Click Here for the video of Senator Grassley questioning Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer regarding his knowledge of gunwalking being allowed by the ATF at the hearing.

Click Here for the Documents Senator Grassley Provided at the Hearing.

Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Chuck Grassley

Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism

"Combating International Organized Crime: Evaluating Current

Authorities, Tools and Resources"

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Yesterday Assistant Attorney General Breuer made a public statement regarding an ATF case known as Operation Wide Receiver.  In the statement, he said:

"When the allegations related to Operation Fast and Furious became public earlier this year, the leadership of ATF and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona repeatedly assured individuals in the Criminal Division and the leadership of the Department of Justice that those allegations were not true."

The Justice Department officially assured me that the allegations were not true.  On February 4, 2011, the Department sent me a letter that read: "ATF makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico."  However, as Mr. Breuer's admissions in yesterday's statement made clear, the Department's claim was not true.

According to documents received last night, Mr. Breuer's deputy asked the most basic question of Wide Receiver that anyone should have known to ask of Fast and Furious upon becoming aware of the number of guns involved: "[D]id ATF allow the guns to walk, or did ATF learn about the volume of guns after the FFL began cooperating?"  In Operation Wide Receiver, around 300 guns were walked by ATF.  In Fast and Furious, just 5 of the straw buyers were allowed to purchase nearly 1000 guns while an FFL was cooperating, while being watched by ATF, while their phone calls were being monitored by a wiretap approved by Justice Department headquarters, and while a prosecutor from headquarters was assigned to the case.

The headquarters prosecutor was assigned to Fast and Furious because of an email that ATF Director Ken Melson sent Mr. Breuer in December 2009.  Director Melson requested an attorney to work with ATF Phoenix Field Office on a case.  Mr. Breuer said it was a "terrific idea" and assigned someone from the Gang Unit by March 2010.

That same month, Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler?now the Attorney General's Chief of Staff?was being briefed in person on investigative details of Fast and Furious.  The briefing included a very detailed PowerPoint presentation from ATF, and Mr. Grindler made a number of hand-written notes on a print-out of the PowerPoint.  The PowerPoint included such details as the fact that by March 12, one straw buyer had already bought as many guns as were ever walked in Wide Receiver.  The PowerPoint also included a map of where in Mexico guns were being recovered and the amount of money each straw buyer had spent on the gun purchases, most in the tens of thousands of dollars, along with a note from Mr. Grindler saying "all cash."

The American people?and especially the family of murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry?deserve answers from the Justice Department about why they claim they didn't know gunwalking was occurring in Operation Fast and Furious when the department's fingerprints are all over it.

-30-

WASHINGTON -- On Oct. 3, Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) wrote to the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), seeking an explanation for the agency's missed deadline for drafting the implementing details of the Physician Payment Sunshine Act (Sunshine Act), a new law requiring public disclosure of the financial relationships between physicians and the pharmaceutical, medical device and biologics industries.  The administrator responded.  The senators made the following comments on the response.

Sen. Grassley comment: "The administrator's response doesn't tell us anything new.  There's no explanation for the delay and no indication of when to expect completion.   It's an inadequate response any way you look at it.  Meanwhile, the U.S. government just settled with a medical device maker for $2.4 million over allegations of kickbacks to doctors to use the company's products.  The payments to doctors are the kind that might be prevented through disclosure as soon as the Sunshine Act is in place.  The longer we wait, the more taxpayers miss out on the benefits.   I'll continue to press for answers from CMS."

Sen. Kohl comment: "Given how straightforward and detailed the Sunshine Act provisions were, it's troubling that the response to our letter would come a month late without any indication on progress, a timeline or what caused the delay.  With medical device and pharmaceutical companies facing the January 1, 2012 deadline to begin collecting information about all payments to physicians, the lack of guidance leaves a great deal of uncertainty and I'm sure that's why many of the affected companies have joined us in calling for swift implementation." 

Here's an article describing the settlement referred to in Sen. Grassley's comment.

Fraud and Abuse

California Medical Device Maker to Pay $2.4 Million to Settle Kickback Charges

By Tom Gilroy

LOS ANGELES–A San Jose, Calif., maker of devices to treat spinal fractures has agreed to pay the United States $2.4 million to settle Department of Justice allegations that the company paid kickbacks to induce physicians to use its products, DOJ said in an Oct. 26 announcement (United States ex rel. Eberhard v. DFine Inc., W.D. Tenn., No. 10-CV-2474, settlement announced 10/26/11).

