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-

Sen. Chuck Grassley today made the following comment on the 50th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid.  Grassley is a senior member of the Finance Committee, where he served as chairman and ranking member.

"These programs have served older Americans and those in need admirably for 50 years.  I support these programs, and I'm committed to strengthening them in the future so they can serve Americans for another 50 years.

"A highlight for me was creating the prescription drug benefit to Medicare as chairman of the authorizing committee.  That improved Medicare and made it better reflect the modern practice of medicine.  A major Medicaid achievement was allowing the families of children with disabilities to buy into coverage without having to quit their jobs and impoverish themselves.  Going forward, I'm working to enact my current legislation to create a new Medicare designation for rural hospitals focused on emergency rooms and outpatient services.   I also hope for enactment of my bill to create a demonstration project with new incentives for states to use Medicaid dollars to improve independent work options for those with disabilities.  At the same time, I work to reduce fraud, waste and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid that all take money away from people in need.  The False Claims Act continues to work well against health care fraud.  I continue to look for tough oversight from the federal agencies on health care fraud, including audits of Medicare Advantage spending and dental fraud in Medicaid."

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 sent a letter yesterday to the Department of Justice pressing the Antitrust Division to review JBS USA's proposed acquisition of Cargill Inc.'s pork unit.

Grassley expressed concern that the merger will increase concentration and decrease competition in the U.S. pork industry. 

"If the JBS-Cargill deal is finalized, the four largest pork processors will control roughly 71 percent of the processing capacity in the country.  Continued mergers and acquisitions in an already consolidated pork industry could reduce competition.  And, reduced marketing opportunities for farmers and independent producers, and the subsequent impact it could have on pork prices for consumers is of great concern," said Grassley. 

JBS USA and Cargill Inc. are currently the third and fourth largest U.S. pork processors respectively.  If the transaction is finalized, JBS USA will become the second largest pork processor with a daily slaughter capacity of around 83,000 head.  This equates to nearly 20 percent of U.S. daily pork processing capacity.    

Grassley has long worked to ensure such mergers are carefully reviewed by the Justice Department to ensure a competitive market.  This transaction, reportedly valued at $1.45 billion, comes almost one year after Tyson Foods purchased Hillshire Farms.

JBS USA has a plant located in Marshalltown, Iowa, and Cargill Inc. has a plant located in Ottumwa, Iowa. 

A signed copy of Grassley's letter to the Department of Justice can be found here.

-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, chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the Caucus on International Narcotics Control, was among several senators who urged the Drug Enforcement Administration to re-instate a popular take-back program for unused opioids and other prescription drugs.   The Drug Enforcement Administration confirmed in a letter to Grassley that it has re-instated the program.  Grassley was an original cosponsor of the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2010, which became law, and encourages drug take-back efforts.  Grassley made the following comment on the re-instatement.

"Iowans turned in literally tons of unused prescription drugs under the program.  Getting medicines out of the house, where they can be taken by teen-agers or used beyond the need for the prescription, is important for reducing opioid abuse and addiction.  I appreciate the Drug Enforcement Administration's turn-around on this program.  The more options we have to reduce the scourge of opioid addiction, the better."

The letter Grassley signed urging a re-instatement of the drug take-back program is available here.  The Drug Enforcement Administration's letter to Grassley on the re-instatement is available here.  More information on the results of drug take-back days in Iowa is available here and 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."

Red Cross on Haiti earthquake relief, response to Grassley, remaining questions

Sen. Chuck Grassley has received a response from the American Red Cross related to his inquiry on spending on earthquake relief in Haiti.  He made the following comment on the response.

"I still have a lot more questions for the Red Cross.  It's unclear why the Red Cross enters into contracts with other organizations stipulating that details of grants can't be disclosed to the media or donors.  Who's driving the lack of disclosure, the Red Cross or the grant recipients?  What's the rationale for it?  It's hard to see how disclosing the dollar amounts given from the Red Cross to the individual organizations and how those organizations spent the money would harm anyone.  I look forward to an explanation.  I have other questions about the spending numbers and how they add up and the overhead costs for both the Red Cross and the grantee organizations.  Also, I'd like to see more details of the results achieved from each of the partner organizations.  Transparency and accountability are important for any spending in the public interest.  With that in mind, I'll continue to ask questions on behalf of the donating, taxpaying public."

The Red Cross' responses to Grassley's questions are available here, excluding the details of partner organizations.

