Friday, Nov. 8, 2013

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah today released enrollment data from the four health insurance companies participating in the Washington, D.C., exchange set up via the President's health care program.  The Obama Administration has refused to provide enrollment numbers to the American people.

CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield: two enrollees from Oct. 1, 2013, through Oct. 30, 2013.

Kaiser Permanente: three enrollees from Oct. 1, 2013, through Oct. 31, 2013.

UnitedHealthcare: no enrollment data from the exchange as of Nov. 4, 2013.

Aetna:  no enrollment data as of Oct. 24, 2013.

"A lot of Americans are getting cancellation notices from their current health care plan but they haven't been able to enroll in a new plan," Grassley said.  "The limbo and uncertainty are stressful for them, as they've been describing in emails to my office.  The chaos imposed on so many people is reason to at least delay the individual mandate, if not outright repeal it."

"With numbers like these, it's no wonder the Obama Administration hasn't wanted to release how many people have signed up for ObamaCare," said Hatch.  "With data from DC's four participating health plans in, there's been a whopping five people enrolled in the city's exchange. That's right five. Whether it's significant problems with the website, people being forced off the coverage they had or skyrocketing costs, these numbers are even more proof of what a disaster ObamaCare is and why it should be delayed."

On Oct. 24, 2013, Grassley and Hatch wrote to the four companies participating in the Washington, D.C., health care exchange.  The Washington, D.C., exchange has four major plans and so provides a snapshot of how Americans fare in trying to join the new exchanges.

Grassley and Hatch said news reports show problems with what are called "834 forms" that contain individual information that insurers use to enroll the individual in a health care plan.   Inaccurate or corrupted data would interfere with successful enrollment.  That has implications for when the Administration should enforce the individual mandate requiring enrollment.  It would be unfair to penalize people for not having health insurance when technical problems have impeded their enrollment, Grassley and Hatch said.

The responses the senators received are available here, here, here and here.

-30-

Q:       Why is National Adoption Month observed in November?

A:        During this season of thanksgiving, millions of American households open their homes to friends and family from near and far.  We come together to celebrate cherished traditions that have been handed down for generations.  Hospitality, hearth and harvest come to mind as families gather at the table and give thanks.  As Americans make plans for the holiday feast, we can quibble about giblets in the gravy or whether to roast, deep fry or brine the turkey.  Each family enjoys its own unique traditions and family favorites on the Thanksgiving menu.  When it's all said and done, there's really no place like home.  That's why it's especially fitting to commemorate National Adoption Month in November.  Tens of thousands of foster children in America long to have a permanent place setting at their very own family's table on Thanksgiving Day and every other day of the year.  Last year, nearly 400,000 children lived in the U.S. foster care system.  Of those, nearly 102,000 awaited adoption.  More than 26,000 aged out of the system before ever securing a permanent place to call home.  Since 1990, National Adoption Month has helped to raise awareness for children awaiting adoption and appreciation for those who have answered the call to serve as foster or adoptive parents.  So many of us look forward to celebrating the homecoming of friends and family on Thanksgiving Day.  Just consider the hope-filled anticipation of a child longing to be welcomed home for good to a forever family.

 

Q:       What can be done to help more children awaiting adoption to find a permanent, loving home?

A: As co-founder and co-chair of the bipartisan Senate Caucus on Foster Youth, I've worked to raise public awareness and educate policymakers about the challenges facing foster youth, especially those who age out of the system with no long-term support structure in place.  Children and adolescents need stability, certainty and constancy in their lives.  A permanent, loving home provides the most nurturing foundation to help youth reach their fullest potential in society.  We should acknowledge foster youth throughout the year, not just November, and give thanks to parents who heed the call to adopt a child.  And, we can always do more to ensure that children who await adoption get the assistance they need, including support to stay in school and sustain their education.  Earlier this year, I introduced the Foster Youth Stamp Act of 2013 that would provide for the issuance and sale of a postal stamp by the U.S. Postal Service.  Revenue generated from the stamp would support state-based programs, including the Adoption Opportunities Program - which seeks permanent outcomes for foster care youth through adoption, guardianship or kinship care - and the State Court Improvement Program - which seeks to improve legal representation for youth and addresses caseloads and the court's role in achieving safe, stable, permanent homes for children in foster care.

 

Q:       What other legislative provisions have you championed to promote adoption?

A: As an outspoken advocate for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" at the policymaking tables in Washington, I believe these founding principles apply especially to vulnerable children in our society.  I've worked with Iowa families, foster youth, child welfare advocates, court representatives and social workers to help identify financial, legal and bureaucratic roadblocks that make it difficult for kids to find a permanent, loving home through adoption, guardianship or reunification with their birth family.  Through congressional hearings and legislation, I've worked to raise awareness about the stability that adoption can bring to a child in need of a loving home as well as the public good adoption brings to society.

