Washingtonians brace themselves for the flood of tourists who come to soak in the monuments, museums and memorials that attract millions of visitors to the nation's capital every year.  This summer is no exception.

In spite of humidity that puts even the hardiest tourist to the test, families come to show the next generation where the people's business has taken place since 1791.  That's when President George Washington selected what is now the District of Columbia to serve as the nation's capital.

America has expanded its borders, population and demographics since Jenkins' Hill was chosen as the site for the national legislature on the east end of the National Mall.  From here, Congress for more than 200 years has debated the laws governing our nation.  In addition to the U.S. Capitol building, visitors to Capitol Hill today will find the Supreme Court, Library of Congress and congressional office buildings.

A visit to Capitol Hill brings to life the earliest moments of our American democracy alongside the politics and policymaking of the 21st century.  Those who took a seat in the Senate visitor's gallery early this summer witnessed debate on immigration reform.  The Supreme Court handed down rulings bearing significant impact on the fabric of American society, reinforcing the limited powers of the federal government over states' rights.  As America prepares to celebrate its 237th birthday on the Fourth of July, the wonder of the republic more than two centuries later remains our system of self-government.

Even if Congress is not in session, visitors can appreciate the rich history of our democracy represented in art and sculpture.  The architectural magnificence of the Rotunda, which separates the respective wings of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives, without exception causes tourists to crane their necks to soak in the lifelike fresco "The Apotheosis of Washington" and the panoramic "Frieze of American History."

One of the most popular tourist spots in the U.S. Capitol is National Statuary Hall.  When the House of Representatives relocated to its current chamber in 1857, the historic space was converted into a gallery.  Each state was invited to donate two statues representing prominent leaders in their history.  The National Statuary Collection today is featured prominently throughout the Capitol.  Iowans will find statues representing two elected leaders from the 19th century:  James Harlan in the Hall of Columns and Samuel Kirkwood in Statuary Hall.  In the near future, Norman Borlaug's statue will replace James Harlan's statue.

This summer a historic addition to the Capitol's collection of 180 statues and busts was unveiled on the 148th anniversary of Juneteenth.  That's the date commemorating when President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation reached Texas on June 19, 1865.

The seven-foot bronze statue represents one of America's earliest civil rights leaders, abolitionist Frederick Douglass.  The former slave spent a lifetime championing equal rights, exposing injustices and influencing peers and presidents alike during a tumultuous time in U.S. history.

An African American born into slavery in Maryland in 1818, Douglass escaped at age 20 and dedicated his life to the emancipation of slaves, women's suffrage and the natural rights of each individual.

Using gifted oratorical skill, Douglass shared his compelling story as a self-taught slave who was beaten for teaching other slaves how to read and write.  An adviser to President Lincoln, Douglass tapped into a growing tide of public discontent to make good on America's most fundamental promises of freedom, equality under the law and justice for all.  His publications and speeches influenced the adoption of the 13th, 14th and 15th Constitutional Amendments, known as the Reconstruction Amendments.

Despite constant risks to his own safety, Douglass worked to spread the self-evident truths spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.  His personal testimony shaped his most enduring legacy as a champion for those denied equality and access to the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

As Douglass observed in an Independence Day speech in 1852, "What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July?"   The speech exposed the harsh contradiction of slavery with America's founding principles of freedom, liberty and independence.  Douglass went on to describe how the institution of slavery is contrary to these foundational principles, "Now, take the Constitution according to its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it.  On the other hand it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery."  Like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did more than a century later, Frederick Douglass used his tremendous gift for language to call Americans to help fully realize the principles we hold so dear for all Americans.

On this July 4th, let's remember our hometown heroes, our first responders and members of the military, who put their lives on the line to defend America's freedoms at home and abroad. As we celebrate with family, friends and neighbors, let's also remember the heroes of American history, including Frederick Douglass, whose legacy represents the principles of hope, opportunity and freedom upon which America was founded.

VISITING WASHINGTON, D.C.

 

Iowans planning a visit to Washington, D.C., are encouraged to contact Senator Grassley's office for tourist information and congressional tickets for tours, including the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Washington National Cathedral, and The Kennedy Center.  The earlier that requests are made - ideally four months or more in advance - the better, as these tickets are limited.  Senator Grassley's office will resume making arrangements for White House tours whenever White House tours are again made available.

