01 Nov 2013

DC Circuit Caseload Doesn't Justify Additional Judges

By Grassley Press

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-
30 Oct 2013

Opening Statement Budget Conference Committee Meeting

By Grassley Press

Opening Statement of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

Budget Conference Committee

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

I'm glad to be here to get to work with our House colleagues to reconcile our differences on the fiscal year 2014 budget resolution.  This is regular order.  This is how this process is meant to work.

Our country is on an unsustainable fiscal course, yet this is the first time since 2009 since we've worked together to reconcile a budget resolution.

This is just the first step of this conference process.  I'd like to make a simple request regarding process.  The people's business ought to be public.

We've got important and difficult matters before us.  The deliberations and deal-making shouldn't be done in the dead of night in a backroom with only a small handful of individuals.

To regain the trust of American people, we must demonstrate that we can work together to confront our fiscal challenges.  There is an enormous amount cynicism among the populace about Washington.

Part of that cynicism, I believe, comes from the fact that many of the recent budget deals have been concocted in a back office by a few leaders, and rank and file members were left to take it or leave it.  They weren't debated.  There was no deliberation.  And nearly no one had an opportunity beforehand to even read them.

This is a terrible way to govern.  It's part of the reason people don't trust Washington to do what's right.  We should use this budget conference to change that perception and hold our meetings in public, in the light of day.

The President and the Senate Democratic leadership have insisted upon a balanced approach to replace the sequester cuts.  This so-called balanced approach would include tax increases with some spending cuts.  The problem with this logic is simple.

The fiscal problems facing the federal government are not balanced.  The problem is not that we tax too little; it's that we spend too much.   The offer of a so-called balanced plan is wrongheaded.  The problems we face are caused by a one-sided problem - spending.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2038, federal spending will be 26 percent of GDP, compared to the 40-year average of 20.5 percent.  Spending on health care entitlements and Social Security will double over the next 25 years.

As a result, deficits will continue to grow and the resulting debt will grow faster than GDP, a path which CBO says is ultimately unsustainable.  CBO's projection included revenue levels higher than the historical average.  There is the root of the problem --spending growth outpaces even the higher revenue.

The President talks a great deal about growing our economy, creating jobs and growing the middle class.  I don't believe we need to grow government in order to create jobs, to grow the economy or increase the prosperity of Americans.  A more prosperous America does not result from an ever larger, more intrusive government.

President Kennedy knew the virtue that wealth, left in the hands of entrepreneurial Americans, would create new jobs, spur economic growth and grow the economy.

President Kennedy stated in 1962, the tax system "exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking."

Yet, the Senate budget, which I opposed, would increase taxes by $1 trillion.  President Obama got his tax increase in the fiscal cliff deal of January 2013.  We increased taxes on job creating Americans by $600 billion.  Now is the time to focus on the other side of the ledger–the spending side.

I remain cautious about plans to trade spending reductions that are in law as a result of the Budget Control Act, for the promise of spending cuts or entitlement reform at some point in the future.

I will not entertain a so-called balanced plan that punishes small businesses and job creators with higher taxes in exchange for minor entitlement reforms that do not change the deficit and debt trajectory of our country.

If we're going to reform our entitlement programs to ensure their viability for future generations, we should do just that.  Perhaps the proposals included in President Obama's budget could be a starting point, and should be up for consideration.

I'm aware that there is a great deal of angst surrounding the impending sequester cuts, particularly those to the Department of Defense.  The defense of our nation is one of the primary constitutional responsibilities of the federal government and we should not take it lightly.

However, there should be no illusion that the Department of Defense is immune from wasteful spending, fraud and mismanagement that costs taxpayer millions and billions of dollars.

I've spent a great deal of time and effort on oversight of DoD's accounting and audit practices. I can tell you from experience that there is absolutely no basis for anyone to believe that the Pentagon is spending every taxpayer dollar wisely without a penny to spare.  With DoD lacking even the most basic audit controls to detect and root out waste and fraud, opportunities for significant savings abound without even cutting a single program.

So, while I recognize the concerns about these Defense cuts, and I wish we had gone about it in a more thoughtful way.  We should seriously consider giving agency heads more flexibility in managing the sequester cuts.  But, I know firsthand that billions of dollars of taxpayer money at the Pentagon is lost to waste, mismanagement and negligence.