•         In 1997, I worked to advance the Adoption and Safe Families Act that is credited with doubling adoptions from foster care in many states.

•         As then-chairman of the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, I secured an expansion of federal tax credit assistance in the 2001 tax law that increased qualified expenses for adoption from $5,000 to $10,000.  Today the tax credit is indexed for inflation and was made a permanent provision of the federal tax code earlier this year. Adoptive parents this year may apply $12,970 in qualified adoption expenses to their 2013 federal tax return.

•         In 2006, congressional hearings in the Senate Finance Committee led to the passage of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act that improved programs designed to help troubled families and increased caseworker visits for foster care youth.

•         In 2008, I authored the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions law which increased federal incentives for states to move children from foster care to adoptive homes; made it easier for children to be adopted by relatives; made children with special needs eligible for federal adoption assistance; and, established new educational opportunities for youth who age out of foster care at age 18.

Q:       What is National Adoption Day?

A:        Since 2000, 44,500 families have finalized adoptions on National Adoption Day. Organizers single out the Saturday before Thanksgiving to raise public awareness and honor adoptive families across the country.  As Iowans count our blessings and celebrate family on Thanksgiving Day, let's remember the children in our communities who dream to find a family to call their own once and for all.  Have you, a family member, friend or neighbor considered adoption?  On behalf of the thousands of foster children whose single-most important wish upon the turkey's wishbone would be to take a seat at their very own family's Thanksgiving table, I encourage you to prayerfully consider the call if you're in a position to do so.

Thursday, November 7, 2013

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa is seeking answers from the Obama administration on indications that Obamacare will bypass key anti-fraud protections.

"I am alarmed at indications that the Administration may try to exempt the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) from certain federal anti-fraud provisions," Grassley wrote to top administration officials today.  "PPACA provides for billions of dollars in subsidies to be paid directly to insurance companies.  These taxpayer dollars should be subject to the full arsenal of civil and criminal anti-fraud protections provided by Congress."

Grassley's letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Attorney General Eric Holder came amid statements that the administration does not consider qualified health plans and other programs related to the federally facilitated marketplace under the new health care law to be federal health care programs.  That appears to mean the Obamacare programs are not subject to federal anti-kickback statutes and the federal False Claims Act, one of the government's most effective tools against fraud, especially health care fraud in recent years.

Grassley raised these concerns at a Finance Committee hearing with Sebelius on Wednesday.  He asked her to explain her letter to a House member that the Obamacare health plans are not considered federal health care programs.  She suggested Medicare Advantage, for example, and Obamacare should be treated differently for federal anti-fraud protections.  Grassley believes both programs should be treated the same for anti-fraud purposes, since both involve direct payments from the government to private health care plans.

"Congress' intent to treat kickbacks under PPACA as False Claims Act violations is clear.  It cannot lawfully be nullified by the stroke of a pen through an administrative exemption," Grassley wrote today.  "If this nullification were allowed to stand, HHS would be removing a vital tool to investigate and prosecute fraud.  It undermines public confidence that the government is serious about protecting American taxpayer dollars from fraud, waste and abuse.   Intentionally attempting to strip away these vital protections by administrative fiat is extremely disturbing."

Grassley is the Senate author of the 1986 whistleblower amendments strengthening the federal False Claims Act, making it more effective than ever in exposing fraud against the government.

The text of Grassley's letter to Sebelius and Holder is available here.

-30-

BIPARTISAN GROUP OF SENATORS JOINED BY SURVIVORS, RETIRED GENERAL, ADVOCATES KICK OFF FINAL TWO-WEEK PUSH FOR CREATING AN INDEPENDENT MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM -- DEFENSE BILL EXPECTED ON THE FLOOR BEFORE THANKSGIVING

Military Justice Improvement Act Will Be Offered as Amendment to Annual Defense Bill - The Change Required to Give Survivors of Sexual Assault in the Military a Fair Shot at Justice

 

Momentum Continues to Grow: Defense Advisory Committee Appointed by Secretary of Defense (DACOWITS panel) Recently Voted in Favor of Gillibrand Approach Without a Single Vote Against On the Heels of 3 Retired Generals Coming Out in Support

 

According to Pentagon Estimates, 25% of Women and 27% of Men Who Received Unwanted Sexual Contact Indicated the Offender Was Someone in Their Military Chain of Command -- More Than 26,000 Incidents of Sexual Assault or Unwanted Sexual Contact Occurred in 2012

 

Washington D.C. - U.S. Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Rand Paul (R-KY), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), and Susan Collins (R-ME) kicked off their final two week push to create an independent, objective and non-biased military justice system with the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) expected to be debated on the floor before the Thanksgiving recess. The bipartisan Military Justice Improvement Act, to be offered as an amendment on the Senate floor to the Defense bill, is already publicly supported by 46 Senators, including 38 Democrats and 8 Republicans.