 

In addition, Senator Grassley's office offers special staff-led tours of the U.S. Capitol and looks forward to accommodating visiting Iowans for this tour which covers more areas than accessible through the Capitol Visitors Center.

 

Constituents also may schedule a meeting with Senator Grassley during their trip.  For more information, call 202-224-3744, or go to www.grassley.senate.gov and click on "Constituent Services."  Both tour and meeting requests can be submitted under the "Visiting Washington D.C." tab.

by U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

 

The IRS is in hot water again.

I learned recently that the IRS has failed to take steps to stop bonuses to union members in spite of a clear directive from the White House Office of Management and Budget.  The directive instructs the IRS to stop all discretionary bonuses during the ongoing federal budget sequestration.

In fact, the IRS routinely claims to be short on resources.  Even so - and now with sequestration, as well - the IRS appears to have $70 million to spend on bonus payments to IRS employee union members.

The agency even seems to be making an extra effort to give the bonuses, despite opportunities to renegotiate with the union and an instruction to cease discretionary bonuses during sequestration.

There's no question that the IRS needs to answer to the taxpayers.  I sent a letter on Tuesday asking the Acting IRS Commissioner to explain why the agency seems to be on track to award some $70 million in discretionary bonuses to union members.

We've learned about the IRS arguably spitting on the rights of law-abiding citizens by targeting certain groups seeking tax-exempt status solely for their perceived political affiliation.  Now, the IRS may be thumbing its nose at taxpayers by giving tens of millions of dollars in bonuses when every part of the federal government needs to be tightening its belt.

This adds insult to injury in light of the revelation several weeks ago that the IRS has paid out more than $92 million in bonuses during the Obama administration.  Lois Lerner is the director of the IRS division that targeted political groups for scrutiny.  She pled the Fifth to avoid answering questions from Congress and is currently on paid administrative leave.  But, since 2009, she received more than $42,000 in bonuses.  Joseph Grant, the former head of the agency's tax exemption division, received $84,000.  Former Acting Commissioner Steven Miller received approximately $100,000 in bonuses since 2009.

Again, the public deserves a full explanation, and I'm working to get it from the IRS.

Q:        What do college-bound students need to know about student loans before school resumes this fall?

A:        Many young adults use the summer months to earn money to help pay for their college expenses in the year ahead.  Even with summer just having started, the first day of fall classes aren't too far behind.  However, most college-bound students will need to finance college tuition through school loans.  Last year, U.S. student loan debt exceeded $1 trillion.  The vast majority of student borrowing is from the federal Stafford Loan program.  Starting in July 2006, the interest rate on all Stafford Loans was set at 6.8 percent as a result of advocacy by student groups who determined that a fixed rate at 6.8 percent was a better deal for students given the history of the previous variable interest rates.  Approximately 40 percent of federal Stafford loans are awarded based on need with the taxpayers paying the interest on the loan while students are in school.  About 7.7 million undergraduate students are expected to apply for this subset of subsidized Stafford loans for the 2013-2014 academic year.  Special interest rates on these loans were set temporarily at 3.4 percent for the past two years.  On July 1, the original 6.8 interest rate is scheduled to be reinstated for all new Stafford loans.  Existing subsidized Stafford loans will not be affected by changes scheduled for July 1.  If the interest rate resets to 6.8 percent, the average student loan borrower would owe about $727 more in interest over 10 years, or $6.06 a month.

Q:        Are changes to the student loan system being considered in Washington?