The settlement, which came as a result of a qui tam whistleblower lawsuit brought under the False Claims Act, resolves the government's contention that DFine Inc. used customer surveys, known as User Preference Evaluations (UPEs), to pay participating doctors illegal kickbacks to induce them to use DFine's vertebral augmentation devices.

"Although DFine ostensibly collected product information from participating physicians, each UPE survey required use of a new DFine device in a patient, the majority of which were Medicare beneficiaries," DOJ noted.

$500 Payment to Fill Out Survey

In each case, DFine paid the physicians $500 per patient to participate in the survey, DOJ added. The government also alleged that DFine provided improper remuneration in the form of travel expenses, lavish dinners, entertainment, and promotional speaker fees to doctors located in Chicago and Little Rock, Ark. DFine also solicited doctors to convert their business from a competitor's product and/or persuaded the physicians to continue to use DFine products, DOJ alleged.DOJ charged that DFine's alleged conduct violated the anti-kickback statute, which prohibits offering or paying remuneration to induce referrals or services covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or other federally funded programs. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The investigation of the case was handled by the DOJ's Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Tennessee, and the Office of Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Company Admits No Wrongdoing

In a statement, DFine said it fully cooperated with the investigation and "continues to deny all of DOJ's unproven allegations."The terms of the agreement specifically state that DFINE and its employees admit no wrongdoing, liability or illegal activity," the statement said. "The decision to settle prior to completing the full investigation was a very difficult one, but one we felt was best for the company based upon the significant disruption and associated costs to continue the investigation, as well as the uncertainty regarding its duration."According to the settlement, the company was represented by Leo Cunningham and Lee-Anne V. Mulholland of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. The settlement is at http://op.bna.com/hl.nsf/r?Open=bbrk-8n3rv2.

 
October, 25, 2011

Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley made the following statement after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a staff report that found drug companies entered into 28 potential pay-for-delay deals between October 1, 2010 and September 30, 2011.

Grassley, along with Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, is the author of legislation that would end these settlements between generic and brand name drug companies that keep more affordable generics off the market.  The senators also sent a letter to the Deficit Reduction Committee encouraging them to use their legislation as a cost-saving measure.   The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Grassley-Kohl bill will save the federal government - which pays approximately one-third of all prescription costs - $2.68 billion over ten years.  The Federal Trade Commission estimates that ending these settlements would save consumers who pay for prescription drugs through private insurance or on their own $3.5 billion per year.   The Washington Post also editorialized about the issue today.

Here's Grassley's comment.

"The pay-for-delay tactics employed by brand name and generic drug companies only benefit those companies that engage in such settlements.  It hurts consumers who don't have access to affordable medications, and it hurts taxpayers who pay for prescription drugs in both Medicare and Medicaid.  The FTC's study shows a remarkable continuation of a practice that puts the interests of drug companies above the interests of consumers.  No one has to engage in such deal making at the expense of consumers, and it's time to put an end to it."

According to the FTC staff report, companies reached 156 final patent settlements in fiscal 2011, and 28 of those settlements contained a payment to a generic manufacturer which restricted the generic company's ability to market its product. The FTC went on to say that "Of those 28 settlements, 18 involved generics that were so-called 'first filers,' meaning that they were the first to seek FDA approval to market a generic version of the branded drug, and, at the time of the settlement, were eligible to exclusively market the generic product for period of time." The FTC press release explains that "Because of the regulatory framework, when first filers delay entering the market, other generic manufacturers can also be blocked from entering the market, which makes such patent settlement deals particularly harmful to consumers."

-30-

Sens. Franken, Grassley, Lead Bipartisan Group in Pressing for Investigation of Mobile Phone "Stalking Apps" that Allow Abusers to Secretly Track Victims

Senators Ask Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission to Look Into Legality of Apps

WASHINGTON, D.C.?Today, U.S. Sens. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) led a bipartisan group of Senators in calling on key federal agencies for an investigation into mobile phone "stalking apps."  The apps are designed to allow domestic abusers and stalkers to secretly track a victim's movement and location, read a victim's email and text messages, or listen to a victim's phone calls?all without the victim's knowledge or consent.

Sens. Franken and Grassley wrote a letter to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice and urged the agencies to determine whether such apps are legal under current law. The letter was also signed by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

"Stalking apps are dangerous," the Senators wrote in the letter. "We ask that you quickly determine if they are also illegal. If so, we ask that the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission use their full force to investigate and prosecute those behind the development and marketing of these products for illegal stalking."