 

This common sense proposal seeks to reverse the systemic obstacles that numerous victims of military sexual assault have described in deciding whether to report the crimes committed against them due to the clear bias and inherent conflicts of interest posed by the military chain of command's current sole decision-making power over whether cases move forward to a trial. The Senators were joined by survivors of sexual assault in the military; a retired Brigadier General and former Pentagon appointee by the Obama administration; and advocates.

 

The carefully crafted Military Justice Improvement Act moves the decision whether to prosecute any crime punishable by one year or more in confinement to independent, trained, professional military prosecutors, with the exception of 37 crimes that are uniquely military in nature, such as disobeying orders or going Absent Without Leave. The decision whether to prosecute the 37 serious crimes uniquely military in nature plus all crimes punishable by less than one year of confinement would remain within the chain of command. The bill does not amend Article 15 pertaining to non-judicial punishments.

 

According to the FY2012 SAPRO report released earlier this year by the Defense Department, an estimated 26,000 cases of unwanted sexual contact and sexual assaults occurred in FY2012, a 37% increase from FY2011. Another report released by the Defense Department this year showed that more than 1 in 5 female servicemembers reported experiencing unwanted sexual contact while serving in the military. Also according to the FY2012 SAPRO Report, 25% of women and 27% of men who received unwanted sexual contact indicated the offender was someone in their military chain of command. Further, 50% of female victims stated they did not report the crime because they believed that nothing would be done with their report. Even the current top military leadership admits the current system "has failed" and as Commandant of the Marine Corps General James F. Amos stated this year, victims do not come forward because "they don't trust the chain of command."

 

"America is home to the world's best and brightest, brave men and women who join the armed services for all the right reasons - to serve our country, defend all that we hold sacred, and make America's military the best the world has ever known," Senator Gillibrand said. "But too often, these brave men and women find themselves in the fight of their lives not off on some far-away battlefield, but right here on our own soil, within their own ranks and commanding officers, as victims of horrific acts of sexual violence. Our bipartisan bill takes this issue head on by removing decision-making from the chain of command, and giving that discretion to experienced trial counsel with prosecutorial experience where it belongs. That's how we will achieve accountability, justice and fairness."

 

"Sexual assault cases should be handled outside the chain of command to eliminate any potential bias and make victims more comfortable in coming forward," Senator Grassley said. "Sexual assault is a law-enforcement issue. When young adults commit to serving their country and defending our freedoms, they deserve to know their own rights will be protected, including access to justice."

 

"There is only one fundamental change that will ensure that a charge of sexual assault will be based on the evidence - not any other factor - and that is this bipartisan bill," Senator Boxer said.

 

"Our men and women in uniform put their blood, sweat and tears into defending American ideals, freedoms and protections at home and abroad; they deserve the same robust defenses in return," said Senator Murkowski (R-AK). "Too often, cases of sexual assault go unreported out of fear of retribution or that nothing will be done - this bill would increase confidence in the military judicial system.  Working to create an unbiased process would improve conditions for not only victims but for the accused."

 

Senator Blumenthal said, "By closing the small remaining vote gap in coming days, we can assure stronger justice to military sexual assault victims. Victims of this hideous, horrific crime deserve a fairer, more effective justice system - with decisions made by a trained, experienced prosecutor - so they will be better protected and encouraged to report sexual assaults. As the best and strongest military in history, our men and women in uniform deserve a justice system worthy of their excellence. Our legislation is vital to victim trust and confidence in military justice. I am proud to stand with Senator Gillibrand and this broad, bipartisan coalition of advocates and colleagues."

 

"The vast majority of our service members are honorable and upstanding individuals. In the instance when one is accused of a serious crime, especially one of assault in any form, the allegation needs to be taken seriously," Senator Paul said. "I support Sen. Gillibrand's amendment to not only protect the rights of victims, but also the rights of the accused. This is a necessary change to protect those who are protecting us."

 

"Our brave men and women in uniform deserve the basic opportunity to face a fair military justice system when reporting sexual assaults. The testimony of survivors is horrific and it is tragic that even more attacks go unreported," said Senator Hirono.

 

"I proudly support Senator Gillibrand's military justice improvement legislation, which only applies to the most serious crimes in the military, and will enable commanders to focus on their wartime mission and ensure that the rights of both victims and those accused of crimes are protected," said Senator Cruz. Our strongest allies have adopted similar military justice changes and their experience shows us that this can be done without harming the chain of command or military readiness. Senator Gillibrand is to be commended for her leadership on this issue and for accepting critical improvements to the amendment to ensure that crimes that are unique to the military will not be decided by lawyers."