 

Iowa Congressional Delegation Adds Support for Disaster Declaration Request

WASHINGTON– Led by Sen. Chuck Grassley, all members of the Iowa congressional delegation have added their support for Gov. Terry Branstad's request for a federal declaration of a major disaster for the state as a result of severe weather during that occurred during the period of June 20, 2015 and June 25, 2015.  The letter was signed by Grassley, Sen. Joni Ernst, and Reps. Steve King, Dave Loebsack, Rod Blum and David Young.

"The Governor determined that this incident is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments to handle effectively and federal assistance is needed," the members wrote.

Severe weather that produced damaging winds, tornadoes, heavy rains, hail and thunderstorms resulting in flooding impacted 19 counties.

The counties included in the request for Public Assistance were: Allamakee, Appanoose, Butler, Clayton, Dallas, Davis, Des Moines, Guthrie, Howard, Jefferson, Lee, Lucas, Marion, Mitchell, Monroe, Warren, Wayne, Winneshiek, and Wright.

The text of the letter is below. A signed copy of the letter can be found here.

 

Goodlatte & Grassley Press for Information About Dangerous Federal Inmates Awaiting Release

Sentencing Commission amendment allows for the release of thousands of federal inmates this November

Washington, D.C. - House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) pressed Attorney General Loretta Lynch for information about the thousands of federal prison inmates who will be released in November as a result of the U.S. Sentencing Commission's decision to lower federal sentencing for all drug trafficking and distribution crimes. Those expected to be released include inmates with violent criminal histories, who have committed crimes involving assault, firearms, sodomy, and even murder.

In early 2014, the Sentencing Commission promulgated Amendment 782, which imposed a two-level reduction in the base offense levels for all drug trafficking and distribution offenses, including trafficking offenses that involve drug quantities substantial enough to trigger mandatory minimum sentences.  The Commission made those reductions retroactive, applying them to all inmates in the Bureau of Prison's custody who are serving a sentence for a drug offense. Over the past year, thousands of federal inmates have filed motions with their courts of jurisdiction for sentence reductions.

In their letter to Attorney General Lynch, Chairmen Goodlatte and Grassley note that their concerns about violent offenders being released were ultimately ignored by the Sentencing Commission. They request that Attorney General Lynch provide the House and Senate Judiciary Committees with detailed information about the federal inmates who will be released on November 1 or thereafter.

Below is the text of the letter. A copy of the signed letter can be found here.

 

Senate Passes Protections for Whistleblowers of Antitrust Crimes

 

WASHINGTON - The Senate has unanimously passed legislation to extend whistleblower protections for employees who provide information to their employer or the Department of Justice regarding criminal antitrust violations. The Criminal Antitrust Anti-retaliation Act was introduced by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Ranking Member Patrick Leahy.

"Violators of antitrust laws put businesses and our economic wellbeing at risk, so whistleblowers who call attention to violators should be praised, not punished. Unfortunately, these folks often face retribution at work for their efforts to correct misconduct.  The Criminal Antitrust Anti-retaliation Act protects these individuals from workplace retaliation and  abuse. It may also serve as a deterrent of future misconduct.  I'm grateful for the work of my colleagues to move this bill forward and urge my colleagues in the House of Representative to take action to shield these whistleblowers from reprisal," Grassley said.

"I applaud the Senate for passing bipartisan legislation that will protect employees who blow the whistle on criminal antitrust violations.  Whistleblowers play an important role in alerting the public, Congress, and law enforcement agencies to wrongdoing in a number of areas. By protecting those who would blow the whistle on criminal antitrust behavior, our bill will help facilitate the reporting of violations that ultimately affect consumers.  I urge the House to pass this bipartisan legislation," Leahy said.

The Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act establishes protections for whistleblowers who assist in criminal antitrust cases by prohibiting employers from retaliating against an employee who provides information to the employer or the Justice Department regarding conduct that violates the criminal antitrust laws.  The bill allows an employee who believes he or she is the victim of retaliation to file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor, and provides for that employee to be reinstated to their former status if the Secretary finds in their favor.  Grassley and Leahy authored similar whistleblower statutes as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002.

The Senate unanimously passed a similar version of the legislation last Congress.  The legislation is based on recommendations from a Government Accountability Office report released in July 2011.  The Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act now goes to the House of Representatives for consideration.

-30-
                                                                        Grassley Joins in Introducing Voluntary COOL Legislation

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa joined Senators John Hoeven, Debbie Stabenow and other members of the Senate Agriculture Committee today to introduce the Voluntary Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) and Trade Enhancement Act of 2015. The bipartisan measure is designed to prevent retaliatory trade sanctions by Canada and Mexico, yet still allow voluntary labeling of beef, pork and chicken that is produced in the United States.