A:        Various proposals reflect efforts to keep college affordable for students and their families.  Earning an advanced degree is one way to scale the economic ladder of mobility in the United States.  Although policymakers share a common goal to keep higher education attainable for the next generation, it is more difficult to reach a consensus on how to pay for that goal.  The President has proposed a long term solution linking interest rates for new Stafford loans to market interest rates so that students can take advantage of lower interest rates during more difficult economic times.  The House of Representatives passed legislation to revert to a variable rate system in which interest rates on student loans change from year to year based on the market rate.  Senate Democrats have proposed to continue the special 3.4 percent rate for another two years by raising taxes permanently.  Senate Republicans put forward a proposal closely aligned with the President's plan to link student loans to market-based interest rates.  And like fixed home mortgage loans, the rate would be locked in for the life of the loan.  However, while the President's plan maintains different rates for different loans, our plan would allow all students borrowing federal student loans to take advantage of the same low rate.  Let me repeat.  It would help all students take advantage of historically low interest rates, including loans available to parents and graduate students.  With the current Treasury note at 1.75 percent, students taking out a new loan this fall would pay 4.75 percent for the life of that loan.  Since 60 percent of federal student loans have remained at 6.8 percent since 2006, and most students who qualify for the subsidized 3.4 percent loans also have to take out loans at the higher rate, our proposal would result in greater savings for more students compared to the Senate Democrats' proposed extension of the special rate just for subsidized loans.  While it is uncertain which proposal will gain final approval, I will continue championing policies that address the exploding growth of college tuition and fees.  That includes my work to bring more transparency to college revenue and expenses.

Q:        Why is it so complicated to figure out a student's tuition tab?

A: A big part of the problem calls for a fairly simple solution:  Boil down the financial aid mumbo-jumbo into plain English.  Replacing the bewildering information that families receive from each college in which their students receive financial aid award letters with one boilerplate, easy-to-understand letter would be a welcome blessing to families across the country.  Under the current system, many families find it nearly impossible to make an informed decision.  Various definitions are used for grant aid (which does not need to be repaid) with student loans (which do need to be repaid).  That's why I'm working to separate the wheat from the chaff.  The bipartisan legislation I've cosponsored with Senator Al Franken of Minnesota would drive out the cobwebs tangling up financial aid literacy.  Called "Understanding the True Cost of College Act," our bill would create standard terms and definitions for college aid so students and families can make direct comparisons.  This would empower students to better understand their debt burden and avoid taking on more than they can afford.  Even better, this would help students shop around for the best value in the higher education marketplace.  As a result, more colleges would be inspired to rein in double-digit tuition hikes as they compete to keep up enrollment.

Friday, June 21, 2013

Grassley Seeks IRS Answers on Potential $70 Million in Union Bonuses

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa is pressing for answers from the IRS about why the agency is apparently on track to give $70 million in discretionary bonuses to union members contrary to guidance from the White House Office of Management and Budget and despite providing the union written notice on March 25, 2013, that it intended to eliminate the bonuses.

"The IRS says it's legally obligated to comply with its bargaining agreement," Grassley said.  "But the bargaining agreement says award funding is granted 'within applicable budget limitations' and can be changed with 60 days' notice.  If the IRS thinks it has to pay the bonuses, then why did it give notice in March that it was eliminating the awards?  The IRS needs explain that notice and make it available to the public."

Grassley said he received insight from a person with knowledge of IRS budgetary procedures alleging the agency is failing to take all legal steps to stop the bonuses to union members.

This information follows a revelation several weeks ago that the IRS has paid out more than $92 million in bonuses during the Obama administration.  Lois Lerner is the director of the IRS division that targeted political groups for scrutiny.  She pled the Fifth to avoid answering questions from Congress and is currently on paid administrative leave.  But, since 2009, she received more than $42,000 in bonuses.  Joseph Grant, the former head of the agency's tax exemption division, received $84,000.  Former Acting Commissioner Steven Miller received approximately $100,000 in bonuses since 2009.

An April 4, 2013, directive from the Office of Management and Budget instructs agencies to cease all discretionary bonuses during sequestration.  Grassley wrote to the acting IRS Commissioner this week to seek information about the status of the situation.  His letter is available here.

"The public deserves a full explanation, and I'm working to get it from the IRS," Grassley said.

-30-

BOXER, GRASSLEY, MANCHIN, TONKO INTRODUCE BILL TO CURB EXCESSIVE TAXPAYER-FUNDED SALARIES FOR GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS

A Government Report Released Today Found That Thousands of Government Contractors Currently Make More Than the Vice President

New Legislation Would Limit Taxpayer-Funded Reimbursement to $230,700 per Year, Extend Cap to All Contractor Employees

 

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Congressman Paul Tonko (D-NY) today introduced the Commonsense Contractor Compensation Act of 2013, bipartisan, bicameral legislation that would cap the maximum amount taxpayers reimburse all government contractors for their salaries at the same amount as the Vice President's salary, currently $230,700.