 

"Sexual assault cannot be tolerated anywhere, including the military. Despite the fact that the Department of Defense has had a zero tolerance policy for 20 years, sexual assaults in the military continue to be a major problem," said Senator Shaheen. "We have to change the way the military investigates and prosecutes these cases. Our bipartisan legislation will implement smart and long overdue reforms."

 

"I have been terribly disturbed by a seemingly endless stream of allegations of sexual misconduct, and by the fact that, approximately nine years after I first publicly raised the issue of sexual assault with military leaders in 2004, the problem persists at such an alarming rate.  While I believe the vast, overwhelming majority of our military personnel are honorable individuals, we must ensure that justice is swift, fair, and certain for the criminals who have perpetrated these crimes," said Senator Collins.

 

The problem of sexual assault in the military is not new, neither are the pledges of "zero tolerance" from commanders, which date all the way back to then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney in 1992. The Military Justice Improvement Act would for the first time remove the decision whether to take a case to general court-martial completely out of the chain of command and give that discretion to experienced military prosecutors for all crimes punishable by one year or more in confinement, except crimes that are uniquely military in nature, such as disobeying orders or going AWOL.

 

Over the past several months, retired military leaders have come out in support of the proposal. Among others, Lt. General (Ret.) Claudia Kennedy - the first woman to reach the rank of three-star general in the U.S. Army; Brigadier General (Ret.) Loree Sutton- formerly the highest ranking psychiatrist in the U.S. Army; Brigadier General (Ret.) David McGinnis - who  most recently served as a President Obama appointee in the Pentagon as the Principal Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs from April 2009-Sept 2012; Former Vermont National Guard Adjutant General and Retired Air Force Major General Martha Rainville - served in the military for twenty-seven years, including fourteen years in command positions and the first woman in the history of the National Guard to serve as a state Adjutant General;  and Former Army JAG officer and former Congressman Patrick Murphy - served with the U.S. 82nd Airborne Division while stationed in Iraq from 2003-2004; all released statements or letters in support of this proposal

 

In September, the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) voted overwhelmingly in support of removing the decision whether to prosecute sexual assaults and other serious crimes from the chain of command. Ten members voted in support of the measure, six abstained to study further, none voted against. DACOWITS was created in 1951 by then Secretary of Defense, George C.  Marshall. The Committee is composed of civilian and retired military women and men who are appointed by the Secretary of Defense to provide advice and recommendations on matters and policies relating to the recruitment and retention, treatment, employment, integration, and well-being of highly qualified professional women in the Armed Forces. Historically, DACOWITS' recommendations have been very instrumental in effecting changes to laws and policies pertaining to military women. Secretary Chuck Hagel was recently quoted as saying, "I have a put a premium on that advisory board."

 

Many of our allied modern militaries have reporting outside of the chain of command, such as Britain, Canada, Israel, Germany, Norway and Australia. For example, the British military has prosecutors making trial decisions for all crimes through the Service Prosecuting Authority (SPA) within Britain's Ministry of Defense. Four allied commanders recently testified to the Response Systems Panel that these changes to their military justice systems had no negative consequences to good order and discipline.

 

Just yesterday, three leading veterans groups -- the Service Women's Action Network (SWAN), Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), and Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) - wrote an open letter calling on Congress to pass this bipartisan measure calling it, "a vote for our troops and a vote for a stronger military."

 

The Military Justice Improvement Act also:

 

  • Provides the offices of the military chiefs of staff with the authority and discretion to establish courts, empanel juries and choose judges to hear cases (i.e. convening authority).

 

  • This legislation does not amend Article 15. Commanding officers will still be able to order non-judicial punishment for lesser offenses not directed to trial by the prosecutors.

 

According to the FY2012 SAPRO report released earlier this year by the Defense Department, an estimated 26,000 cases of sexual assault or unwanted sexual contact occurred in FY2012, a 37% increase from FY2011. This number does not include incidents of sexual harassment. The Pentagon defines unwanted sexual contact as:  "...intentional sexual contact that was against a person's will or occurred when the person did not or could not consent. The term describes completed and attempted oral, anal, and vaginal penetration with any body part or object, and the unwanted touching of genitalia and other sexually related areas of the body."

 

Of the 3,374 total reports in 2012, 2,558 reports were unrestricted, which means they were actionable. Of those unrestricted reports, 27 percent were for rape, 35 percent were for abusive and wrongful sexual contact, and 28 percent were for aggravated sexual assault and sexual assault.  The remaining cases were for aggravated sexual contact, nonconsensual sodomy, indecent assault and attempts to commit those offenses.

 

Also according to the FY2012 SAPRO report, across the Services, 74% of females and 60% of males perceived one or more barriers to reporting sexual assault. 62% of victims who reported a sexual assault indicated they perceived some form of professional, social, and/or administrative retaliation.