Stalking apps are directly marketed to individuals seeking to secretly track their spouses and intimate partners. "Worried about your spouse cheating?" one apps' website asked, offering the ability to "Track EVERY text, EVERY call and EVERY Move They make Using our EASY Cell Phone Spy Software." Other apps make similar claims, telling users that they can "track her movements throughout the day" or even "tap her actual phone call." According to 2006 Bureau of Justice Statistics data, some 26,000 Americans are victims of GPS stalking annually, including by cell phone?although most advocates believe that number if considerably larger in 2011.

The letter cites an example of a victim from St. Louis County, Minnesota, who was tracked by her abuser through her smartphone during her trips to various county buildings to obtain an Order of Protection against him.  This example was drawn from testimony submitted by the Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women and the National Network to End Domestic Violence to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law, which Franken chairs.

You can read the full text of the letter below.

 

The Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Attorney General

Department of Justice

 

The Honorable Jon Liebowitz

Chairman

Federal Trade Commission

 

Dear Attorney General Holder and Chairman Liebowitz:

We are writing to express our urgent concern about the proliferation and use of so-called "stalking apps"?mobile apps for cell phones and smartphones that allow a domestic abuser or stalker to continuously and secretly monitor a victim's movements and whereabouts.  Based on 2006 data, the Bureau of Justice Statistics has estimated that more than 26,000 persons are victims of GPS stalking annually, including by cell phone.  Reports from advocates?and the boom in mobile technology?strongly suggest that this figure is much higher in 2011.  We ask that your agencies investigate whether the developers and distributors of stalking apps are in compliance with all applicable federal criminal and consumer protection laws.

In testimony submitted for a May 2011 hearing before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law, the Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women and the National Network to End Domestic Violence recounted the disturbing experience of a Minnesota woman who was stalked through her smartphone:

In a recent case in Northern St. Louis County, MN, an advocate reported that a woman who entered the domestic violence program located within a county building received a text message from her abuser within five minutes of entering the building. The abuser asked why she was in the county building. The woman was extremely frightened and the advocate helped her obtain an Order for Protection (OFP) at the local courthouse. After filing the OFP, the woman received another text message asking why she went to the courthouse and if she was filing an OFP against him. The only device the woman had on her was her smart phone and they later concluded that her abuser was tracking her via a location tracking application or service on her phone.

This excerpt reflects just one example of numerous cases of stalking through mobile devices.

Stalking applications are widely available and simple to install, usually by a spouse or intimate partner.  Anyone who leaves their mobile phone alone for five minutes could have stalking software installed without their knowledge. See Ben Goldacre, "How I Stalked My Girlfriend," The Guardian (Jan. 31, 2006).  Once installed, stalking apps can allow an abuser to listen to his victim's phone calls, read her emails and text messages, and track her real-time GPS location?entirely without the victim's knowledge or consent.

These apps are openly marketed to individuals who are trying to stalk or "spy" on an unwitting victim.  "Worried about your spouse cheating?" one app's website asks.  "Track EVERY text, EVERY call and EVERY Move They make Using our EASY Cell Phone Spy Software." Another app brags that its software will "turn a mobile into a secret gps [sic] tracking device." Still another site advertises that it will allow a user to "[t]rack her movements throughout the day," "[k]now what number she is calling or receiving," and even "tap her actual phone call."

Location-based services (LBS) offer consumers numerous benefits.  They help users navigate commutes and avoid traffic, help locate lost or stolen wireless devices, and also help parents keep track of their families.  Indeed, most major wireless carriers offer their customers legitimate services that allow them to track the locations of the users of their calling plans?especially minor children.  While these services can be abused by individual customers, all major carriers take precautions pursuant to voluntary industry guidelines to notify a wireless user that he or she is being tracked through one of these services.

In contrast, stalking apps abuse and misuse LBS to affirmatively facilitate stalking.  Indeed, these apps are designed to run secretly on a victim's phone and are actually marketed to abusers as being "undetectable."  While many of these apps also advertise themselves as a mechanism for parents to keep tabs on their minor children, their design and marketing suggests that this is an attempt to legitimize an otherwise suspect activity.  We believe that in most cases, stalking apps' intrusion into victims' privacy and their potential for abuse will far outweigh any legitimate purpose that these apps may serve.

Stalking apps are dangerous.  We ask that you quickly determine if they are also illegal.  If so, we ask that the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission use their full force to investigate and prosecute those behind the development and marketing of these products for illegal stalking.

-30-

Senator Grassley to Receive Community Health Defender Award

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - On Tuesday, October 25, Senator Charles Grassley will be presented with the National Association of Community Health Centers' 2011 Distinguished Community Health Defender Award.