In a report released on Wednesday, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that reducing this cap to $230,700 would have saved at least $440 million annually for the years 2010-2012 just among the 27 contractors that provided data to the GAO - companies that together accounted for just 7 percent of Defense Department contract obligations for 2012.

"This stunning GAO report shows that thousands of government contractors are raking in taxpayer-funded salaries that are significantly more than what the Vice President of the United States and members of the President's Cabinet make," Senator Boxer said. "Taxpayers should not be on the hook for exorbitant government contractor salaries, and this bill will crack down on this waste of taxpayer dollars."

"The direct taxpayer-funded salaries of contractors government-wide clearly need to be contained, and this legislation is designed to do so in a comprehensive way," Senator Grassley said. "There's no justification for taxpayer-funded payments to be higher than the salary of the President's cabinet members."  

 

"To the people of West Virginia, it doesn't make any sense that taxpayers are paying executive contractors almost four times as much as we pay the Vice President or the Secretary of Defense," Senator Manchin said. "This commonsense proposal does not prevent contractors from earning higher salaries than this limitation; but now, taxpayers won't foot the bill. I am encouraged that this bill shares bipartisan support and will continue to work with both Democrats and Republicans to finally cap the compensation of executive contractors."

"When taxpayer-funded federal contractors take home up to four times the amount our military leadership earns, it is a problem that needs to be addressed," Congressman Tonko said. "This legislation is well overdue and the recently released report from the GAO that our bill will save taxpayers billions of dollars every year only reinforces the need to act now. I thank Senators Boxer, Grassley and Manchin for their leadership on this issue and look forward to continuing our work to put a stop to this wasteful and inefficient spending in Washington."

The Obama Administration recently came out in support of efforts to limit excessive pay for federal contractors, and predicted that it would save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

Right now, government contractors can bill taxpayers as much as $763,000 to pay for the salaries of their top five executives - an increase in real terms of 63 percent since the cap was set in 1998. Unless Congress acts soon to rein in these limits, the salary cap for top executives is expected to rise again - to $950,000 later this year.

The Commonsense Contractor Compensation Act would not only lower the salary cap to $230,700 - it would also extend the cap to cover all defense and civilian contractor employees. Currently, the $763,000 cap applies only to the salaries of defense contractors and the five leading executives of non-defense government contractors. Other employees of non-defense contractors can and do earn taxpayer-funded amounts in excess of the current benchmark.

The legislation includes a narrow exemption to the cap for scientists, engineers and other specialists if an agency determines it is necessary to ensure access to individuals with specialized skills. Additionally, the measure would only limit what an executive or other employee is paid by the federal government - the employee could still receive additional compensation from the contractor's other revenue streams.

Boxer and her colleagues have been working for several years to curb excessive taxpayer-funded salaries for government contractors. The new bill builds on their previous measures to limit taxpayer-funded salaries for defense contractor employees, which were included as part of the Senate-passed defense authorization bills in 2012 and 2011.

###

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa has been looking into how hospitals are using a discount prescription drug program, known as 340B.  Certain hospitals appear to be making sizeable profits from the program at the expense of Medicare, Medicaid and private health insurance.  An in-depth report from Kaiser Health News this month explored financial bonuses given to the leaders of several non-profit hospital systems for reasons including expansion of hospital operations.  Grassley staff research found that each system except for one discussed in the articles has at least one 340B-eligible hospital.  One of the medical systems in the Kaiser Health News coverage, Carolinas HealthCare System, was among three North Carolina hospital systems Grassley looked at as part of his interest in the 340B program.  Grassley made the following comment on 340B eligibility and hospital executive bonuses.

"Hospitals eligible for the 340B program are supposed to have a high indigent patient population.  If some 340B-eligible hospitals have significant money available for executive bonuses, that raises questions about how they allocate their resources.  Are they doing everything possible to help uninsured patients receive health care, including affordable prescription drugs?  I intend to continue looking into how hospitals are using the 340B program and how their uses affect other programs in the health care system."