Again, I'm glad that we're finally engaged in this process.  It's time to get to work to find sound fiscal solutions to our nations' challenges.
30 Oct 2013

"Don't Touch Stamp" on Payment Limits Reform in Farm and Food Bill Conference Negotiations

By Grassley Press

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Senator Chuck Grassley and Congressman Jeff Fortenberry today made the following statements before the first official meeting of the farm and food bill conference committee later today.  Grassley and Fortenberry authored provisions in the Senate and House bills to establish a farm payment cap of $250,000.  The Senate and House bills also tighten loopholes that have allowed some non-farmers to game the system.  In addition, the Government Accountability Office recently released a report outlining many of the current shortcomings of the eligibility rules for farm programs.  The report also says that the legislative language in the Senate and House passed farm bills would be an appropriate fix to the agency's findings.

Grassley and Fortenberry maintain that the farm payment provisions are nearly identical in the two bills, and should not be up for negotiation.

Grassley comment:

"Our reform is common-sense.  Not only does it end some of the most egregious abuses of the farm program and make sure that the farm program payments are going to those who need them most, but it saves money.  It's a win-win for everybody.   When 22 people are getting farm payments for the same farm, and 70 percent of the farm payments go to 10 percent of the biggest farms, we've got a problem.  Some members of the conference committee have already made clear of their intention to remove the reforms.  By removing the payment limits and the provisions to close loopholes, these members are only making the safety net more susceptible to criticism and vulnerable to elimination.  The safety net is important to a safe and affordable food supply for the country, and it would be short-sighted to allow such a parochial mindset to undermine an important and necessary policy."

Fortenberry comment:

"After many years of discussion, farm payment limitations reform finally has a chance to become law.  More robust payment limits help farm supports reach intended recipients and close loopholes. In this time of tight budgets, the need for this type of fair reform is even greater. With the opportunity for new farm policy under negotiation between the House and Senate, payment limits should remain a key piece of the overall package. It is my hope that this important provision will carry forward into the final Farm Bill."

Specifics of the payment limits provisions:

  • The bills establish a per farm cap of $50,000 on all commodity program benefits, except those associated with the marketing loan program (loan deficiency payments and marketing loan gains), which would be capped at $75,000.  Thus the combined limit would be $125,000, or, for married couples, $250,000.  The $50,000 cap would apply to whatever type of program is developed as part of the new farm and food bill.
  • The bills would define clearly the scope of people who are able to qualify as actively engaged by only providing management for the farming operation.  The bill will allow one off-farm manager, but only one.  Landowners who share rent land to an actively-engaged producer remain exempt from the "actively engaged" rules provided their payments are commensurate to their risk in the crop produced.
-30-
30 Oct 2013

Infosys to be Fined for Immigration Fraud

By Grassley Press

Tuesday, Oct. 29, 2013

Senator Chuck Grassley released the following statement after learning from multiple media reports that the federal  government is expected to fine Infosys for immigration fraud and abuse of U.S. visa programs.

Grassley has been working to root out waste, fraud and abuse of the H-1B visa program.  As those loopholes are tightened, it appears that companies are circumventing the H-1B program by using the B-1 visa program which does not have the same wage and recruitment restrictions of the H-1B program.  Jay Palmer, an Infosys employee who sued the company, was the first to bring evidence to Grassley on regarding these practices.

After hearing about the allegations from Palmer, Grassley asked for a thorough investigation by the Departments of State and Homeland Security of the B-1 visa program and the use of this visa program by employers to recruit foreign workers who are then not subject to the cap and the prevailing wage requirements of the H-1B program.  To date, it's unclear if any changes have been made in the policies at the State and Homeland Security departments.

Here is Grassley's comment on the settlement.

"Some companies are finding creative ways to subvert the H-1B visa program and bring in foreign workers to the detriment of Americans workers.  Corporate whistleblowers who have brought abusive practices to light reveal that too many companies appear to be pushing the envelope and ignoring the intent or spirit of the law.   It's time that the administration and Congress do more to reign in the fraud and abuse to ensure that both American and foreign workers are protected."
29 Oct 2013

Grassley: Making Democracy Work Student Essay Contest Submissions Due Dec. 31

By Grassley Press

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley encourages Iowa middle school and high school students to participate in the 2013 Making Democracy Work Student Essay Contest sponsored by the U.S. Capitol Historical Society.

The contest is open to students from around the country and is split into two divisions. Students in grades 6-8 will participate in a junior division contest, and students in grades 9-12 will participate in the senior division contest.

Each division will award three prizes:

·         1st Place- $1,000 and a trip to Washington, D.C., to receive the prize.

·         2nd Place- $500.

·         3rd Place- $250.

·         The two first place winners' schools will also be awarded $1,000.

"This is a good opportunity for young Iowans to share their insight about the U.S. system of government," Grassley said.