"A voluntary labeling program is a simple solution that will allow the United States to abide by its WTO obligations while giving producers the option to label their products," said Grassley. "It's an approach that Canada has also taken. In the end, Americans should be able to know where their meat comes from, with a label that has integrity based on a single definition of U.S. pork and beef, just like they know where their t-shirts come from."

The bipartisan bill positions the U.S. to avoid retaliatory tariffs by repealing the mandatory COOL law and replacing it with a voluntary program that will enable processors to voluntarily label meat products. The bill maintains the integrity of the label, ensuring that the product is actually "born, raised and slaughtered in the United States," rather than just processed in the U.S.

In May 2015, the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled for the fourth time that the United States' mandatory COOL law violates international trade agreements. The WTO is undergoing an arbitration process to determine the level of retaliation that Canada and Mexico will be authorized to implement. Both countries say they intend to implement retaliatory tariffs should the U.S. fail to address the current COOL law. Canada has said it will seek more than $3 billion and Mexico will seek $650 million in countervailing duties.

In summary, the Hoeven-Stabenow Voluntary COOL bill:

  • Addresses the WTO case by removing beef, pork, chicken, and ground product from mandatory labeling requirements under COOL
  • Establishes a purely voluntary label for U.S. origin beef, pork, chicken, and ground product
  • Protects consumers by maintaining the integrity and usability of "Product of U.S." labels

Joining Grassley in cosponsoring the bill are Senators John Thune, Amy Klobuchar, Heidi Heitkamp, Mike Enzi and Sherrod Brown.

Grassley's remarks from today's press conference are below.  Video of the press conference can be found here.

I thank Senator Hoeven and Senator Stabenow for their work to find a solution to Country of Origin Labeling that works for everyone.

We started working on COOL back in the late 90s.

I have always supported COOL for meat, because I believe consumers have a right to know where their food is coming from.

They know where their t-shirts come from.

However, we must be true to our obligations at the World Trade Organization which has ruled against our current law.

This bill is a WTO compliant path forward for Country of Origin Labeling.

There's no way that Canada can dispute a voluntary labeling program when they have the same basic program.

In the past, Canada has even proposed to the United States that a voluntary option could be a solution.

To me, COOL boils down to one major point- the definition of what constitutes U.S. beef and pork.

The bill introduced today will allow the market to decide in a voluntary way if meat should be labeled with its country of origin.

That will address the required segregation with mandatory labeling that everyone agrees is the core of the WTO case.

If companies choose to label their product with a U.S. origin label, that label needs to have integrity.

The bill today ensures there is a single, clear definition of what constitutes meat labeled as a product of the U.S.

That is very important to me and many of my constituents who produce our meat.

Consumers will also be able to have confidence in the label on their meat.

They will have the assurance that if a meat label says 'Product of the U.S.' it truly is an American product.

Grassley Statement at an Executive Business Meeting on the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act

Good morning.  The bipartisan Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2015, S. 1169, is first on today's agenda.  This bill, which I introduced in April with Senator Whitehouse, extends the authorization for some key juvenile justice programs, which expired in 2007.  The bill also will go a long way to ensure accountability in the spending of federal grant funds.

Dozens of organizations, including Fight Crime Invest in Kids, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, Boys Town, and Rights 4 Girls worked with us on this bill's development and at least 100 groups have signed endorsement letters in support of S. 1169.  I want to take this opportunity to also thank the members of this Committee who are cosponsors, including Senators Cornyn, Leahy, Hatch, Coons, and Blumenthal.  The bill is a truly bipartisan effort.

Senator Whitehouse and I have a complete substitute amendment to this measure that we will now offer for this Committee's consideration.

Among other things, our substitute amendment, like the bill it would amend, calls for continued congressional support of programs that serve at-risk youth.  Such youth include, for example, youths who are being exploited by human traffickers and children with trauma, mental health or substance abuse issues.   Our substitute, like S. 1196, also phases out an exception in current law that permits States to lock up children who have committed so-called "status offenses," which would not be an offense if committed by adults.  These include offenses like running away, truancy, or violating a curfew.

And, like the underlying bill, our substitute amendment not only extends the authorization for existing juvenile justice programs, which are designed to keep juveniles away from adult offenders, but it does so in a way that is fiscally responsible.  The substitute, just like S. 1196, limits authorized funding levels for these programs to the amounts provided by appropriators for juvenile justice programs in recent years, with a slight adjustment for inflation.