The Kaiser Health News project on hospital executive bonuses is available here.  Grassley's earlier correspondence with the federal agency in the charge of the 340B program, the Health Resources and Services Administration, is available here and here.  Grassley's letter to HRSA citing the three N.C. hospitals is available here. Grassley's letters from the three hospitals are available here, here, and here.  Proprietary drug pricing information is redacted in some instances. Grassley's follow-up letter to the Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte is available here.

-30-

Q:        How would you rate the U.S. military's handling of sexual violence within its ranks?

A:        It's unacceptable.  The U.S. military gets a failing grade for prosecuting offenders and flunks its responsibility to protect innocent victims of sexual violence.  Called before Congress in May to account for its abysmal track record on this emotional issue, the top brass representing the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard was taken to the woodshed for failing to stop the spread of sexual violence among its ranks.  Public confidence in the military culture and its justice system has been shaken as sexual assaults within the U.S. Armed Forces have increased.  A recent Department of Defense Report reveals a 37 percent increase in cases of sexual assault or unwanted sexual contact, estimating 26,000 cases in fiscal year 2012.  That same report showed a nearly 10 percent drop in rates of reporting, with victims reporting only 3,374 incidents to military police or prosecutors.  Notably, less than one in 10 cases ended with a sexual assault conviction at court martial.  Talk about a chilling effect.  The low reporting rate signals a growing number of victims is either too embarrassed to come forward, too afraid of retaliation or resigned the offender won't be held accountable for the crime.  This is not an issue from which military leaders can retreat.  Sexual offenders must understand they will not get a pass from prosecution.  It's time for offenders and enablers to stand down and for those all along the chain of command to stand up for victims.

 

Q:        How can the U.S. military improve its efforts to prevent these crimes and hold offenders accountable?

A:        With decades of negligence under its belt, the top brass has lost credibility to fix this leadership failure.  The absence of valor among the uniformed chain of command is remarkably disappointing considering the U.S. military code of honor is based on integrity and fidelity to the rule of law.  Failing to crack down on a corrosive culture or on individuals who use sexual violence as a means of power will create lingering institutional problems that jeopardize morale and impact recruitment and retention of troops.  That's why I'm an original co-sponsor of bipartisan legislation that would remove prosecutorial decisions from the chain of command.  Instead, the offices of the military chiefs of staff would have authority and discretion to establish courts, empanel juries and choose judges to hear case in military courts.  This bipartisan bill - the Military Justice Improvement Act (S.967) sponsored by Senator Kirstin Gillibrand -- also would stop military authorities from granting clemency or a lesser offense to convicted offenders.  It removes the discretion of commanders to alter convictions.  It's time to reboot the U.S. military's failed approach towards sexual violence by reforming the military justice system, preventing sexual violence, empowering victims to come forward and prosecuting sex crimes.

Q:        Why is Congress getting involved in a military issue?

A:        Sexual assault is not a military issue.  It's a law enforcement issue.  Unfortunately, military commanders have a failed track record that stretches a country mile.  When young adults make the honorable commitment to serve their country in uniform and put themselves in harm's way to defend and protect America's freedoms, they deserve to know the U.S. military will stand up to protect their rights throughout their military service, including access to justice.  The bipartisan Military Justice Improvement Act would give members of the Armed Forces more confidence in the military system of justice, including protection from sexual violence and prosecution for those who violate the rule of law.

Monday, June 17, 2013

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley said today that fall internships for college-age Iowans are available and applications are due July 15.

These Senate internships are available in Grassley offices in Washington, D.C., Cedar Rapids, Council Bluffs, Davenport, Des Moines, Sioux City, and Waterloo.  The fall session is set to start August 26.

Interns assist staff members with administrative, legislative and communications work, including that of Grassley's staff on the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, where he serves as Ranking Member.  An internship during the fall semester allows for a wide range of exposure for students on Capitol Hill.  A firsthand account of a Grassley internship can be seen here.

Grassley said he encourages young Iowans who are interested in learning more about the government to apply.  "Working 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 work experience.  Internships in my offices are available to students in all areas of study," he said.