Senator Grassley will accept the award at 4:00 p.m. at Linn Community Care at 1201 3rd Avenue, SE in Cedar Rapids.

This award recognizes the contributions of Senator Grassley to preserve, strengthen, and expand access to America's health centers, which are providers of high-quality, cost effective health care for America's medically underserved.

"We are honored to present this award to Senator Grassley," said Ted Boesen, Executive Director of the Iowa Primary Care Association (Iowa PCA). "He has long been a supporter of the community health center program and its mission to provide quality, affordable health care services to the underserved."

The Iowa PCA's members include the state's 14 community health centers, which provide affordable, quality, comprehensive primary health care for more than 170,000 Iowans. For more information and a complete list of Iowa's community health centers, visit www.iowapca.org.

###

Friday, Oct. 21, 2011

WASHINGTON - In an effort to ensure greater accountability in the Justice Department's distribution of money to grant recipients, Sen. Chuck Grassley offered an amendment to the appropriations bill being debated in the United States Senate that would include an 11-point accountability plan for federal grants administered by the Department of Justice.  The amendment offered Thursday was defeated by a vote of 46 to 54 on mostly party lines.  Grassley said he will continue to pursue the measure, despite the special interests that worked hard to defeat his amendment and protect their continued stream of federal funds.

"We have non-partisan audits showing that taxpayer money is being abused and wasted  in federal grant programs." Grassley said.  "We need transparency, accountability, and performance from both the Justice Department and individual grantees who are trusted with federal dollars.  It's a shame we're wasting taxpayer dollars like this when we can immediately do something to begin to remedy the problem.

"And it's a shame that something this basic fell on partisan lines when this shouldn't be a partisan issue, but it just goes to show that reforms to Washington's spending addiction will be hard to come by, given the continued power special interests have.  It also reinforces the need for the Deficit Committee to come up with big and bold ideas.  The outcome also tells me I need to continue to educate my fellow members about the problems that come from granting money without enough accountability and to consider whether it's fair to grant taxpayer money to non-profit groups as long as they have their own money parked offshore to avoid federal taxes."

Grassley said the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, the national umbrella group for hundreds of clubs around the country, continued receiving tax dollars while using off-shore tax shelters, paying generous executive compensation and lobbyists' fees, and simultaneously closing clubs due to an alleged lack of funds.   "I support the mission of the Boys and Girls Clubs.  The local clubs help thousands of children every year," Grassley said. "However, given our current fiscal crisis, I can't support federal taxpayer dollars being awarded as grants to those who hold millions of dollars in rainy day funds off-shore.  My amendment doesn't prohibit charities from investing offshore.  It just says they can't get federal grants if they invest offshore to avoid taxes on their investment income.  When organizations have funding and resources available to them, it's not clear why they shouldn't be dipping into those rainy day funds before seeking federal money."

A nearly identical version of the accountability package was included as part of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act Reauthorization Act voted out of the Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan basis just last week.  Select pieces were previously approved as part of the Second Chance Act reauthorization this past July.

Grassley also submitted last week a similar plan, along with several other ideas, to the Deficit Reduction Committee.  Grassley's letter can be found here.

Grassley's 11-point accountability plan:

o   required the OIG to audit 10 percent of grantees,

o   required mandatory exclusion for those with negative audit findings unremedied after 6 months, with priority placed to those with no past negative audit findings,

o   required reimbursement for funds awarded erroneously to grant recipients that should have been excluded,

o   required a mandatory 25 percent match with no less than 60 percent of the 25 percent constituting cash,

o   prohibited non-profits that hold money off-shore for purposes of avoiding unrelated business income tax from receiving federal grants,

o   capped administrative expenses at 8 percent, limited conference expenditures, prohibited grantees' lobbying, and

o   required the Office of Justice Programs Assistant Attorney General to certify to Congress annual compliance with these provisions.

Grassley said an audit of the Government Accountability Office of nine Trafficking Victims Protection Act grants over the last five years found fraud in all nine grants, including more than $1.4 million in questioned costs on a $1.7 million grant.

Violence Against Women Act grants were also susceptible to fraud; 21 of 22 randomly selected grants over 10 years revealed significant fraud and abuse, including one audit where 93 percent of grant funds were questioned by the Inspector General.