The Senators were joined by Ariana Klay, a former Marine officer assigned to the prestigious Marine Barracks Washington, who graduated with honors from the U.S. Naval Academy in 2006 and subsequently served in Iraq, Ben Klay, served on active duty in the Marines from 2003 through 2007, and was a reservist in 2011, and testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee about his expertise on the military's mishandling of sexual offenses based on his time in the Marines, Nancy Duff Campbell, Co-President of the National Women's Law Center, and Brigadier General (Ret.) David L. McGinnis, former Principal Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, U.S. Department of Defense, appointed by President Obama.

 

The Military Justice Improvement Act is supported by:

·         Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA)

·         Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA)

·         Service Womens Action Network (SWAN)

·         Protect Our Defenders (POD)

·         National Women's Law Center

·         National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women

·         National Alliance to End Sexual Violence

·         National Research Center for Women & Families

·         Jacobs Institute of Women's Health

·         Our Bodies Ourselves

·         International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers

·         Members of the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence

·         9to5

·         Baha'is of the United States

·         Equal Rights Advocates

·         Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

·         Federally Employed Women

·         Feminist Majority

·         Futures Without Violence

·         General Federation of Women's Clubs

·         GetEqual

·         Girls, Inc.

·         Hindu American Seva Communities

·         Institute for Science and Human Values, Inc.

·         Jewish Women International

·         Joyful Heart Foundation

·         National Capital Union Retirees

·         National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence

·         National Coalition Against Domestic Violence

·         National Congress of Black Women, Inc

·         National Council of Churches

·         National Council of Jewish Women

·         National Council of Women's Organizations

·         National Organization for Women

·         National Women's Health Network

·         OWL-The Voice of Midlife and Older Women

·         Peaceful Families Project

·         Presbyterian Women in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Inc.

·         Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

·         SPART*A, an LGBT Military Organization

·         The National Congress of American Indians

·         United Church of Christ

·         Justice and Witness Ministries

·         V-Day

·         Woman's National Democratic Club

·         Women's Research & Education Institute

·         YWCA USA

 

# # #

WASHINGTON, DC - In an effort to protect taxpayers, hold corporate wrongdoers accountable, and deter future fraud and abuse, U.S. Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) are introducing legislation to rescind tax write-offs for illegal corporate behavior.  The bipartisan Government Settlement Transparency & Reform Act would close a loophole that has allowed some corporations to reap tax benefits from payments made at government direction stemming from settling misdeeds.

Corporations accused of illegal activity routinely settle legal disputes with the government out of court because it allows both the company and the government to avoid the time, expense, and uncertainty of going to trial.

Federal law prohibits companies from deducting public fines and penalties from their taxable income.  But under current law, offending companies may often write off any portion of a settlement that is not paid directly to the government as a penalty or fine for violation of the law.  This allows some companies to lower their tax bill by claiming settlement payments to non-federal entities as tax deductible business expenses.

The Reed-Grassley bill would require the government and the settling party to reach pre-filing agreements on how the settlement payments should be treated for tax purposes.  The bill clarifies the rules about what settlement payments are punitive and therefore non-deductible and increases transparency by requiring the government to file a return at the time of settlement to accurately reflect the tax treatment of the amounts  that will be paid by the offending party.

"A penalty is supposed to deter others because it causes pain to a company's bottom line.  If a company is paying thousands, millions, or even billions in fines, it shouldn't save money for those same misdeeds, it should be held accountable.  The law needs to change to ensure the punishment fits the crime.  Congress needs to close this settlement loophole," said Reed.

"A penalty should be meaningful or it won't have the deterrent effect it's supposed to have," Grassley said.  "This issue comes up regularly, and this bill would make deductibility clear going forward."

Summary: The Government Settlement Transparency & Reform Act (S. 1654)

Closes tax loophole that allows tax write-offs for corporate violations.

The bill would amend the tax code to deny tax deductions for certain fines, penalties, and other amounts related to a violation or investigation or inquiry into the potential violation of any law.

It amends subsection (f) of Section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code.  Amounts paid by corporations, which constitute restitution for damage caused by the violation of any law are exempted and remain deductible.  This section requires that nongovernmental entities which exercise self-regulatory powers be treated as government entities for purposes of disallowing deductions under this section. The bill requires the government to stipulate the tax treatment of the settlement agreement.

-end-

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

WASHINGTON - The Senate on Monday night unanimously passed legislation to extend whistleblower protection for employees who provide information to the Department of Justice related to criminal antitrust violations. U.S. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and coauthors of the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act, applauded the Senate's quick action on the bipartisan measure.

Approval of the bill comes just days after the Judiciary Committee unanimously reported it to the full Senate. Leahy and Grassley joined together last year to introduce the bill, and reintroduced the measure in January.