But the substitute is an improvement over the bill we originally introduced in several ways.  First, the amendment would accord greater priority in federal funding to those programs that are scientifically proven to work with at-risk juveniles.  The addition of this new language will ensure that scarce federal resources must go primarily to the most meritorious programs.

Second, the substitute also incorporates some new provisions to encourage States to phase out the use of unreasonable restraints of juveniles in detention.  Such practices include, for example, the shackling of girls during childbirth.  We worked with human trafficking advocates as well as Senators Schumer and Cornyn on the development of this language.  Senator Durbin also worked with us on the development of language that calls for States to consider alternatives to detention for nonviolent youth who come into contact with the criminal justice system, and that language now is part of this amendment

Finally, the amendment incorporates some grant accountability reforms that are not in the original version of S. 1196.  In recent years, I've actively engaged in oversight of the Justice Department, and during this time, the DOJ Inspector General has identified grant management as one of the top management and performance challenges at the Department.  In this same period--most recently at an oversight hearing I chaired in April--we have witnessed numerous controversies relating to the grant making and oversight practices of the Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, or OJJDP.

The amendment reflects technical input from the Inspector General's Office and is designed to help resolve the accountability problems that have plagued OJJDP for years.  It will require GAO audits of the agency's internal controls every three years as well as audits of certain States receiving grants.  It also will require the Justice Department's Audit, Assessment Office to institute a comprehensive review of OJJDP's internal controls.

It will tighten bill language that holds States accountable for failing to meet the law's core requirements, by ensuring that States must incur a substantial financial penalty if they are out of compliance.  And it will not only encourage the Attorney General to provide States with greater technical guidance on compliance with the law's core requirements, but it also will require each State grantee to designate someone who must certify to that State's compliance with the law's core requirements.

I'm glad to have had the opportunity to work on these key reform provisions.  And I am pleased we have revisited the authorizing statute for some vitally important juvenile justice programs?a statute which is long overdue for an update, to reflect the latest scientific research on what works with at-risk adolescents.

-30-

Grassley, Johnson, Goodlatte, Conyers Concerned about New OLC Opinion that Denies Records to Inspectors General, Blocks Oversight, and Circumvents Congressional Intent

WASHINGTON - Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson, and Congressmen Bob Goodlatte and John Conyers today expressed great concern with an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel that allows the Justice Department to deny access to records sought by the Inspector General.

The Inspector General Act of 1978 authorizes the Inspector General to access "all records" in the Department's possession.  However, today, the Office of Legal Counsel's 58-page opinion argues that other provisions generally restricting the "disclosure" of certain kinds of information override the specific instruction that the Inspector General have access to all records of the Department.  The Office of Legal Counsel reaches this conclusion despite clear and recent legislation enacted in response to the controversy over these very access issues.  Following several instances of the Inspector General testifying to Congress about the Justice Department hindering his oversight by withholding records, Congress enacted, and the President signed, Section 218 of the Department of Justice's fiscal 2015 Appropriations Act.  That provision prohibited the use of any funds to deny the Inspector General timely access to records.  The only exception was for any "express" limitation in the Inspector General Act.

The Justice Department has denied or substantially delayed the Inspector General's access to records in connection with a number of inquiries, including those related to: (1) whether the Department had violated the civil liberties and civil rights of individuals detained in national security investigations following September 11, (2) the review of Operation Fast and Furious, (3) the review of the FBI's use of National Security and Exigent letters, (4) the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) sex parties scandal, (5) the DEA's use of confidential sources, and (6) the DEA's use of administrative subpoenas to obtain bulk data collections.

The Department's refusal to provide records on a timely basis as required by law wastes months in bureaucratic roadblocks and frustrates the independent oversight Congress created Inspectors General to provide. Prior to 2010, the FBI and other agencies in the Justice Department routinely provided similar information to the Inspector General's office.

Here are comments from Grassley, Johnson, Goodlatte and Conyers.

Senator Chuck Grassley, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee:

"The Inspector General Act of 1978 directs that Inspectors General have a right to access all records, documents and other materials.  If the Inspector General deems a document necessary to do his job, then the agency should turn it over immediately.  The clear command of that law is being ignored far too often by agencies across the executive branch.  By this opinion's tortured logic, 'all records' does not mean 'all records,' and Congress's recent attempt to underscore our original intent with an appropriations restriction is nothing but a nullity. The prospect of the Obama administration using this opinion to stonewall oversight, avoid accountability, and undermine the independence of inspectors general is alarming."