The subject of the essay contest is: "The rights and responsibilities of citizenship."  Students may expand upon their constitutional rights and their primary duties as U.S. citizens. They should also consider how these constitutional rights affect themselves and their families. Grassley encourages Iowa students who are interested to submit their work to the U.S. Capitol Historical Society.

Further information regarding the contest, official rules, and entry forms can be found at www.uschs.org, the U.S. Capitol Historical Society's website.

The U.S. Capitol Historical Society, founded in 1962, is a non-profit, non-partisan, educational organization chartered by Congress.  Its goal is to inform the public about Capitol Hill and the duties of Congress.
25 Oct 2013

Grassley Internships Available, Applications Due Nov. 15

By Grassley Press

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley said today that spring internships for college-age Iowans are available, and applications are due Nov. 15.

Internships are available in Grassley's Washington, D.C., office as well as his offices in Cedar Rapids, Council Bluffs, Davenport, Des Moines, Sioux City and Waterloo.  The spring session will run from Jan. 13 to May 23.

Interns will be placed in one of three departments:  administrative, legislative or communications.  An internship allows for a wide range of learning experience and exposure for students on Capitol Hill.  A firsthand account of a Grassley internship can be read here.

Grassley said he encourages young Iowans who are interested in learning more about the government to apply.  "Interning in a congressional office is a good way for college students and new graduates to learn more about the legislative branch of the federal government while gaining valuable experience.  Internships in my offices are available to students in all areas of study," he said.

Application forms are available on Grassley's website and in Grassley's offices in Iowa.  Due to security-related delays in postal mail delivery to U.S. Senate office buildings, internship applications should be emailed to intern_applications@grassley.senate.gov or faxed to 202-224-5136.  For additional information, email intern_applications@grassley.senate.gov or call 202-224-3744.

-30-
25 Oct 2013

Grassley, Hatch Seek Enrollment Data from Key Health Insurance Companies

By Grassley Press

Thursday, Oct. 24, 2013

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah are seeking enrollment data from four key health insurance companies participating in the President's health care program amid news reports of technical problems inhibiting accurate, successful enrollment.

"News reports show extensive frustration signing up online for health care," Grassley said.  "Now we're seeing reports of bad data going to insurance companies when people do manage to register themselves.  Is the bad data the reason the Administration is being so vague about how many people have signed up?  We want to hear from key insurance companies to find out what problems they're facing."

"As we learned from a House hearing today, insurance companies are getting inaccurate and unreliable information about those trying to sign up for insurance through HealthCare.gov," said Hatch. "Since the Obama Administration won't say how many people have enrolled, we have no choice but to get this information from the insurance companies themselves. And, if the data the insurance companies is receiving is corrupt then we need to find out what needs to be done to fix this serious problem."

Grassley and Hatch wrote to the four companies participating in the Washington, D.C., health care exchange.  The companies are Aetna, UnitedHealth Group, Kaiser Permanente, and CareFirst.  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.

Separately today, the senators are writing to each of the contractors that played a role in creating healthcare.gov, seeking contract and cost data.  The website cost hundreds of millions of dollars, yet doesn't work.

The text of the senators' letter to each of the four insurance companies participating in the Washington, D.C., exchange is identical.  One of the letters is attached.

Hatch is ranking member of the Finance Committee, with jurisdiction over much of the new health care program.  Grassley is a senior member and former chairman and ranking member of the committee.

-30-
25 Oct 2013

HATCH, GRASSLEY REQUEST CONTRACTORS DETAIL ROLE, WORK ON HEALTHCARE.GOV

By Grassley Press
In letter to 47 Federal Government Contractors, Senators Seek Detailed Information on Work, Cost & Deliverables Performed on Federal ObamaCare Exchange Website 

WASHINGTON - Today, Finance and Judiciary Committee Ranking Members Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) sent letters to the 47 different companies that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) contracted with to develop, implement, and operate HealthCare.gov, ObamaCare's online marketplace for the federal health insurance exchanges.  The website has been plagued with delays, errors and faulty information since its launch on October 1.

The Senators requested a detailed analysis of the work each contractor has performed to date, the cost of that work, and timelines and deliverables that the entities had to meet for CMS as part of their scope of work in the development and creation of the website.