"I applaud the Senate for quickly passing bipartisan legislation that will improve the enforcement of the antitrust laws to protect consumers," Leahy said in a statement. "The Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act makes whole employees who have been fired or discriminated against for blowing the whistle on criminal conduct. I urge the House to act quickly to pass this important bill."

"Current law encourages self-reporting of criminal antitrust activity, yet it doesn't provide any protections for innocent third-parties who blow the whistle on such activity.  Our bill strengthens the enforcement of criminal antitrust laws by adding a civil remedy for antitrust whistleblowers who are retaliated against," Grassley said.  "I appreciate the Senate's quick action on this bipartisan bill."

The bill is based on recommendations from a Government Accountability Office report released July 2011. It allows employees who believe they are victims of retaliation to file complaints with the Secretary of Labor, and provides for those employees to be reinstated to their former status if the Secretary finds in their favor. Leahy and Grassley authored similar whistleblower statutes as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002. A copy of the measure approved by the Senate on Monday can be found online.

# # # # #
WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley is among two dozen senators urging the newly confirmed Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Tom Wheeler, to take steps to allow for the continuation of broadband infrastructure investment in rural America.

"It's vital that all Iowans have access to good and reliable communications services," Grassley said.  "In today's economy, opportunities for Iowans and our communities in business, economic development, education, health care and other areas are created by access to robust broadband.  The FCC and Congress should ensure that the service is available to all Iowans, including those in rural areas."

Grassley, along with Senators Jon Tester, John Barrasso, Mark Pryor, Kelly Ayotte, Mark Begich, Deb Fischer, Max Baucus, Tim Johnson, James Inhofe, Robert Casey, Pat Roberts, Mark Udall, Michael Enzi, Jeanne Shaheen, Mike Crapo, Jeff Merkely , Lisa Murkowski, Michael Bennet, Saxby Chambliss, Heidi Heitkamp, Johnny Isakson, James Risch, Jerry Moran, John Hoeven and John Boozman, requested action from the FCC to immediately take steps to re-establish predictability, sufficiency and transparency in the Universal Service Fund program so that the small businesses that serve rural America can resume critical investments in rural broadband.

This letter is following up on other letters Grassley has sent to the FCC regarding this matter, several of which can be found here.

Following is a copy of the text of the letter.  Click here for a signed copy of the letter.

 

November 1, 2013

 

The Honorable Tom Wheeler

Federal Communications Commission

445 12th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20554

 

Dear Chairman Wheeler:

We commend the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for recently making changes to its 2011 Universal Service Fund (USF) reform order to begin the immediate deployment of broadband to rural areas served by price cap companies.  Additionally, we appreciate the FCC's decision to temporarily relieve the impacts of Quantile Regression Analysis (QRA) on small rate-of-return carriers.  However, we remain concerned the reform order is limiting the ability of small rate-of-return carriers to provide rural consumers with the broadband service they need to compete in today's global economy.

The 2011 USF reform order's lack of predictability is resulting in declining private sector investment in hard-to-reach rural areas, which threatens the long-standing requirements that consumers in rural and high cost areas should have access to telecommunications and information services that are reasonably comparable to those services provided in urban areas.  We urge the Commission to take immediate steps to re-establish predictability, sufficiency and transparency in the USF program so that these small businesses can resume critical investments in rural broadband.  At the same time, we believe this process should neither upset nor slow implementation of Phase II of the Connect America Fund for consumers in areas served by larger carriers.

The Universal Service Fund provides small rate-of-return regulated telecom carriers with support to keep consumer rates affordable in high cost areas.  These small companies use a limited number of public and private loan programs to make long-term capital investments to expand the reach and effectiveness of broadband in hard-to-serve rural areas.  Both potential borrowers and lenders have indicated hesitation in moving forward with loans for broadband infrastructure improvements due to the uncertainties created by the reform order.

One of the main causes of uncertainty is the reform order's Quantile Regression Analysis (QRA) approach to providing high-cost support for rural companies.  A recent analysis by former FCC Chief Economist Simon Wilkie underscores this uncertainty, noting that the QRA caps and redistributes USF support in arbitrary and unpredictable ways, fails to provide incentives for broadband deployment, and generates regulatory uncertainty that is discouraging investment.  While we appreciate the FCC's recent steps to temporarily relieve the impacts of the QRA approach, more must be done to resolve the lingering uncertainty it creates.

The benefits to health, education and economic development from robust broadband infrastructure will be delayed or denied for many rural Americans unless the Commission finds a way to re-establish predictability and transparency in the USF program through re-examination of the QRA approach and other common-sense steps that enable rural carriers to respond to consumer demand for broadband.  We appreciate your attention to this matter, and we look forward to your response.

