while walking along a San Francisco pier with her father.  The murderer, who was illegally in the country and deported five times prior to that day, was released into the community by a sanctuary jurisdiction that did not honor a detainer issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  The suspect in Kate's death admitted that he was in San Francisco because of its sanctuary policies.

In July, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing called "Oversight of the Administration's Misdirected Immigration Enforcement Policies: Examining the Impact on Public Safety and Honoring the Victims."  This hearing was an opportunity to hear the voices of Americans who have been impacted by these indefensible policies, while also conducting oversight of the administration's policies and tolerance toward sanctuary jurisdictions.

Jim Steinle, Kate's father, expressed his family's desire to see legislation enacted to take undocumented felons off our streets.  The committee was moved by his presence.  He talked about how Kate "had a special soul, a kind and giving heart, the most contagious laugh, and a smile that would light up a room."  He told us how she died in his arms that day, despite her plea in her dying words of "Help me, Dad."

The suspect in Kate Steinle's murder had seven prior felony convictions and had been deported five times.  Yet, he was shielded by San Francisco's sanctuary policy.

But the Kate Steinle story is not a singular case.  Too many Americans have lost their lives, and too many families have had to feel the real and devastating impact caused by sanctuary cities and lax immigration enforcement.

Our committee heard powerful testimony from other families.

We heard from Mrs. Susan Oliver.

Mrs. Oliver is the widow of Deputy Danny Oliver, a police officer in Sacramento, California.  Danny was killed while on duty by an illegal immigrant who was previously arrested on two separate occasions for drug-related charges and twice deported.   Mrs. Oliver spoke of the daily loss she experiences without her husband, in everything from raising her children to the milestones he will miss?including their daughter's upcoming wedding.

We heard from Michael Ronnebeck, the uncle of Grant Ronnebeck.

Grant was a 21-year old convenience store clerk who was gunned down earlier this year by an illegal immigrant.  The Obama administration released Grant's alleged murderer, who was in removal proceedings.  Grant was born in Iowa, but resided in Arizona, and had two brothers and a sister. Mr. Ronnebeck expressed his family's desire to see Grant's legacy be a force for change, imploring us, as lawmakers, to "rise above political differences, to set aside personal interests, and to use your resources to make sensible immigration reform a reality in the coming months, with the safety and security of American citizens first and foremost in mind."

We heard from Brian McCann.

Mr. McCann's brother, Dennis McCann, was killed in 2011 by a drunk driver who was in the country illegally and driving without a license. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had placed a detainer on the drunk driver, but he was released under Cook County, Illinois' sanctuary city policies. Mr. McCann expressed his anger at the sanctuary city policies of Cook County which allowed his brother's killer to be free, and at a system that failed to communicate with him and his family when the suspect was released by the locals.

We also heard from Ms. Laura Wilkerson of Pearland, Texas, the mother of Josh Wilkerson.

Josh was 18 years old when he was murdered by his high-school classmate, an illegal immigrant, after Josh offered him a ride home from school.  Josh's murderer was sentenced to life in prison and will be eligible for parole in 30 years. Ms. Wilkerson spoke of the gentle soul of her son, the brutal torture he endured, and watching an unapologetic 19-year-old brag about his "killing skills" during trial and talking about how things were done in his country.

These stories are heart breaking, but nothing has changed, and since Kate's murder we have seen more fall victim to sanctuary jurisdiction policies.

Shortly after Kate's death, Marilyn Pharis was brutally raped, tortured, and murdered in her home in Santa Maria, California, by an illegal immigrant who was released from custody because the county sheriff does not honor detainers.

A two-year old girl was brutally beaten by an illegal immigrant in San Luis Obispo County, California.  He was released from local custody despite a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer and extensive criminal history, and is still at large.

Margaret Kostelnik was killed by an illegal immigrant who allegedly attempted to rape a 14-year-old girl and shoot a woman in a nearby park.  He was released because ICE refused to issue a detainer and take custody of the suspect.

These are just a few of the stories that could be told on this floor.  There are many more families that are hurting today because of lax immigration policies and the lack of willingness by the Obama Administration to do something about sanctuary jurisdictions.

