Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley

Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security

Hearing on: "America's Agricultural Labor Crisis: Enacting a Practical Solution"

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

The United States is blessed with a rich agricultural bounty which provides food not only for U.S. consumers, but also for a growing world population. American farmers are the most productive food producers in the world.  In fact, each farmer feeds more than 120 people at home and abroad.

George Washington once said that "Agriculture is the most healthful, most useful and most noble employment to man."  Although I'm biased, I couldn't agree more.  I have a special interest in today's hearing because I am a family farmer.  I understand the agricultural needs of my state.  However, I also know that the needs of California and Vermont, for example, are different from Iowa.  Even though our industries are not identical, our interests and goals are the same.  We must be able to meet the needs of agriculture.  We must look for solutions that serve the industry and our country in the long-run.

America's agricultural industry depends, in part, on the ability of farmers and ranchers to recruit and hire workers.  Unfortunately, more than half of today's U.S. agricultural workforce is undocumented.  Some employers claim it's because Americans will not perform the hard work that is required.  Some are using undocumented labor to cut costs.  Regardless of the reason, we find ourselves in a situation where employers are hiring illegal workers, allowing them to undercut their competition and to ignore the legal avenues we have in place to bring in foreign workers

I am well aware of the legislative proposals that would put millions of agricultural workers on a path to citizenship.  I was here in 1986 when we legalized more than one million workers in the Special Agricultural Worker program, known as SAW.  We underestimated how many people would come forward and take advantage of it.  We weren't prepared to root out the fraud, and there was plenty of it.  More importantly, in 1986 we said it would be a one-time fix.  It's obvious we were wrong.  We certainly cannot go down that road again.

Instead, we must consider a long-term solution to the industry's needs.  The answer is to reform our current agricultural guestworker program known as the H-2A visa program.

Senator Chambliss has a bill, S. 1384, or the Harvest Act, that would make significant improvements to the H2A visa program.  I agree with many aspects of Senator Chambliss' proposal, including making sure we streamline the process for employers and reducing the red tape that comes with using the program.  I am a proponent for expanding the program to include various agricultural industries in the program, such as dairy, animal agriculture and agricultural processing.  Many employers in my home state say they're unable to use the program because it's restricted to seasonal or temporary work.  We must make the program work better for those who desperately need the workers.  I hope to hear some constructive suggestions today to that end.

While I am a champion of the ag industry, I do have concerns that many agricultural employers are convinced that they won't survive if they are required to electronically verify their workers.  E-Verify is a useful tool that's accessible to anyone with a computer.  It's reliable.  It's free.  It's web-based and easy to use.  More importantly, it's helpful for employers who want to abide by the law and employ a legal workforce.

Opponents of E-Verify, I'm afraid, are using agriculture to argue against mandatory E-Verify participation.  I have long said that E-Verify must be a staple in every workplace, and that includes the agricultural sector.  I'm not in favor of carving out exemptions for certain industries, and I am willing to do what I can for small businesses and industries that need help to fully comply with potential requirements.

I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing today, and I'm glad we have a well-rounded group of witnesses to discuss the labor needs surrounding agriculture.  I'm also glad to be a part of the discussion on how to improve the current immigration system to ensure that they have access to the workers they truly need.  I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to help the farmers and ranchers that feed America.

Call on Obama to Keep Campaign Promise and Oppose Free Trade Agreement

Washington, DC - Today, Congressman Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Vice Chairs of the House Populist Caucus demanded answers from President Obama on the pending free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama.  In a letter to the President, the Populist Caucus leadership questioned why Obama changed his position on the pending free trade agreements.  The letter points out many instances where Obama said he was opposed to the free trade agreements while he was campaigning for President.

"When it comes to trade, American workers prefer candidate Obama to President Obama." said Rep. Braley.

Congressman Braley serves as the Chairman of the Populist Caucus, which has advocated for proposals to create jobs in America.  The Caucus has supported various job creation legislation including bills that would reinvest in American manufacturing, rebuild our aging infrastructure and encourage more products to be made in America.

A PDF copy of the Populist Caucus letter to Obama can be viewed at the following link: http://go.usa.gov/8Jz

Monday, October 3, 2011

More Conference Expenditures Placed Under Microscope

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley has inquired about taxpayer dollars being spent on yet another conference, this time in Tokyo, as part of an "International Series" of conferences according to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals website.  The intellectual property conference is being sponsored, in part, by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to the tune of $189,600.  The office is also sending several employees to the conference. In addition, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals is apparently sending up to eight people to the international conference.

Grassley has previously looked at conference expenditures, most recently following a Justice Department Inspector General's office report outlining unacceptable amounts of spending.

"Between 2008 and 2010, spending on conferences at the Justice Department increased from $47.8 million to $91.5 million.  The Justice Department may or may not be the only bad egg in the bunch, but they helped shine a light on outrageous spending, just when we need to be tightening our belt.  A nearly $200,000 conference appears to be just why we need to put a microscope on conference expenses at agencies across the federal government," Grassley said.

Grassley sent letters to both the Department of Commerce and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts asking questions about the Tokyo conference and the "International Series."

Here are copies of the text of the letters.  Copies of the signed letters to the Department of Commerce and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts can be found here.

VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

The Honorable Rebecca M. Blank

Acting Secretary

U.S. Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20230

Dear Acting Secretary Blank:

I am writing because of information that I have received about spending related to an intellectual property conference in Tokyo, Japan, which is scheduled for late October 2011.  I am concerned about the amount of taxpayer dollars spent by Administrative agencies for conferences, seminars and travel, especially during this time of fiscal constraint.