 

Application forms are available on Grassley's Senate 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, send messages to intern_applications@grassley.senate.gov or call 202-224-3744.

"Understanding the True Cost of College" Act Will Ensure Families Know Exact Cost of College When Deciding Which School to Attend

WASHINGTON, D.C. ?Today, a bipartisan group of senators introduced legislation to create a universal financial aid award letter so that families and students can easily compare financial aid packages from different schools. The legislation is led by Senators Al Franken of Minnesota and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and is cosponsored by Senate Education Committee Chairman Tom Harkin of Iowa, Marco Rubio of Florida, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Patty Murray of Washington, Ben Cardin of Maryland, Chuck Schumer of New York, Tom Carper of Delaware, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Chris Coons of Delaware, and Barbara Mikulski of Maryland.

Currently, schools do not use standard definitions or names for different types of aid, so students and families often report having difficulty differentiating between grant aid?which does not need to be repaid?and student loans, which do need to be repaid.

The Understanding the True Cost of College Act of 2013 would clarify what financial aid families will receive from a school and create standard terms for the aid offered so that students can accurately compare offers from different schools.

"Students in Minnesota graduate with the third highest average debt in the nation?nearly $30,000 each?and part of the problem is that they often don't have a clear picture of how much their education is going to actually cost them," said Sen. Franken. "My legislation will require schools to use a universal financial aid letter so students and their families will know exactly how much college will cost, and will help them compare apples to apples when deciding what school a student will attend."

"This initiative will empower students and parents with the information they need to make the best financial decision for their families and to avoid taking on more debt than they will be able to repay. The effort to fully inform is part of addressing the problem of student debt on the front end rather than after the fact. And, the more students and parents become savvy shoppers, the more colleges will be forced to rein in rising costs to compete for students," said Sen. Grassley.

"Last year, the amount of student loan debt owed by Americans surpassed $1 trillion, and that number is growing. It is important that students and their families have uniform, consumer-friendly information about the cost of college up-front so they can shop around, make apples-to-apples comparisons among colleges, and select a school that best meets their needs, in terms of both quality and affordability," said Sen. Harkin, who is Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. "Right now that is a difficult task since each school lists expenses differently. This bill will remove some of the mystery and guesswork for students and families as they navigate the higher education marketplace and empower them to make fully-informed decisions about where to attend."

"This legislation is an important step toward helping students and their families make truly informed decisions about their higher education options," said Sen. Rubio. "For the 21st century student to make smart financial decisions regarding college, we must equip them with easy-to-use and meaningful information about financial aid options available to them. Students will then be able to begin planning for their post-college careers from the beginning, and be prepared to enter today's competitive global workforce economy upon graduation."

The Understanding the True Cost of College Act would:

·           Require institutions of higher education to use a uniform financial aid award letter;

·           Call on the Department of Education to work with colleges, consumer groups, students, and school guidance counselors to develop standard definitions of various financial aid terms for use in the uniform financial aid award letters;

·           Establish what information must be included on page one of the uniform financial aid award letters, such as: cost of attendance, grant aid, work study assistance, eligible amounts of federal student loans, and the net amount a student is responsible for paying after subtracting grant aid.

·           Require the Department of Education to establish a process to consumer test the uniform financial aid award letter and use the results from the consumer testing in the final development of the uniform financial aid award letter.

More about the bill can be read here.

-30-
Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following comment on the disclosure that the White House did not raise any concerns or ask questions of a top aide - now the President's nominee for United States Trade Representative - about his offshore investments upon joining the White House staff, despite the President's condemnations of offshore investments and tax havens.  Grassley received answers to his questions from U.S. trade representative nominee Michael Froman for the Finance Committee hearing record.  The President has named three Cabinet-level nominees in recent months with offshore accounts.

"Despite the President's condemnations of offshore tax havens and his characterization of the Ugland House as 'the largest tax scam in the world,' his administration didn't ask a top aide about his investments in the Cayman Islands and the Ugland House.  If this were a priority, the White House would have asked a top adviser about these investments.  This is an example of the President's having one set of standards for his political opponents and another for his friends and supporters."

The responses to Grassley's questions for the hearing record are available here and here.

Pages