But, don't take it from me.  Even the Secretary of Homeland Security acknowledges that sanctuary cities are "counterproductive to public safety."  He said these policies were "unacceptable."

Yet, this administration has not taken demonstrable action to address the unwillingness of sanctuary jurisdictions to work with federal immigration authorities. More than 12,000 federal detainer requests were ignored by state and local jurisdictions in 2014.  Moreover, in June of this year, the administration rolled out a new program that reduces the "enforcement priorities" and announced it would not seek the custody of many criminals who are in the country illegally.

The Priority Enforcement Program, or "PEP," actually gives sanctuary jurisdictions permission to continue ignoring ICE detainers.

PEP even discourages compliant jurisdictions from further cooperation with ICE because it now only issues detainers for individuals who are already convicted of certain crimes deemed priorities by the Department of Homeland Security.

Many local jurisdictions want to work with the federal government and protect their communities but are frustrated when the administration refuses to work with them.

Sheriff Cummings in Cape Cod, Massachusetts recently explained his frustration with ICE when an immigrant who had overstayed his visa was arrested for battery with a dangerous weapon and child pornography.  Sheriff Cummings said that when he learned that this individual, who had a long criminal history, was in the country illegally, he asked ICE for a federal immigration detainer "so that if someone came up with that bail we could then turn him over to ICE and we wouldn't release him back into the community."  However, ICE never issued the detainer.  Sheriff Cummings noted that, before PEP, immigration authorities would issue a detainer pretty quickly, but not anymore.  He comments:

"It just shows how they've relaxed their policy so there are more criminal illegal aliens in our communities right now.  Those are the ones I'm concerned with.  I'm concerned with the individuals that have committed crimes.  They are here illegally to begin with and they've committed crimes while they're here.  To me it makes no sense to allow these people to stay in our communities."

I couldn't agree more.  It makes no sense that people who do not belong here and commit crimes are allowed to return to our communities and cause further harm.

The Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act addresses the problem of sanctuary jurisdictions in a common sense and balanced way.  There seems to be consensus that sanctuary jurisdictions should be held accountable.  So, we do that with the power of the purse.  This bill limits the availability of certain federal grants to cities and States that have sanctuary policies.

We limit funding through the State Criminal Assistance Program, or SCAAP.  This is a grant program run by the Department of Justice that is designed to reimburse part of the cost incurred by local jurisdictions who detain undocumented criminal aliens. Sanctuary cities receive these funds despite their refusal to detain suspects who are wanted by immigration authorities.

In 2015 alone, California received a total of $44 million dollars in SCAAP funds even though the State has a sanctuary law.  New York City, a sanctuary city, received $11.6 million in taxpayer funding.

To fund sanctuary cities with SCAAP money effectively subsidizes these jurisdictions for their lack of co-operation. As former Assistant Secretary Morton stated in a letter to Cook County, a well-known sanctuary jurisdiction:  "It is fundamentally inconsistent for Cook County to request federal reimbursement for the cost of detaining aliens who commit or are charged with crimes while at the same time thwarting ICE's efforts to remove those very same aliens from the United States."  The bill before us today responds to this hypocrisy by making sanctuary jurisdictions ineligible for SCAAP grants.

Another grant program limited to sanctuary jurisdictions is the Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS program.  These grant dollars help fund community oriented policing programs for local law enforcement agencies.

The bill makes sanctuary jurisdictions ineligible for these taxpayer dollars if they have a policy or practice in place despite the lack of any statute, ordinance or policy directive from their unit of local government.

Finally, the bill limits taxpayer dollars through the community development block grant for sanctuary jurisdictions when a county, city or state has in effect a statute that clearly defies information sharing as required by law, or has a statute that prohibits any government official from complying with a detainer request issued by the Department of Homeland Security.

In acknowledgement of the bill's fairness in targeting certain grants, the National Sheriffs' Association writes, "The grant penalties you would impose also acknowledge that our public safety entities should not be punished for actions of a state or local subdivision over which they may not have control.  I appreciate the careful consideration you clearly gave that issue."