Senator Ron Johnson, Chairman, Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee:

"I am deeply concerned that this opinion undermines the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General's independence, and ultimately the independence of all inspectors general, as other agencies will likely use its misguided arguments to justify stonewalling their own watchdogs.  The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee recently reported out S. 579, the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2015, which makes clear Congress's view that inspectors general must be given prompt, unfettered access to agency documents for purposes of carrying out their responsibilities under the act.  Unfortunately, the Department of Justice today has dug further into its position ? against the clear will of Congress ? that the agency is not always obligated to provide documents to its inspector general, and that the agency itself gets to choose when to grant permission to access certain documents. I am committed to working with my colleagues to ensure all inspectors general have the statutorily mandated independence from their agency that is so crucial to performing their responsibilities."

Congressman Bob Goodlatte, Chairman, House Judiciary Committee:

"Today's Office of Legal Counsel opinion contains the same kind of outcome-oriented lawyering that produced the Department of Justice's infamous recess appointments memorandum, which was unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court in 2014. The law is clear that the Office of the Inspector General should have unfettered access to materials for its investigations, but political lawyers at the Department of Justice have engaged in legal gymnastics to shield key information from government watchdogs.

"The Office of Legal Counsel's efforts to reduce transparency will leave the Department of Justice vulnerable to mismanagement and misconduct. This is not the type of government the American people deserve. The House Judiciary Committee will work with other committees of jurisdiction to explore a legislative fix to reiterate Congress' intent that the Office of the Inspector General is entitled access to all documents and records within DOJ's possession."

Congressman John Conyers, Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee:

"This opinion is a departure from the plain text of the statute and the intent of Congress when we drafted it?but this one memorandum hardly ends the conversation.  The Inspector General must have complete and direct access to the information that his office deems necessary to conduct complete and impartial investigations.  He should not have to ask permission from the very agency he oversees.  I suspect that we will work quickly, and likely with overwhelming and bipartisan majorities, to make certain that the Inspector General Act is explicit on this point."

An Inspector General investigation can be prevented under the law in certain limited circumstances, but the Attorney General is required to explain in writing to both the Inspector General and Congress why the Inspector General's work should be impeded despite the Inspector General Act's guarantee of access to all agency records - something that the Attorney General has failed to do in each of the many instances records were withheld from the Inspector General since 2010.

The members said they would be working to determine a path forward to fix the issue that remains unresolved by the Office of Legal Counsel's opinion.

-30-

Judiciary Committee Clears Grassley, Whitehouse Bill to Reauthorize Juvenile Justice Programs with Improved Accountability

WASHINGTON - The Senate Judiciary Committee today passed legislation from Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse that would ensure that at-risk youth are fairly and effectively served by juvenile justice grant programs. Their legislation updates existing law by promoting improved transparency and accountability at the state and federal level.  It also adds additional support for youth with mental illnesses and guards against fraud and mismanagement of grant funds through enhanced oversight.

"Juvenile justice programs are important tools to help local communities serve and protect at-risk youth, however the law authorizing these programs hasn't been revisited in more than a dozen years.  Our bill provides a long-overdue policy refresh to improve opportunities for our nation's must vulnerable children and strengthen safeguards for youth who encounter the juvenile justice system.  Just as importantly, we created an oversight structure that will help ensure that both federal grant making agencies and grantees are held accountable for their actions with young people and for the taxpayer money for which they are responsible. Our goal is to make sure that youth can benefit from the programs' full potential," Grassley said.  "I hope the Senate will act quickly to move this bill forward."

"This long-awaited reauthorization could put a real dent in the school-to-prison pipeline and assure that law enforcement intervention with kids does the least possible unnecessary harm to them and to their futures." said Whitehouse.  "It's a commonsense bill that will help kids maintain their education while detained, keep kids out of jail for status offenses that would never land an adult in prison, divert them to substance abuse and mental health services if that's the real problem, better protect them from adult criminals and from solitary confinement, and address racial disparities in the current system.  I thank Chairman Grassley for his leadership on this issue and I hope to see the bill passed by the full Senate soon."

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act was created in 1974 to ensure the safety of at-risk youth who enter the criminal justice system, and assist states with their juvenile justice programs and activities.  The program has not been updated since the last reauthorization passed Congress in 2002.

