WASHINGTON - Sept 10, 2010 - Senator Chuck Grassley today said that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Division of Grants Operations Management awarded a $396,000 grant to Palmer College of Chiropractic in Davenport.

Palmer College will use the money to fund a research focused initiative.

Each year, thousands of local Iowa organizations, colleges and universities, individuals and state agencies apply for competitive grants from the federal government.  The funding is then awarded based on each local organization or individual's ability to meet criteria set by the federal entity administering the funds.

-30-

WASHINGTON - September 7, 2010 - Chuck Grassley today requested further information about the process used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture when employees at monitored farms come forward to USDA officials with food safety concerns.

"Americans have enjoyed one of the safest and most abundant food supplies in the world.  Confidence in our food supply is very important.  First and foremost is the safety of the consumer.  But, also, if the consumer doesn't have confidence in our food supply, it impacts the farmer," Grassley said.  "To maintain that confidence, it's important we evaluate and ask questions about where things might have fallen through the cracks so it doesn't happen again."

Grassley's letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack follows press reports about complaints raised by individuals at the facilities involved in the egg recall.

The letter asks if the Department received complaints and what was done to investigate the concerns.  Grassley also asks about the Food Safety Inspection Service's responsibilities at the two farms.

In addition, Grassley asked about the procedures in place when concerns are raised in areas of joint jurisdiction, such as the USDA and the FDA in this particular instance.

Here's a copy of the text of Grassley's letter.

September 7, 2010

Secretary Tom Vilsack

U.S. Department of Agriculture

1400 Independence Ave SW

Washington, DC 20250

Dear Secretary Vilsack,

The recent egg recalls due to a Salmonella outbreak at Wright County Egg and Hillandale Farms in Iowa have troubled consumers and weakened confidence in our nation's food supply. When Americans visit their local grocery stores, they should be able to trust that the food they are purchasing to feed their family is safe to consume.

Recent media reports indicate that former company employees reported food safety problems they had observed while working at Wright County Egg. While I understand that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authority over shell eggs, has issued the egg recall and is involved in the investigation of the Salmonella outbreak, USDA does have primary jurisdiction over egg product safety and has non-food safety employees located at farms including Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) graders.

In light of the complaints raised by these individuals, please answer following the questions:

1) Did USDA receive complaints from company employees and if so, what was done to investigate these concerns?

2) What were the Food Safety Inspection Service's (FSIS) responsibilities in relation to these two farms?  When was the last FSIS inspection conducted?

3) Is there an established process so that USDA employees (such as AMS graders) or company employees and other individuals can report possible food safety violations to FSIS?

4) Is there an established process for USDA employees to report food safety concerns to the FDA when they fall outside of USDA's jurisdiction?

5) What is USDA doing to counter deficiencies in food safety communication within the USDA and between the two agencies?  How are USDA and FDA coordinating to best address food safety concerns and ensure that food safety problems do not fall through the cracks?

Thank you for your prompt response to this important issue.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley

United States Senator

COMMENTARY ALERT - You might be interested in a Washington Post blog this afternoon about the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC.  My concern is that the SEC seems to be pursuing the classic, flawed tactic of most bureaucracies, "ignore the message and kill the messenger" when concerns about mismanagement are raised.  Instead, SEC higher-ups need to listen to different points of view from SEC employees in order to avoid the kinds of mistakes the SEC has made in recent years.  The promise of protection for SEC whistleblowers looks like it is being undercut by the reality of retaliation.  You can read the letter I sent to the SEC chairman by clicking here. - Chuck Grassley

Grassley calls SEC response on alleged retaliation 'extremely disturbing'

A senior Senate Republican is calling into question the Securities and Exchange Commission's response to allegations that top officials in the Fort Worth office retaliated against employees who raised concerns about an agency examination program.

Sen. Charles Grassley (Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has asked for a briefing from top SEC officials about the treatment of two employees in the Fort Worth office. The senator wanted to know why that although the inspector general recommended the SEC take disciplinary action against the Fort Worth officials none had been taken.

In a letter to SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro, Grassley wrote: "These facts and circumstances are extremely disturbing and paint a picture of a culture at the SEC, which endorses retaliation against employees who attempt to improve operations by reporting mismanagement to headquarter."

The letter follows a pair of reports by the SEC inspector general and an article in The Washington Post about the problems at the Fort Worth office.

The Post article cites an SEC inspector general's report that concluded that two SEC employees, Julie Preuitt and Joel Sauer, faced "inappropriate" sanctions from their bosses in Fort Worth when they raised concerns about a new review process for financial firms.

Preuitt, who had warned presciently about a potential scam at R. Allen Stanford's Houston-based business, told superiors she was concerned that the office was more interested in boosting statistics about the number of firms the office examines rather than actually uncovering fraud.

According to inspector general reports and interviews, Preuitt was also essentially demoted after vocalizing her complaints.

Later, the program she opposed was suspended in favor of programs to verify assets claimed by investment companies in the wake of the large number of Ponzi schemes disclosed in the past two years.

Grassley tied to the agency's actions in Fort Worth to its broader desire to attract whistleblowers, who can provide regulators with inside information on wrongdoing.

"You have previously assured me that in leading the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC/Commission), you intend to value whistleblowers and ensure that they are able to make protected disclosures in order to help managers improve operations at the Commission," Grassley said. "However, it appears that this commitment to valuing dissent within the Commission is not being fully implemented."

Grassley asked the SEC to explain why it had not disciplined the Fort Worth managers. The SEC responded:

[P]rior to imposing discipline, the senior-level Ft. Worth managers had solicited advice . . . from other Commission officials responsible for disciplinary actions. It has not been alleged, nor is there any reason to believe, any of the advising parties had reason to retaliate against the two employees. Because the actions were deemed appropriate and senior-level Ft. Worth managers relied on the guidance that was provided, management determined their actions were not retaliatory.

Grassley was not pleased with this response.

"The implication ... is that a retaliatory personnel action can be laundered of its retaliatory intent by simply consulting with others who had no retaliatory intent and obtaining their concurrence," he wrote. "Such a policy would make a mockery of whistleblower protections throughout government."

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

WASHINGTON --- Senator Chuck Grassley and Representative Darrell Issa have asked Inspectors General from 29 government agencies to review whether federal agencies are taking new steps to limit responses to Freedom of Information Act requests from lawmakers, journalists, activist groups and watchdog organizations.

The request from Grassley and Issa is based on what was reported earlier this summer about Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano requiring FOIA requests to be given more scrutiny, depending on who the requestor was.  The Inspectors General also have been asked to determine the extent to which political appointees are systematically made aware of FOIA requests and their role in decision-making.

"The question is to what extent an effort has been made to inhibit the accountability that's established through the Freedom of Information Act with new hurdles or by making politically appointed officials part of the FOIA review process within the various federal agencies.  These requirements could delay disclosures, and that's a disservice to the public," Grassley said.

"Getting through a non-partisan bureaucracy to obtain information through FOIA is difficult enough without political appointees inappropriately injecting partisan political considerations into the process," said Rep. Issa.  "There's a clear public interest in finding out if what happened at Homeland Security is also taking place in other federal agencies.  This inappropriate interference by political appointees in FOIA requests further undermines President Obama's promise to create an unprecedented level of openness in government."

Click here to read a copy of the letter that was sent to the 29 Inspectors General, including those from the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Elections Assistance Commission, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Federal Trade Commission, the General Services Administration, the Government Accountability Office, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Archives and Records Administration, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Office of Personnel Management, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the Social Security Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Interior, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Labor, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Department of Treasury, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.