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following comment on the announcement that SAC Capital Advisors has agreed to plead guilty to insider trading violations.  Grassley, Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, has urged the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department to crack down on Wall Street wrongdoing.

"According to media reports, the last time a major Wall Street firm entered a guilty plea was 1989.   That makes you wonder what happened to prosecution over the last 24 years.  I'm looking for continued focus on strong prosecution, including admissions of wrongdoing.  Letting up on Wall Street wrong-doers is part of what led to the financial crisis in the first place."

Friday, November 1, 2013

Senator Chuck Grassley made the following comment after U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service released a final comprehensive rule on bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).  The rule had been in the works for several years, but stalled within various agencies of the federal government.

During the delay in publishing a final rule, a number of countries placed non-science based restrictions on U.S. beef imports.  For example, some countries don't allow U.S. beef over 30 months old into their country.  Some of these nations use the fact that the United States had not formally adopted a comprehensive BSE rule to justify their own unfair trade barriers. In February 2012, Grassley led a bipartisan group of senators pressing the administration to issue the comprehensive BSE rule.

Here's Grassley's comment on the final rule.

"Beef producers have been waiting years for the Department of Agriculture to issue the BSE comprehensive rule.  By having this rule in place, the United States can now show leadership around the world and give the U.S. Trade Representative and the Department of Agriculture a stronger position to press other nations to follow the World Organization for Animal Health's guidelines and adopt science-based BSE policies.  When nations base their decisions on sound science, more markets will be expanded or opened to U.S. beef."

Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee

On the Motion to invoke Cloture on the nomination of

Patricia Ann Millett, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit

Thursday, October 31, 2013

 

Mr. President,

 

I rise in opposition to any motion to invoke cloture on nominees for the D.C. Circuit.  I am somewhat disappointed that the Senate Majority wants to turn to a controversial nomination next rather than continue on the path of cooperative confirmations or to more important Senate business.  It seems to me that scheduling such a controversial vote, in the closing weeks of this session of Congress, is designed to simply heat up the partisanship of judicial nominations.

 

My opposition is based on a number of factors:

 

First, an objective review of the court's workload makes clear that the workload simply doesn't justify adding additional judges to this court, particularly when additional judgeships cost approximately $1 million, per year, per judge.

 

Second, given that the caseload doesn't justify additional judges, you have to ask why the President would push so hard to fill these seats.  It appears clear the President wishes to add additional judges to this court in order to change judicial outcomes.

 

Third, the court is currently comprised of four active judges appointed by Republican Presidents and four active judges appointed by Democrat Presidents.  There is no reason to upset the current make-up of the court, particularly when the reason for doing so appears to be ideologically driven.

 

Let me start by providing my colleagues with a little bit of history regarding this particular seat.

 

It may come as a surprise to some, but this seat has been vacant for over eight years.  It became vacant in September 2005 when John Roberts was elevated to Chief Justice of the United States.

 

In June of 2006, President Bush nominated an eminently qualified individual for this seat, Peter Keisler.  Mr. Keisler was widely lauded as a consensus, bipartisan nominee.  His distinguished record of public service included service as Acting Attorney General.  Despite his broad bipartisan support and qualifications, Mr. Keisler waited 918 days for a committee vote that never came.

 

When he was nominated, Democrats objected to even holding a hearing for the nominee, based on concerns about the workload of the D.C. Circuit.

 

During Mr. Keisler's hearing, one of my Democrat colleagues summarized the threshold concerns.  He said:

 

"Here are the questions that just loom out there: 1) Why are we proceeding so fast here?  2) Is there a genuine need to fill this seat?  3) Has the workload of the D.C. Circuit not gone down?  4) Should taxpayers be burdened with the cost of filling that seat?  5) Does it not make sense, given the passion with which arguments were made only a few years ago, to examine these issues before we proceed?"

 

I have not heard these same concerns expressed by my friends on the other side with respect to the current batch of nominations to this court.  But that does not mean that these issues have gone away.

 

Statistics from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts show that caseloads on the D.C. Circuit have decreased markedly over the last several years.  This decrease is evident in both the total number of appeals filed and the total number of appeals pending.

 

I've indicated on a number of occasions that I believe these seats are not even needed.   While I've gone over the statistics on a number of previous occasions, I want to remind my colleagues and others regarding the facts of the workload of the D.C. Circuit.

 

First I'd like to remind my colleagues that in 2006, Democrats argued that the D.C. Circuit caseload was too light to justify confirming any additional judges to the bench.  Since that time, the caseload has continued to decrease.

 

In terms of raw numbers, the D.C. Circuit has the lowest number of total appeals filed annually among all the circuit courts of appeals.  In 2005, that number was 1,379.  Last year, it was 1,193, a decrease of 13.5 percent.

