Citizens Against Government Waste President Thomas Schatz presented Grassley with the Taxpayer Super Hero award on Thursday, July 30, 2015.

Grassley Named a "Taxpayer Super Hero"

WASHINGTON?Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today received the designation of "Taxpayer Super Hero" from the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste.  The title is awarded to lawmakers who earned a score of 100 percent in the council's 2014 Congressional Ratings.

"I appreciate receiving this award from an organization that works to cut wasteful government spending and make the government more accountable to taxpayers.  This has been a priority of mine for a long time.  We don't have a taxing problem.  Washington has a spending problem," Grassley said.

"We applaud and wholeheartedly thank Sen. Grassley for his hard work on behalf of the taxpayers while serving in the Senate.  His courageous votes to cut wasteful spending and make government more accountable should serve as an example to other members, encouraging them to make good on promises to protect the fiscal interests of American taxpayers.  His constituents should be very proud of him," said Council for Citizens Against Government Waste President Tom Schatz.

The 2014 report scored 13 votes in the U.S. Senate and identified members whose voting records helped protect and save the taxpayers' money.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and former chairman and a senior member of the Finance Committee, Grassley conducts proactive and ongoing oversight of the federal bureaucracy to protect taxpayers from waste, fraud and abuse.  He is the author of the qui tam amendments to the False Claims Act that recovered nearly $3 billion for the taxpayers in fiscal 2014 alone.  Grassley is also the founder and chairman of the Whistleblower Protection Caucus, which works to respond to the needs of citizens who play a vital role in protecting against fraud, waste and misconduct.  The caucus also works to educate members of the Senate about whistleblower issues.

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste advocates for the elimination of waste and inefficiency in government.

-30-

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

On National Whistleblower Appreciation Day

July 30, 2015

 

I am honored to share the podium with so many friends like Fred [Whitehurst], and my colleagues on the Whistleblower Protection Caucus.  I'm also very happy to join them in showing my appreciation for whistleblowers.  Whistleblowers often don't get much appreciation or hear many kind words.  In fact, Whistleblowers are called all sorts of things.  Trust me, I've heard them all.

A lot of folks dismiss whistleblowers for not being "team players."  They won't just "go along to get along."  They're called disgruntled, selfish, insubordinate, and disrespectful of authority and the chain of command.

Critics throw around these words as if they automatically undermine a whistleblower's claim.  Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist?or even a lawyer?to see how short-sighted that is. The folks pointing fingers at whistleblowers are often the ones responsible for the wrongdoing whistleblowers report.

They are also the most likely sources of retaliation.

We passed the Whistleblower Protection Act over a quarter of a century ago, and employers still use all kinds of tricks to retaliate against whistleblowers.

Managers drum up bogus retaliatory investigations against whistleblowers, demote them, fire them, and ruin their reputations.  Some of the latest tricks are pretty sneaky.  My Committee is investigating the FBI's use of Loss of Effectiveness orders to retaliate against employees who report sex discrimination.  Before my Committee investigated these orders, the FBI kept them secret from employees, and employees had no opportunity to appeal them.

U.S. Marshals Service whistleblowers tell me that managers threaten to use the Freedom of Information Act to learn who has reported wrongdoing or talked to the Inspector General.  Then they retaliate against those whistleblowers.  This behavior creates an environment of fear, it chills protected speech, and it perverts the Freedom of Information Act.

However, experience shows us that silencing whistleblowers just allows wrongdoing to fester and spread.

By pointing out problems, whistleblowers foster transparency and make it possible for their organizations to do better.  After all, you can't fix something if you don't know it's broken.  That's just common sense.

Many whistleblowers bravely report their concerns internally to their supervisors before they even think of themselves as whistleblowers.  They expect that their organization will take corrective action.  But many employers don't listen.  Then they discover they could have saved a lot of time, money, and embarrassment by taking a whistleblower seriously.