So far in 2011, the Inspector General has audited 21 grant recipients with grant funding totaling $54 million and has questioned the use of more than 26 percent of these grant dollars.  If the random audits the Inspector General has conducted were extrapolated to all 3,467 grants DOJ has awarded in 2011, totaling more than $2 billion, that would mean more than $500 million of grants administered could have questionable costs.  "That's just an extrapolation but it reinforces the need for a higher percentage of grants to be audited, as my amendment would require," Grassley said.

 

-30-

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley today said that legislation to strengthen and update the Whistleblower Protection Act unanimously passed the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.

Grassley is one of the primary authors of the bill, known as the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act.  The bill was introduced on April 6.  The legislation is sponsored by Senator Daniel K. Akaka of Hawaii and is cosponsored by Grassley along with Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Carl Levin of Michigan, Tom Carper of Delaware, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Ben Cardin of Maryland, and Chris Coons of Delaware.

"Whistleblowers come forward when it isn't easy.  They risk their livelihoods to bring the truth to light.  Yet, they are often vilified by their supervisors and coworkers for doing the right thing and revealing fraud, waste and abuse in the federal government," Grassley said.  "Moving the bill through committee is a step in the right direction, but further improvements, like adding timelines for the Attorney General to address FBI whistleblower retaliation cases, are necessary to make sure these cases don't languish at the Justice Department, as two have for more than 5 years."

The legislation would:

  • clarify that "any" disclosure of gross waste or mismanagement, fraud, abuse, or illegal activity may be protected, but not disagreements over legitimate policy decisions;
  • suspend the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals sole jurisdiction over federal employee whistleblower cases for five years;
  • extend Whistleblower Protection Act coverage and other non-discrimination and anti-retaliatory laws to all employees of the Transportation Security Administration;
  • clarify that whistleblowers may disclose evidence of censorship of scientific or technical information under the same standards that apply to disclosures of other kinds of waste, fraud, and abuse;
  • codify the anti-gag provision that has been part of every Transportation-Treasury Appropriations bill since 1988;
  • allow jury trials under certain circumstances for a period of five years;
  • provide the Merit System Protection Board with authority to consider and grant summary judgment motions in Whistleblower Protection Act cases for a period of 5 years;
  • clarify that employees protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act may make protected classified disclosures to Congress using the same process as Intelligence Community employees;
  • establish protections for the Intelligence Community modeled on existing whistleblower protections for FBI employees;
  • establish a process within the executive branch for review if a security clearance is allegedly denied or revoked because of a protected whistleblower disclosure;
  • establish Whistleblower Protection Ombudsmen to educate agency personnel about whistleblower rights; and
  • provide the Office of Special Counsel with the independent right to file "friend of the court" briefs, or amicus briefs, with federal courts.

A long-time advocate for whistleblowers, in addition to co-authoring the 1989 whistleblower law, Grassley sponsored changes made in 1986 to the President Lincoln-era federal False Claims Act to empower private sector whistleblowers.  Since the 1986 amendments were signed into law, the False Claims Act has brought back more than $27 billion to the federal treasury, and has deterred even more fraudulent activity. In 2009, in coordination with Senator Patrick Leahy, Grassley worked to pass legislation to shore up whistleblower protections in the False Claims Act that had been eroded by the courts after years of litigation by defense and healthcare contractors.

Grassley is also the author of legislation that would give whistleblower protections to employees in the legislative branch as provided already to employees of the executive branch of government. He recently won approval of an amendment that would give whistleblower protections to employees in the judicial branch.  The amendment was added to a bill considered in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

-30-
Today, as Congress begins the long anticipated overhaul of the nation's education policy known as No Child Left Behind, one vulnerable group of students - too often left out of the debate -- will roar into its center.

In an effort to focus attention on the unlocked potential of these students, the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute (CCAI) and Fostering Media Connections (FMC) held a "National Conversation" on foster care and education, linking policymakers in Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles with researchers in Chicago and teachers and former foster youth in Sacramento via webcast. The conversation during this unprecedented nationwide event mirrored the themes detailed in "Rescuing Forgotten Futures," an Action Guide released by CCAI and FMC today, which outlines how everyone from citizens to policymakers can help improve educational outcomes for foster youth.

"Every foster youth deserves a high quality education with an academic mentor and the opportunity to stay in his or her school of origin. With the Senate education committee rewriting the Elementary and Secondary Education Act this week, it is important that they include provisions that ensure school stability for foster youth," said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), who joined the "National Conversation."  "I have long fought for the right of children in foster care to get the quality education every child deserves, and I will continue to advocate for them to receive the support and guidance they need to have a chance to succeed in the future."

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who co-chairs the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth alongside Sen. Landrieu, pointed to the importance of the "National Conversation" in finding answers to the challenges students face in foster care.