Hatch and Grassley sent the letter to the following contractors: A. Reddix & Associates; Accenture Federal Services; Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc; CGI; Cognosante, LLC; CSC; CSSi; CSSS; David-James, LLC; Deloitte; eGlobal Interactive; Genova Technologies; George Washington University; Heitech Services; HIS; IBM; ICP Systems, LLC; IDL Solutions; Information Systems Consulting Group Inc; Innosoft; KAT Communications; MAXIMUS Federal Services Inc; McKinsey &Co; Mitre; Northrop Gumman; Noblis; QSSI;Quality Technology;Porter Novelli Public Strategies; PricewaterhouseCoopers; Relis, LLC; Leidos; Sage North America; Sentel Corp; Serco; Soft-Con Enterprices; Spherecom; Strategi; Summit Consulting; Terremark; Truven Health Analytics; TICG; Turning Point Technologies; Unicom; URS; General Dynamics IT; and Verizon Business Network Services.

A signed copy of the letter can be found HERE and the text of the letter as well as a list of contractors is below: 

As the Ranking Members of the Senate Finance and Judiciary Committees, we are writing to obtain information regarding the work your company has performed to help implement the federally facilitated marketplace (FFM) mandated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). 

As part of our Congressional oversight of PPACA, we are trying to better understand the roles and responsibilities of each of the contractors working on the FFM.

Specifically, we request that you provide us with the following information:

(1) Copies of all contracts awarded to your company by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) related to the design, development, implementation or evaluation of the health insurance exchanges being established pursuant to PPACA.  Please identify each contract by CMS contract number.

(2) Copies of all task and delivery orders issued by CMS to your company under contracts identified in response to (1) above.

(3) Copies of all modifications issued by CMS to the contracts, task orders and delivery orders identified in response to (1) and (2) above.

(4) Copies of the solicitations, together with all amendments, issued by CMS that resulted in the award to your company of the contracts identified in response to question (1).  Please identify each solicitation by the CMS solicitation number.

(5) If the contract(s) identified in response to (1) above was a sole source contract(s), please provide a copy of the following documents published by CMS:  Notice of Intent to Award Sole Source; Sole Source Award Notice.

(6) The names, work addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses of all CMS Contracting Officers, Project Officers, Contracting Officer Technical Representatives, Task Order Managers, and Delivery Order Managers associated with or assigned to the contracts, task orders and delivery orders identified in response to (1), (2), (3), and (4).

(7) Copies of all invoices submitted by your company to CMS for payment pursuant to work performed and/or goods delivered to CMS under the contracts, task orders, and delivery orders identified in response to (1), (2) and (3) above.

(8) Copies of all project schedules, delivery schedules, and project timelines imposed by contract or developed and used by your company to track performance/deliverables under the contracts, task orders, and delivery orders identified in response to (1), (2) and (3) above.

(9)   Copies of all reports, memoranda, emails or any other records reflecting the results of testing performed by CMS and/or your company on the contract, task or delivery order deliverables, when the testing occurred, and the names of the CMS employees to whom the testing results were reported.

(10) Please provide a timeline for all activities related to the development and implementation of the website since the passage of PPACA.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this request and we would ask that you provide the requested information by no later than November 8, 2013.  When producing documents, please deliver production sets to Senator Hatch's Finance Committee staff at 219 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.  20510, and to Senator Grassley's Judiciary Committee staff at 152 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510.  Whenever possible, both Committees prefer to receive documents in electronic format.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

HATCH
GRASSLEY

###
22 Oct 2013

False Claims Act Continues to Show Its Value

By Grassley Press

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Senator Chuck Grassley made the following statement after the Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund released a report showing that the False Claims Act provides a 20:1 benefit to cost ratio in fighting health care fraud for the federal government.

Grassley is the author of the 1986 law updating the federal False Claims Act.  His qui tam amendments empower whistleblowers to file suit on behalf of the federal government against contractors who fraudulently claim taxpayer dollars.  The law is the most successful tool of the federal government in rooting out fraud against the federal treasury, and has helped recover nearly $35 billion in taxpayer funds that would otherwise be lost.

"Time and time again the False Claims Act has proven its worth to taxpayers.  The law has empowered whistleblowers to come forward, risk their careers and root out the shady characters looking to give the taxpayer a bad deal.  In 1986 the focus was defense contractors.  Now, proving the law's flexibility and value, it's the most effective tool against health care fraud, as evidenced by the report released today.

"The threats to this successful law are constant.  Any efforts to undermine this successful law should be met with skepticism by the courts and Congress."
21 Oct 2013

Chuck Grassley's Capitol Hill Report

By Grassley Press

Audio from Senator Grassley's October 17th Capitol Hill Report is available here.

Pages

Subscribe & Listen to Reader Podcasts

On Stands Now

 

Tagged Content

    

Two Ways to Subscribe

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

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

Subscribe!

* indicates required

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

Get 12 issues mailed monthly for $48 per year.

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

Click this link to Subscribe now.