Fred Whitehurst's case is a great example.  In the 1990s, Fred wrote hundreds of letters reporting serious flaws in forensic analysis at the FBI Crime Lab.  He was subjected to personal attacks, retaliatory investigations, and suspension.  But a 1997 Inspector General Report validated his claims.  The report said that examiners did shoddy work that led to inaccurate testimony in criminal cases.  Then the FBI and Justice Department failed to adequately review the examiners' flawed analysis or inform defendants of evidence that could clear their names.  According to the Inspector General, that failure led to "irreversible harm" for many defendants.

Twenty years after Fred first blew the whistle, the agency finally admitted its mistakes.  According to the FBI, the examiners gave flawed testimony about 90 percent of the time, including in death penalty cases.  This is what happens when organizations treat whistleblowers as liabilities instead of assets.

Experience also shows us that we need to protect whistleblowers who use lawful external channels to report waste, fraud, and abuse.  One example of this is the False Claims Act.  Before I co-authored amendments to the Act in 1986, much of the outrageous fraud in government contracting went undetected and unprosecuted.  Since the amendments, which empowered and protected whistleblowers, false claims suits have recouped over 40 billion dollars in taxpayer funds.

Another example is congressional oversight.  Whistleblowers help Congress ensure the laws we pass work the way they are supposed to.  Without whistleblowers, we might never have known about gun walking in Operation Fast and Furious, the mismanagement of the juvenile justice programs, or the misuse of the EB-5 investor visa program. Whistleblower disclosures like these help bring greater transparency, better legislation and better government.

No one can dispute that we need whistleblowers.  So why do I still get calls every day with fresh stories about reprisals for reporting wrongdoing?  Part of the problem is that there is still much legislative work to be done.

For example, the law does not protect FBI whistleblowers who report wrongdoing to their supervisors.   These are things that Congress can work on.

Unfortunately, no amount of legislation will change a culture that punishes whistleblowers.  To be effective, laws have to be enforced, and wrongdoers have to be held accountable.  With their words and actions, leaders have to make clear that whistleblowers are important and retaliation is not tolerated.

For many years I've asked the President of the United States to have a Rose Garden ceremony honoring whistleblowers.  After all, the tone at the top is critical.  The President has never taken my suggestion.  However, my colleagues in the Senate have joined me in setting the right tone here in Congress with the Whistleblower Protection Caucus.  It has 12 members, with an equal number from each side of the aisle.   Whatever their party affiliation, my colleagues on the Caucus agree with me that whistleblowers should be valued, not punished.

That is why I am here today, to show my appreciation.  The first whistleblower I ever met, Ernie Fitzgerald, once told me that the only thing whistleblowers are guilty of is "committing truth."  Like Ernie, many of you here have risked your career, your personal well-being, and your reputation by "committing truth."  You have shined a light on fraud and unlawful activity, saved taxpayer money, and helped us in Congress write better laws.  You have a made a difference.

Video can be found here.

Whistleblower Appreciation Day

Government employees are entrusted with the responsibility of serving the people of this country.  Most of these employees take their work very seriously.

Unfortunately, though, too often, I've seen fraud, waste and abuse derail the work of a federal agency, and tarnish the good work that its employees do for the American people.

I'm always encouraged, though, by the brave employees who come forward to bring to light misconduct and malpractice.  These whistleblowers uphold the public trust by taking the first step to correct the problem.

Whistleblowers are often treated like skunks at a picnic by their co-workers or bosses for exposing misconduct, even though it brings important accountability to government.

Congress has recognized the important role of whistleblowers by passing laws that protect them from retribution at work after they disclose misconduct.

As we celebrate Whistleblower Appreciation Day this week.  It's time to say thank you to those who have risked their careers to bring about a better quality of government.  It's also a time to renew our commitment to encouraging others to speak out against fraud, waste, and abuse.

Because of the patriotic work of whistleblowers, our government is more accountable to the people.

Thank you.

Grassley Raises Concerns about Handling of Classified Material

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is raising concerns with the executive branch's handling of classified information that is known to be out of the control of the federal government.

"It's a serious breach of national security if the United States government fails to secure classified material in the hands of people not authorized to possess it, no matter who they are.  There are fundamental questions as to what the FBI is doing to securing these classified emails and why the State Department is not fully cooperating with the inspectors general at the State Department and the Intelligence Community to ensure that all of the appropriate emails are identified," Grassley said.  "It's important to make sure that politics aren't taking precedence over national security."