"A major issue for young people in foster care is how difficult the system makes it to stay in the same school.  A child might get a new foster placement that's only a few miles away from where he's been but have to switch schools because of school district rules.  Finding a way to avoid this upheaval needs to be a policy goal at every level of government.  Discussions like this one can help encourage the debate and bring about a meaningful response," Sen. Grassley said.  "School life offers valuable opportunities for kids to make healthy, lasting connections, and young people in foster care would benefit tremendously from the chance to do so, especially given the challenging and even painful uncertainty so many of them face elsewhere in their lives."

For 26-year-old Derrick Riggins, who grew up in foster care and now works on Capitol Hill after working as a CCAI Foster Youth intern, this was especially true.

"Education is one of the most important tools we can provide for children in foster care," Riggins said. "It is a tool that can be used to open many doors and provide a way out of the child welfare system cycle."

Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, George Sheldon, pointed to the need for strong inter-agency collaboration between education and child welfare administrations to unlock the very doors Riggins referred to.

"We recognize how critically important educational stability is for kids in foster care, whose lives are already full of disruption, " Sheldon said.  "We also know that the child welfare system alone can't guarantee their educational success.  That's why we are working closely and intensely with our partners at the Department of Education to facilitate the right connections between key state and local agencies to make sure these kids get the consistent and high quality education they deserve."

Cheryl Smithgall, a Research Fellow with Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, one of the nation's top institutions in research around children's issues, joined the "National Conversation," and made clear that improvement in education is directly linked to educational agencies' ability to focus attention on vulnerable students.

"To the extent that policymakers are interested in the underperformance of schools, they need to be interested in vulnerable children," Smithgall said. "Research shows that early developmental and educational experiences are critical to later educational success.  As we contemplate child welfare and education policies and attempt to foster greater collaboration between the two systems, we need to think about how best to expose vulnerable children and their parents to high-quality developmental and educational supports as early in their lives as possible, and how to keep those supports in place when transitions occur in their lives."

Indeed, an amendment addressing the educational needs of students in foster care is expected to be included in Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee's deliberations, indicating that this sensitivity to vulnerable children will help drive the priorities of the national education debate: the potential in these young people is an undeniable American resource.

The fact is that every day that we allow the educational needs of our foster youth to go unaddressed, is another day of lost potential for our country," said Kathleen Strottman, executive director of CCAI. "My experience with these youth makes me confident that they are our future doctors, lawyers, business entrepreneurs, and political leaders.  Their voice in today's conversation is but one example of how ready they are to lead us into the future."

The "National Conversation" also featured Rep. Karen Bass, a former Sacramento teacher who is dedicated to improving the lives of foster youth; Jetaine Hart, a former foster youth and educational mentor for students in foster care; and Derrick Riggins, Madison Sandoval-Lunn, and Christina Miranda who are CCAI Foster Youth Interns. The event was webcast from Consumnes River College in Sacramento, home to the Enriched Scholars Program which is helping dozens of foster youth succeed in community college. Advocates hosted viewing gatherings across the country including Washington, West Virginia and Massachusetts.

###
Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2011

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following comment on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) continued delays in implementing the Physician Payment Sunshine Act (Sunshine Act), a new law requiring public disclosure of the financial relationships between physicians and the pharmaceutical, medical device and biologics industries.

"It's disappointing that the agency is going so slowly on this issue.  Of all the undertakings for CMS, this seems like one of the most straightforward tasks.  The law was enacted a year and a half ago, and the legislation was pending for a long time before that.  It wasn't a surprise.  I'll continue to look for CMS to get this done sooner rather than later."

The Sunshine Act requires manufacturers to report all payments to physicians, including consulting fees, honoraria, travel and entertainment, and for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to publicly disclose the identity of the manufacturer, physician, and the drug or device associated with the payment on the Internet. Additionally, the law requires manufacturers and group purchasing organizations (GPOs) to report all ownership or investment interests held by physicians or members of their family, and for making that information public. The law required the federal government to establish guidance on how manufacturers submit information and how the information would be made available to the public no later than Oct. 1, 2011.

After CMS missed the deadline, Grassley and Sen. Herb Kohl wrote to the agency, asking for a description of the status and reason for delay.  The senators asked for a written response by Friday, Oct. 14.  So far, no written response has been forthcoming.

Grassley and Kohl's Oct. 3 letter to the agency is available here.  In November 2010, Grassley and Kohl urged HHS to issue guidelines to companies in anticipation of the Sunshine Act's implementation.  Details are available here.