The second thing our bill does is provide protection for law enforcement officers who do want to cooperate and comply with detainer requests.  It would address the liability issue created by recent court decisions by providing liability protection to local law enforcement who honor ICE detainers.  The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association explains in a letter of support for the bill:

"Unfortunately, at least four courts have ruled that local law enforcement officers may be sued for violating the Fourth Amendment if they comply with an immigration detainer, even if the detainer was lawfully issued and the detention would have been legal if carried out by DHS.  This means that our local counterparts are exposed to potential civil liability and it disables their ability to detain dangerous criminals scheduled for release.  The Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act solves this problem by explicitly stating that local law enforcement officers have legal authority to comply with immigration detainers."

While preventing restrictive liability to law enforcement, the bill also ensures the protection of civil liberties and the rights of individuals.  The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association noted that "the bill protects civil liberties, ensuring that someone who has had their constitutional rights violated may sue."

Finally, the bill addresses criminals attempting to re-enter the United States, and habitual offenders of our immigration laws.  The bill creates a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for any alien who is an aggravated felon, or who has been twice convicted of illegal re-entry.  Thanks to many people, including Bill O'Reilly, this part of the bill - commonly referred to as Kate's Law -- has become so important to many Americans.  This is necessary to take those off our streets who are dangerous to our communities, and have no respect for our laws.

This bill has broad support by law enforcement groups.  It also has the support of groups that want enforcement of our immigration laws.  And it has the support of the Remembrance Project, a group devoted to honoring and remembering Americans who have been killed by illegal aliens.    I ask for unanimous consent that letters of support from these groups be added to the record.

Some on the other side of the aisle are criticizing us for politicizing these recent attacks by criminal aliens and releases by sanctuary jurisdictions.  We are being accused of attacking immigrants.  However, I just want to note that the Democrats take no shame in politicizing the recent gun violence and promoting legislation what would not have stopped some of the shootings -- from Newtown, Connecticut to Roseburg, Oregon.

This is not a partisan issue. This bill protects law abiding people and improves public safety.  Had it been enacted before July 1, individuals like Kate Steinle may still be with us.  I would think we should all be able to agree that people who are in the country illegally and committing crimes should not be released back into the community.  There has to be accountability and a commitment to uphold the rule of law.

For too long we have sat by while sanctuary jurisdictions release dangerous criminals into the community to harm our citizens.  It's time we put an end to it.  It's time we work toward protecting our communities, rather than continuing to put them in danger.  I hope all my colleagues will support this bill, and vote to proceed to it tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

-30-

Law Enforcement & Victims' Families Call for End to 'Sanctuary' Cities

Approximately 170,000 convicted criminal aliens who have been ordered to be deported freely walk the streets in the United States. About 300 cities currently provide safe-haven or "sanctuary" to these individuals by refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

As the Senate prepares to vote to proceed to the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, support is pouring in from law enforcement organizations, immigration advocates and the families of those who have been killed by people illegally in the country, many with previous criminal records.

Victims

·         Laura Wilkerson is the mother of Joshua Wilkerson, who was brutally murdered and set on fire by an illegal immigrant in 2010. Joshua's Story

·         Brian McCann is the brother of Dennis McCann, who was struck and dragged to death by a drunk driver illegally in the country.  Because of Chicago's sanctuary policy, Dennis' killer posted bail despite a federal immigration detainer and fled to Mexico before his trial. Dennis' Story

·         Michael Ronnebeck is uncle of Grant Ronnebeck who was shot point blank in the face while working at a convenience store by a man with a lengthy violent criminal record who was later released on bond pending deportation proceedings. Grant's Story.

·         Susan Oliver is the widow of Deputy Danny Oliver who was killed in the line of duty by a man who had been deported several times with several felonies.  Danny's Story

·         Don Rosenberg is the father of Drew Rosenberg who was struck and repeatedly run over by an unlicensed immigrant who attempted to flee the scene. Drew's Story

Supporting Organizations

·         The Remembrance Project is dedicated to honoring the lives of individuals killed by illegal aliens.