In a letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Grassley asked Director James Comey to explain what the Bureau is doing to ensure that classified information within 30,000 Clinton emails known to be on a thumb drive of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's personal attorney, David Kendall, is secured and not further disseminated.

Grassley subsequently sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry asking why the agency isn't providing the State Department and Intelligence Community inspectors general with full access to the 30,000 Clinton emails.  In the letter Grassley wrote that, "The State Department's refusal to fully cooperate in this matter is extremely troubling given the risk that national security information is not being adequately protected."

A copy of the text of Grassley's letters to the FBI and the State Department are below.  A copy of the text of Grassley's letters to the FBI and the State Department are below.  A signed copy of the FBI letter can be found here and the State Department letter can be found here

-30-

Highway bills, veterans measures advance today

The Senate today passed a long-term highway funding bill and a short-term highway funding bill.  The short-term bill, already passed by the House of Representatives, funds programs for another three months.  The House bill includes several veterans priorities that Sen. Chuck Grassley supports, including expanding eligibility for more veterans to access the choice program for their health care and excluding veterans and service members from the employer mandate under Obamacare (the Hire More Heroes Act).  The Hire More Heroes Act of 2015 provides incentives for companies to hire more veterans by ensuring they don't count against the 50 employee threshold requiring employers to offer health insurance if the veteran already has medical coverage elsewhere.    Grassley made the following comment on the bills passed today.

"When I meet with Iowans, transportation comes up a lot.  Farmers, manufacturers and city leaders all want assurance that quality roads and bridges will be available to transport their goods and residents.  Economic growth is tied in to transportation.  The long-term bill continues in the right direction of providing certainty for state and local governments so they can make solid transportation decisions.  That creates the environment for more jobs, enhanced safety, and the ability to expedite projects.  Passing a short-term extension gives Congress the chance to continue the negotiations that we hope will get us to final approval of long-term funding.  It was important to continue funding in the short term to avoid stopping work on critical projects during construction season.

"The veterans provisions are important to fix gaps in access to health care services.   The bill makes several improvements in the choice card program, which helps veterans get the care they need when a veterans facility is unavailable.  Congress enacted the choice program to make sure that veterans always have access to the care they deserve, but the Department of Veterans Affairs' implementation of the program has been less than enthusiastic.  We've pushed for those improvements to make the choice card more usable as Congress intended, so we need to make sure they're enacted.  Even when the VA fixes something administratively, getting the fix into statute is important.  For example, the VA already relented on its misinterpretation of distance in the choice program, after pressure from me and other members of Congress, and this bill codifies the correct interpretation so there won't be a misunderstanding in the future.   The bill also makes sure employers and veterans are spared some of the negative effects of the President's health care law.  It encourages employers to hire veterans without running into the employer mandate."

False Claims Act Continues to be Most Effective Tool to Combat Fraud

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

On the False Claims Act

July 29, 2015

Mr. President,

On July 30, 1778, the Continental Congress passed the very first whistleblower law in the United States.  It read:

[I]t is the duty of all persons in the service of the United States . . . to give the earliest information to Congress or other proper authority of any misconduct, frauds or misdemeanors committed by any officers or persons in the service of these states, which may come to their knowledge.

Whistleblowers have always been crucial in helping Congress and the federal Government route out fraud and misconduct.  It is simple common sense to reward and protect whistleblowers who report waste, fraud, and abuse.  The False Claims Act does that.

In fiscal year 2014 alone, the federal Government recovered nearly $6 billion under the Act.  That makes more than $22 billion since January 2009, and more than $42 billion since 1986.  These recoveries represent victories across a wide array of industries and government programs.  Those programs include mortgage insurance, federal student aid, and Medicare and Medicaid, as well as Defense contracts.

The Department of Justice credits whistleblowers for their important role in this success.

According to the Justice Department, whistleblowers accounted for $3 billion in recoveries under the Act in Fiscal Year 2014.  In fact, over 80% of False Claims Act cases are initiated by whistleblowers.  Clearly the False Claims Act is working very well.