 

There are a lot of different ways to look at these numbers, but perhaps the best numbers to examine are those that measure the workload per active judge.

 

The caseload has decreased so much since 2005, that even with two fewer active judges, the filing levels per active judge are practically the same.

 

In 2005, with 10 active judges, the court had 138 appeals filed per active judge.  Today, with only 8 active judges, it has 149.  This makes the D.C. Circuit caseload levels the lowest in the nation and less than half the national average.

 

It has been suggested that there are other circuits, namely the 8th and the 10th, that have lighter caseloads than the D.C. Circuit.  This is simply not accurate.

 

The D.C. Circuit has fewer cases filed and fewer cases terminated than either the 8th or the 10th Circuits.  Cases filed and cases terminated measure the amount of appeals coming into the court and being resolved by the court, respectively.

 

Now, some of my colleagues have been arguing that the 8th and 10th Circuits are similar to the D.C. Circuit, based on a comparison of "pending cases."  But "cases pending" does NOT measure how many cases are being added and removed from the docket.

 

When looking at how many cases are added, or filed, per active judge, the D.C. Circuit is lowest with 149.  It's nowhere near the 8th Circuit's 280 or the 10th Circuit's 217.

 

When looking at the number of cases being terminated by each court, the D.C. Circuit is once again the lowest at 149.  Again, the 8th Circuit and 10th Circuit courts are much higher at 269 and 218, respectively.

 

Now, let me mention one other important point about "pending appeals" and the statistics that my colleagues have been citing.

 

Several of my colleagues said on the floor yesterday that in 2005 there were only 121 pending appeals per active judge.

 

Now, that number seemed a little odd to me, so we looked into it a bit further.  In order to arrive at that number, my colleagues appear to be taking the total appeals for the 12 month period ending on June 30, 2005, and dividing by 11.

 

But as it turns out, there were nine active judges for almost that entire 12 month period.

 

Janice Rogers Brown was sworn in on June 10, 2005, and Judge Griffith was sworn in on June 29, 2005.

 

As a result, during that 12 month period, there were 10 active judges for a total of 19 days. There were 11 active judges on the D.C. Circuit for a grand total of 1 day.

 

And just a few months later in 2005, the court was back down to nine active judges after Judge Roberts was elevated to the Supreme Court, and Judge Edwards took senior status.

 

This is how hard-pressed the other side is to refute what everyone knows to be true - the caseload for the D.C. Circuit is lower now than it was back in 2005.

 

In order to have a statistic that supports their argument, the other side is claiming there were 11 active judges for that 12 month period, when that claim was true for a total of 1 day.

 

The bottom line is this:  The objective data clearly indicate the D.C. Circuit caseload is very low and that the court does not need any additional active judges.  And that is especially true if you use the standard Senate Democrats established when they blocked Mr. Keisler.

 

In addition to the raw numbers, in order to get a firsthand account, several months ago I invited the current judges on the court to provide a candid assessment of the caseload.

 

What they said shouldn't surprise anyone who has looked at this issue closely.  The judges themselves confirmed that the workload on the D.C. Circuit is exceptionally low, stating, "the Court does not need additional judges."  And, "If any more judges were added now, there wouldn't be enough work to go around."

 

Those are powerful statements from the judges themselves.

 

Given these concerns, it is difficult to see why we would be moving forward with additional nominations to this court, especially in a time when we are operating under budget and fiscal constraints.

 

Unfortunately, the justification for moving forward with additional D.C. Circuit nominees appears to be a desire and intent to stack the court in order to determine the outcome of cases this court hears.

 

It is clear that the President wants to fill this court with ideological allies for the purpose of reversing certain policy outcomes.

 

This is not just my view, but has been overtly stated as an objective of this administration.

 

Earlier this year, a Washington Post Article observed, "Giving liberals a greater say on the D.C. Circuit is important for Obama as he looks for ways to circumvent the Republican-led House and a polarized Senate on a number of policy fronts through executive order and other administrative procedures."

 

Even a member of the Democrat leadership admitted on the Senate floor that the reason they needed to fill these seats was because, as he saw it, the D.C. Circuit was "wreaking havoc with the country."

 

This is perplexing, given the current make-up of the court.  Currently, there are four Republican-appointed judges and, with the most recent confirmation, there are now four Democrat-appointed judges.  But now, apparently, some on the other side want to make sure they get favorable outcomes from this Court.

 

So I have concerns regarding filling seats on this court, which clearly has a very low caseload.  And I have greater concerns about this President's agenda to stack the court and upset the current make-up, simply in order to obtain favorable judicial outcomes.

 

Given the overwhelming lack of a need to fill these seats based on the caseload, and especially considering the cost to taxpayers of over $1 million per judge, per year, I cannot support this nomination and I urge my colleagues to reject it as well.

 

-30-

Pages