The bill is cosponsored by Senators Richard Blumenthal, Roy Blunt, Chris Coons, John Cornyn, Richard Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Orrin Hatch, Amy Klobuchar, Patrick Leahy and Marco Rubio.

Grassley and Whitehouse said they appreciate the endorsement of more than 150 organizations that have voiced support for the bill.

The Grassley-Whitehouse bill:

·         Revises and extends authorization for the key juvenile justice programs that were originally authorized under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974.  The law has four core requirements, or protections, for youth in contact with the criminal justice system, with which states must comply in order to be eligible for juvenile justice funding.

·         Limits spending levels for the reauthorized juvenile justice programs to amounts appropriated by Congress for the same or similar programs in the most recent fiscal year, adjusted by 2 percent annually for inflation.

·         Phases out the "Valid Court Order" exception that permits states to lock up juveniles for status offenses that would never land an adult in prison such as running away, curfew violations or truancy.

·         Provides for enhanced accountability and oversight of Justice Department grant making practices based on input from the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General and the Congressional Research Service.

·         Adds a requirement that the Justice Department offer periodic training and technical assistance to states on best practices and protocols to achieve compliance with the law's core requirements, as well as a requirement that states designate one individual who shall certify the state's compliance with the core requirements.

·         Conditions receipt of grant funds on new state planning requirements.

·         Enables students to continue their education while detained.

·         Strengthens provisions to screen, refer, and provide treatment, to children with mental health challenges and/or substance abuse issues.

·         Eliminates the use of shackles on pregnant girls being detained.

In addition, the bill addresses concerns brought forward by whistleblowers and verified by the Justice Department.  The whistleblowers provided evidence that many states fall short of core requirements that are a condition of the states receiving taxpayer-funded grants.  The Justice Department office responsible for overseeing the program acknowledged, after Senator Grassley chaired an April 2015 hearing on that office's grant making practices, that since 1997 it has followed an unlawful policy, which allowed states to receive these juvenile justice grants despite violations of funding requirements.  This oversight hearing prompted Grassley and Whitehouse to craft the new accountability requirements to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being used appropriately, and youth are being adequately served.

A detailed list of the bill's key provisions is available here.

A copy of the text of the bill as passed by the committee is available here.

-30-

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program gets "minimal" IRS oversight, GAO says

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review various aspects of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program, including federal oversight of the program.   According to the GAO, this program is the largest source of federal assistance for developing affordable rental housing with an estimated cost of $8 billion in forgone revenue in 2014.   The GAO found that the IRS conducted "minimal" oversight of the state housing finance agencies (HFAs) that award the tax credits to developers.  The GAO said, "Monitoring, one of the internal control standards, should occur in the course of normal operations, be performed continually, and be ingrained in the agency's operations," yet the GAO found that the IRS has performed only seven audits of HFAs (of 56 total HFAs) between 1986 and 2015. The GAO further stated, "As a result of minimal monitoring, IRS does not know the extent of compliance monitoring by HFAs, which limits its ability to determine if the HFAs appropriately awarded credits to projects."  The GAO also said the state entities "increasingly" have missed the deadline to submit their annual report to the IRS and "often submit incomplete or inaccurate forms."  Grassley, a watchdog of the IRS and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, released the GAO report and made the following comment on it.

"This report confirms what we've seen again and again.  The federal government is good at giving out money and tax breaks and terrible at checking on results.  No one at the IRS or HUD seems to have any way of knowing whether a multi-billion-dollar program for low-income housing has worked as intended.  This doesn't bring accountability, and it may or may not deliver affordable housing for people in need.  The agencies need to step up their oversight for the sake of low-income people who need housing and the taxpayers who deserve accountability."

The report is available here.  The GAO is performing subsequent reviews of the tax credit at Grassley's request.

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following comment on the National Treasury Employees Union's opposition to the use of private contractors to collect tax debt.  The provision is part of the proposed highway bill in the Senate.

"The IRS union is already opposing the use of private contractors to collect taxes that's part of the proposed highway bill.  Meanwhile, the IRS just had one of the worst filing seasons for customer service on record, according to the agency's own taxpayer advocate.  The number of 'courtesy disconnects skyrocketed' this last filing season.  That means the IRS hung up on callers because it couldn't handle the calls.  The private contractors would take on accounts involving taxes that are due and owed that are just sitting dormant right now.  The IRS isn't even pursuing them.  It seems unlikely to do so any time soon when it has trouble answering the phone from people who are trying to pay their taxes.  It's hard to see the logic for the resistance."

Pages