Of course, the Act has no shortage of critics–typically the groups where you find perpetrators of fraud.  But we have learned our lesson that a weak False Claims Act is not in the taxpayer's best interest.

In 1943, Congress bowed to pressure to undo the Act's crucial qui tam provisions.

Amendments passed back then barred actions where the Government already had knowledge of the fraud.  The result was to block nearly all private actions.  Congress assumed that the Justice Department could do a good job prosecuting fraud all by itself.  They were wrong.

Between 1943 and 1986, fraud against the Government skyrocketed.  Most of those accused went unpunished.

A 1981 report by the Government Accountability Office said:

"For those who are caught committing fraud, the chances of being prosecuted and eventually going to jail are slim . . . .  The sad truth is that crime against the Government often does pay."

So in 1986, I co-authored much needed amendments to the False Claims Act.  The 1986 Amendments once again gave citizens the ability to help the government go after fraud in a meaningful way.  For example, the amendments provided protections for whistleblowers and eliminated the impossible government knowledge bar.  Essentially, a relator's suit was only barred where the fraud had already been publicly disclosed.

The Amendments also clarified that the Act covers false claims made not just directly to a Government agency.  It also covers fraud against grantees, States, and other recipients of Federal funds, whether or not the fund obligation is fixed.

These provisions and others were intended to give the False Claims Act teeth again.  But courts chipped away at the heart of the False Claims Act and ignored the intent of Congress.  The assault on the Act came to a head in the Supreme Court's erroneous opinions in the well-known cases Allison Engine and Totten.  The Court held that the Act required proof of intent that the Government itself pay a claim, and that a claim is presented directly to the Government.  The problem with this logic is that it creates a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.  A third party paid with Government money would get away with fraud because a contractor, not the government agency, paid the claim.

In 2009, we passed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act and made clear that this was not consistent with our original intent.  The Act reaches false claims for government money or property, whether or not the wrongdoer deals directly with the Government.  It was never the intent of Congress to give a free pass to subcontractors or other parties receiving government funds.  In fact, those folks are some of the biggest perpetrators of fraud today.

The Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services has reported a 134 percent increase in complaints against Medicare Part D in the last five years.  By not stopping fraud against programs like Medicare Part D, the Government is hemorrhaging funds.  Taxpayer money is taxpayer money–period.

Fraud does not magically become okay just because a third party is involved.

Of course, the issue of presentment to government officials is not the only sticking point.  There has been pushback in the courts and from lobbyists about all sorts of issues, like the "public disclosure bar," settlement practices, and award shares for relators.  Through it all Congress has had to stay vigilant in keeping courts and the feds true to legislative intent.

Just recently the Justice Department tried to minimize a relator award in a Medicare and Medicaid fraud suit.  The relator contributed significantly to the case.  The Judge recognized that Congress intended that "the only measuring stick" for an award is "the contribution of the relator."

That Judge was right.  Congress intended to empower, protect, and reward relators who identify fraud against the taxpayers.  History teaches us that weakening the relator's rights weakens the government's ability to fight fraud.  All that does is let wrongdoers off the hook and cost the taxpayers money.  That is not the result we intended with the False Claims Act.  It is also not the result the Continental Congress, so concerned about identifying "misconduct, frauds and misdemeanors," would have wanted.

I want to remind my colleagues to stand strong for the most effective tool we have to combat fraud.

-30-

Congress Passes Bill Allowing Universities to Collaborate on Financial Aid Best Practices

WASHINGTON - The House of Representatives has passed bipartisan legislation introduced by Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member Patrick Leahy and Senator Mike Lee to extend an expiring antitrust exemption that allows certain colleges and universities to collaborate on issues of need-based financial aid.  The legislation unanimously passed in the Senate on July 14, and cleared the House of Representatives by a vote of 378-0.  This legislation will now be sent to the President for his signature.

"Every college student, regardless of financial situation, wants a shot at the best education, and schools looking to attract the best and the brightest want to ensure that financial aid goes to those who need it most. Our bill allows colleges and universities to continue working together, free from the threat of antitrust litigation, to ensure that students in need of financial aid are treated fairly and consistently. Expanding opportunities for bright, hardworking students in need of financial assistance is a worthy cause, and I applaud my colleagues in the House for passing our bill," Grassley said.