Kohl is chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging and Grassley is ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and formerly was ranking member and chairman of the Committee on Finance.  They sponsored the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, which became law as part of the health care overhaul enacted last year.

 

-30-

Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Chuck Grassley

Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Oversight Hearing of the Department of Homeland Security

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Oversight is a critical function and a constitutional responsibility of the legislative branch.  It's often an overlooked function for members of Congress.  It's not always glamorous.  It's hard work, and it can be frustrating because of bureaucratic stonewalling.

In 2008, I was glad to hear the President-elect talk about the most transparent government ever.  Unfortunately, up to this point, this administration has been far from transparent.

I'm glad the Secretary is here today.  This hearing will give us an opportunity to ask questions that have gone unanswered.  I'm frustrated by the less than forthcoming answers we receive from the administration.

We need a little bit more straight talk from this administration.  This Senator, for one, feels as though our concerns are often dismissed.

For example, just this week, 19 Senators received a response to a letter we sent to the President about immigration policies.  The response didn't come from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  It didn't even come from Secretary Napolitano.  It came from a bureaucrat in the Office of Legislative Affairs.  The response was non-responsive.  It's as if our concerns are trivial and insignificant

The issue we wrote to the President about was the prosecutorial discretion directives being issued by the Department of Homeland Security.

In June of this year, Assistant Secretary Morton released a memo directing and encouraging Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to exercise prosecutorial discretion.  Officers were asked to consider the alien's length of presence in the U.S., the circumstances of the alien's arrival in the U.S., particularly if the alien came as a young child, their criminal history, age, service in the military, and pursuit of education in the U.S.

On August 18, Secretary Napolitano announced an initiative to establish a working group to sort through an untold number of cases currently pending before the immigration and federal courts to determine if they can be "administratively closed."

Combined, this memo and this initiative are alarming, especially to those of us who firmly believe in the rule of law.  These policies seem to contradict that very important philosophy.

We have many unanswered questions from this administration about their prosecutorial discretion initiatives.  For example, how many cases will the working group sort through?  What standards will be used for adjudicating cases?  Will those already ordered removed be considered for relief?  Will those with a criminal conviction be eligible for discretion?  How much in taxpayer money will be expended for this effort and when will the working group finish its work?  What will happen to individuals who have their cases "administratively closed"?

We want answers.  We want transparency and accountability.  We want to be a part of the process.  The American people are shareholders, and they deserve to be consulted when major immigration policy is being formulated.

Americans also want to be told the truth.

That brings me to my frustration about the administration's deceptive marketing tactics in claiming that they have deported more undocumented people than ever before.  Secretary Napolitano continues to use statistics that are inflated and inconsistent with the official data produced by the Office of Immigration Statistics.  The Office of Immigration Statistics has been around for a while - since 1883 to be exact.  I'd like to know why the Secretary cherry-picks what numbers she wants to use and refuses to use the statistics provided by the Office of Immigration Statistics.

The department has a credibility problem here.  The Washington Post uncovered the story last December.  Their headline says it all:  "Unusual Methods help ICE break deportation record."  The administration, including the Secretary, use figures prepared by ICE.   ICE uses a different methodology, counting deportations from previous years and operating a repatriation program longer to pad the numbers.  The Office of Immigration Statistics, on the other hand, only counts removals that actually took place during that year.  Let me provide another example.  Secretary Napolitano gave a speech at American University on October 5th, saying that in 2010, ICE removed over 195,000 convicted criminals.  However, the official statistic from the Office of Immigration Statistics is 168,500.  That's a difference of 27,000.

The point is - we don't know what to believe.  The department is using different methodologies from one year to the next.  Homeland Security personnel, according to the Washington Post, are encouraging immigration officials to do what they can to increase the overall removal number.  There's funny business going on, and the department's credibility is at stake.

But, don't just take it from me.  Even the President acknowledged that the numbers are dubious.   During a recent online discussion aimed at Hispanic voters, President Obama said that, "the statistics are a little deceptive."

So, I'd like to hear from the Secretary why they continue to use these "deceptive" statistics, and why the department chooses to use ICE figures, which are embellished and inconsistent, rather than the data from the Office of Immigration Statistics.