·         America First Latinos focuses on issues impacting the Latin American community and families.

Law Enforcement Endorsements

Multiple local, federal and international law enforcement organizations have expressed support the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act and even debunked myths about the bill.

·         National Association of Police Organizations 

·         National Sheriffs' Association 

·         Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association 

·         International Union of Police Associations (AFL-CIO) 

For more information on the bill click HERE.

-30-


20 Oct 2015

News from Senator Grassley's Office Oct 19, 2015

By Grassley Press

President Signs Judiciary-Passed International Adoption Assistance Bill

WASHINGTON - Bipartisan legislation cosponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley to help families facing challenges with international adoptions was signed into law late Friday. Grassley moved the Adoptive Families Relief Act through the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year.

"Hundreds of American families who have opened their homes to vulnerable children overseas now face roadblocks to bringing those children home. Through no fault of their own, American families remain separated from their adopted children, but are still responsible for their care. The Adoptive Families Relief Act will help minimize the financial strain on these families as they wait to be united with their children.  I am grateful for the work of my colleagues in Congress to support these families and their adopted children along their journey home," Grassley said.

The bill provides financial relief to families who have adopted children from other countries, but who are unable to bring them home because of factors beyond their control. Specifically, it allows the State Department to waive visa renewal fees for adopted children whose entry into the United States has been delayed.

Delays could be caused by foreign governments' decisions to stall the adoption process.  For example, more than 350 children in the Democratic Republic of the Congo have been successfully adopted by American families, but since 2013 the government there has refused to issue exit visas necessary for the children to be united with their families in America. As a result, the adoptive families face challenges and added expenses of caring for the children while they remain stuck in a foreign country. In the meantime, the child's U.S.-issued visa needed to enter the United States expires after six months. Families must then continually renew the American visas, a process that can cost up to $550 each time.  The bill allows the visa fees to be waived or refunded for families facing adoption delays in any foreign nation for any reason beyond the family's control.

The bill, which was introduced by Senators Dianne Feinstein and Ron Johnson, passed the Senate by unanimous consent in July and cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote earlier this month.

-30-

Foster Youth Caucuses to Host Panel Discussion on Court Appointed Special Advocates for Children

WASHINGTON - The Congressional Caucus on Foster Youth and the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth on Wednesday will host a panel discussion on the Court Appointed Special Advocates for Children who advocate for children in the child welfare system.  The event is open to the public and the media.  Details follow.

The Congressional Caucus on Foster Youthand the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth

invite you to a panel discussion on

Court Appointed Special Advocates: Champions for Child Victims of Abuse or Neglect 

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

10:00 am

Capitol Visitors Center (SVC) Room 208

Approximately 400,000 youth are in the foster care system today and face uncertainty and trauma as they struggle to understand why they are separated from the people they love most.  As the youth make their way through the child welfare and court system, they depend on guidance and advocates to look out for their best interests.  This briefing will highlight organizations like CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates for Children) who volunteer and work with children until they are placed in loving and permanent homes.  This event will be an open forum for advocates, child welfare organizations, providers and congressional staff to learn about and discuss policies affecting foster youth.

Sponsored by

Representatives Bass, Marino, Langevin, Black, McDermott, Franks, Senators Grassley and Stabenow

Co-Chairs of the Congressional Caucus on Foster Youth & the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth

 -30-

Pages

Subscribe & Listen to Reader Podcasts

On Stands Now

 

Tagged Content

Two Ways to Subscribe

1. Subscribe to free weekly e-mail content updates.

You'll get both the current official narrative challenge and What's Happenin' in the Quad Cities.
(Did you know we publish a new Amy Alkon Advice Goddess, Real Astrology, Red Meat cartoon and RCR Crossword every week?) 

* indicates required

View previous campaigns.

2. Get 12 monthly issues mailed first class for $48

Get 12 issues mailed monthly for $48 per year.

Get the printed Reader edition mailed to you (or anyone you want) first-class for 12 months for $48.
$24 goes to postage and handling, $24 goes to keeping the doors open!

Click this link to Subscribe now.