"Allowing participating universities to focus their resources on ensuring the most qualified students can attend some of the best schools in the nation, regardless of family income, is important.  With Congress's swift action to pass the Need-Based Educational Aid Act, participating universities can continue collaborating on need-based financial aid that ultimately benefits students.  I am glad we were able to pass this important legislation ahead of a critical deadline," Leahy said.

The Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 2015 extends the Section 568 antitrust exemption, which was set to expire in September, and allows colleges and universities to collaborate on the formula they use to determine a family's ability to pay for college.  The antitrust exemption permits higher education institutions to agree to award aid only on the basis of financial need and use a common application for aid.  By allowing financial aid professionals to work together in these ways, the exemption helps ensure that the colleges and universities covered by this section of the law admit students without regard to ability to pay.  It also prevents needless litigation over the development of principles for determining financial need.  This exemption was first enacted in 1994, and has been reauthorized by Congress three times without opposition, most recently in 2008.  A 2006 Government Accountability Office report found that the activities permitted by the exemption have not resulted in harm to competition.

Grinnell College participates in the program being reauthorized.

  -30-

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa is urging the Environmental Protection Agency to revise and increase its proposed volume obligations for renewable biofuels under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) for 2014, 2015, and 2016.

"The RFS has added value to agriculture markets and energized many rural economies across Iowa and the nation," Grassley wrote to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.  "It has helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs while lowering prices for consumers at the pump while reducing emissions.  It has also increased our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

"Unfortunately, the EPA's proposal will undermine these efforts.  While I recognize the proposal is a modest improvement over the previous proposed rule, without significant improvements, the proposal will lead to job losses and will increase our dependence on foreign oil.  It will harm the development of next generation and cellulosic fuels and weaken efforts to build out renewable fuels infrastructure."

Grassley cited the success of the RFS in driving the development and use of alternative and advanced biofuels.  He wrote that as a result of this program, cellulosic biofuels are already being produced in Galva and Emmetsburg, Iowa, with construction under way at a third facility in Nevada, Iowa.  Grassley said the EPA is underestimating the available supply of renewable fuel and available infrastructure needed to meet statutory requirements.

"It's clear, based on this proposal, that the EPA continues to fall for Big Oil's argument that the infrastructure isn't in place to handle the fuel volumes required by law," Grassley wrote.  "This proposal rewards Big Oil's obstruction.  The fact is, the supply of renewable fuel is adequate to meet the statutory volumetric requirements, and the EPA is therefore required to hold firm on those levels and see that the obligated parties make the necessary adjustments to distribute the fuel to consumers.  Importantly, if the program had been implemented by EPA on time and consistent with congressional intent, private investments in distribution infrastructure would have already been made.  Regardless, now is not the time to put oil producers in charge of implementing the Renewable Fuel Standard."

Grassley submitted his letter as part of the formal comment process on the EPA's proposed rule that closed Monday.   The EPA intends to finalize the rule by Nov. 30.  Grassley's letter is available here.

In April, Grassley was a leader of a bipartisan group of senators in calling for a strong volume requirement for biofuels under the RFS.  The senators' letter is available here.

Earlier this month, Grassley led a bipartisan group of 36 senators in urging the EPA to increase the proposed volumes it set for biodiesel production under the RFS.  That letter is available here.

-30-

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa made the following comment on the Senate's vote that came short of a procedural step on a vote to repeal the President's health care law.  Grassley voted in favor of the procedural step toward repealing the law.

"Obamacare has led to far too many people losing the coverage they had and liked, and now being forced to spend more for what coverage they can get.  Iowans tell me directly in town meetings and in emails and letters to my office that they don't like the law.  Instead of targeting what was wrong and fixing those problems, Obamacare upended the whole health system.  I'm committed to replacing Obamacare with health care reforms that empower consumers, drive down costs, and use marketplace incentives to make health care coverage accessible and affordable.  The current majority in Congress should not stop in our effort to repeal Obamacare and replace it with effective reforms."