I'd also like assurances, which I have asked for repeatedly, that this administration isn't using creative ways to keep as many undocumented people in this country.  I have been voicing concern about this since the amnesty memo was released last summer.  We've talked a lot about deferred action and parole, but there were many more ideas in the memo.  For example, one of the most egregious options laid out in the memo was a proposal to lessen the "Extreme Hardship" standard.  Under current law, aliens are inadmissible for 3 or 10 years if they have been unlawfully present in the U.S. for more than 180 days or one year, respectively.  The department has discretion to waive the grounds of inadmissibility if it would result in extreme hardship.  The amnesty memo states, "To increase the number of individuals applying for waivers, and improve their chances for receiving them, Citizenship and Immigration Services could issue guidance or a regulation specifying a lower evidentiary standard for "extreme hardship."  Proponents argue this is needed for family unity, and that the 3- and 10-year bars are overly burdensome.

If the standard is lessened, untold numbers of undocumented individuals will be able to bypass the 3-year and 10-year bars that are clearly laid out in the Immigration and Nationality Act.  I expect to hear from the Secretary if such a plan is being discussed by anyone within the department.  If it is, I will warn her that such an action, in my opinion, would be another blatant attempt to circumvent Congress and the laws we put in place.

On a final matter related to immigration, I'm very concerned by the administration's inconsistent position when it comes to suing states for enacting various immigration laws.  The administration has sued Arizona and Alabama, two states that have enacted laws requiring their law enforcement officers to cooperate with the federal government on immigration matters.  News reports claim that attorneys are considering challenges to other state laws, including Utah, Georgia, Indiana, and South Carolina.

But, what about cities and states that ignore federal law?  What about Cook County, Illinois, where the county adopted a new policy that orders sheriffs to ignore all federal requests to detain immigrants after they complete their sentence or post bail?  According to the Washington Post, "Less than a month after the board acted, more than 40 suspected illegal immigrants charged with or convicted of felonies have walked to freedom instead of into the arms of federal agents."  This policy clearly puts the public at risk.

The administration should be working with states, not against them, to enforce our immigration laws.  This latest attempt to challenge a state's efforts to enforce the rule of law, while turning a blind eye to cities and states that knowingly harbor illegal immigrants through sanctuary policies, is undermining the very same rule of law that our country was built on.  I would like to know the Secretary's thoughts about the actions of Cook County.

Next, I am interested to hear about efforts to slim down the Department of Homeland Security's massive bureaucracy in order to make it more efficient in executing its mission.  I know that another committee is working on that issue, but it is also of concern to this committee because redundancy in programs inevitably leads to poor coordination of effort and waste of resources.  Every dollar available to the department should be spent on securing our borders, protecting critical infrastructure, and identifying and catching terrorists.  Thus, I am especially interested in learning about the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Policy, which has almost 200 personnel and more than $50 million for its budget.  I should note that I am not singling out Homeland Security in this regard; just last week I sent a letter to the Super-Committee urging the elimination of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy as a way to save money, since its functions seem redundant of other offices.   My consistent goal is to identify organizational reforms that will streamline the bureaucracy, save money, and better accomplish the mission.

I am also interested in hearing about how the department is implementing recommendations to improve FEMA's process for awarding preparedness grants.  In 2010, the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, found that FEMA "does not compare and coordinate grant applications across preparedness programs to mitigate potential duplications and redundancy."  As a result, 11 of the 13 programs that GAO reviewed allowed grant recipients to purchase interoperable communications equipment, such as radios.  GAO found that a single state agency could apply simultaneously to four of those programs and receive funding from all four.  FEMA would not realize the redundancy because it has different review processes for each of the four programs.  Similarly, GAO found that the responsibility for program management of the thirteen grants is split among five organizations.  Thus, for one program, the Office of Infrastructure Protection selects critical infrastructure sites for funding to enhance protection, but cannot validate with FEMA whether an applicant has requested similar protection under other grant programs.  Again, this type of redundancy inevitably leads to waste of resources and undermines the mission of the Department of Homeland Security.  I am eager to hear how the department has addressed this problem.

Finally, I have asked Secretary Napolitano in the past about the involvement of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer being detailed in Phoenix to ATF's Operation Fast and Furious.  I also asked Secretary Napolitano at a hearing back in June about whether she had had any communications about Fast and Furious with her former chief of staff, Dennis Burke, who was the U.S. Attorney in Arizona responsible for Fast and Furious.  I did not get any response back from her.  Mr. Burke is to be commended, to some extent, for being the only person to resign and take responsibility for the failed operation.  Of course, I do not believe he should feel obligated to be the only fall guy.  If there are other higher-ranking officials at the Justice Department who should also be held accountable, they should also step up to take responsibility.

Thanks to the Secretary for appearing before us today.  I look forward to hearing from her.

-30-

Pages