The website for the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (CAFC) states that the conference is part of an "International Series" of conferences that was developed in November 2010 to "look for the 'best practices in legal systems' worldwide and 'how those practices?both in terms of governance and the practice of law?relate to innovation and the betterment of societies.'" The website lists the Department of Commerce and the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) among those funding the conferences.  It is my understanding that the USPTO is spending approximately $189,600 to sponsor the Tokyo conference.

According to information I have received from a whistleblower, the USPTO will be sending at least four participants to the Tokyo conference, including its Director, Deputy Director and its Deputy General Counsel and the CAFC will be sending as many as eight participants including: the Chief Judge of the court, five other Circuit Judges, the Circuit Executive and Clerk of the court.

Consequently, I have a number of questions about the Tokyo conference, other conferences sponsored by USPTO and/or its affiliate, the Global Intellectual Property Academy (GIPA), and the amount of government funds being spent on travel by the USPTO.  Accordingly, please respond to the following requests for information:

1. Has the USPTO previously sponsored or is it committed to sponsor any of the conferences in the International Series?  If so, for each such conference, set forth the date(s), location, title and subject matter.  Also, for each such conference, set forth how much the USPTO paid or is planning to pay to be a sponsor.

2. Has the USPTO paid for any of its employees to attend any of the past conferences in the International Series?  If so, for each such conference, identify by name and title, the employee(s) who attended.  Also, for each such conference identify the date(s), location, title and subject matter.  Finally, for each such conference, set forth how much the USPTO paid for the employee(s) to attend, broken down by (a) conference fees, (b) travel expenses, (c) hotel expenses, (d) meals and (e) other expenses.

3. Is the USPTO planning to pay for any of its employees to attend the Tokyo conference?  If so, identify by name and title, the employee(s) who are scheduled to attend.  Also, set forth how much the USPTO is planning to spend in connection with its employees attending, broken down by: (a) conference fees, (b) travel expenses, (c) hotel expenses, (d) meals and (e) other expenses.

4. If you submit your responses after the Tokyo conference has taken place and employees attended, identify by name and title, the employee(s) who actually attended, if any.  Also, if applicable, set forth how much the USPTO actually paid for the employee(s) to attend, broken down by (a) conference fees, (b) travel expenses, (c) hotel expenses, (d) meals and (e) other expenses.

5. Other than the Tokyo conference, is the USPTO planning on paying to have any of its employees attend any of the other conferences in the International Series?  If so, for each such conference, identify by name and title, the employee(s) who are scheduled to attend.  If specific individuals are not yet scheduled to attend, for each conference set forth how many individuals the USPTO is planning on paying for.  Also, for each such conference identify the date(s), location, title and subject matter.  Finally, for each such conference, set forth how much the USPTO is planning to pay for its employee(s) to attend, broken down by (a) conference fees, (b) travel expenses, (c) hotel expenses, (d) meals and (e) other expenses.

6. During the last three years, has the USPTO sponsored any conferences or seminars?  If so, for each such conference or seminar, set forth the date(s), location, title and subject matter.  Also, for each such conference or seminar, set forth how much the USPTO paid to be a sponsor.

7. During the last three years, has the USPTO paid for any of its employees to attend a conference or seminar?  If so, for each such conference or seminar, set forth the date(s), location, title and subject matter.  And for each such conference/seminar, identify by name and title, the employee(s) who attended.  Also, for each conference or seminar, set forth how much the USPTO paid for the employee(s) to attend, broken down by (a) conference fees, (b) travel expenses, (c) hotel expenses, (d) meals and (e) other expenses.

8. During the next three years, is the USPTO planning to sponsor any conferences or seminars?  If so, for each such conference or seminar, set forth the date(s), location, title and subject matter.  Also, for each such conference or seminar, set forth how much the USPTO is planning to pay to be a sponsor.

9. During the next three years, is the USPTO planning to pay for any of its employees to attend a conference or seminar?  If so, for each such conference or seminar, set forth the date(s), location, title and subject matter.  Also, for each such conference or seminar, set forth how much the USPTO is planning to pay for its employee(s) to attend.  If possible break down those amounts by: (a) conference fees, (b) travel expenses, (c) hotel expenses, (d) meals and (e) other expenses.

10. Does the USPTO have a policy governing its sponsorship of conferences or seminars?  If so, and if that policy is in writing, provide a copy of the document.  If the USPTO has a policy but it is not in writing, set forth the policy and explain why it is not a written policy.

11. Does the USPTO have a policy governing its paying for its employees to attend conferences or seminars?  If so, and if that policy is in writing, provide a copy of the document.  If the USPTO has a policy but it is not in writing, set forth the policy and explain why it is not a written policy.

These are basic questions, the answers to which should be readily available. Please respond in writing by October 14, 2011.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Janet Drew or Tristan Leavitt of my staff at (202) 224-5225.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley
Ranking Member

VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

Jill Sayenga

Acting Director

Administrative Office of the United States Courts
One Columbus Circle, NE
Washington, D.C. 20544

Dear Acting Director Sayenga:

I am writing because of information that I have received about spending related to an intellectual property conference in Tokyo, Japan, which is scheduled for late October 2011.  I am concerned about the amount of taxpayer dollars the Federal Judiciary and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts spend on travel, especially during this time of fiscal constraint.

The website for the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (CAFC) states that the conference is part of an "International Series" of conferences that was developed in November 2010 to "look for the 'best practices in legal systems' worldwide and 'how those practices?both in terms of governance and the practice of law?relate to innovation and the betterment of societies.'" The website lists the Department of Commerce and the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) among those funding the conferences.  It is my understanding that the USPTO is spending $189,600 to sponsor the Tokyo conference.

According to information I have received from a whistleblower, the USPTO will be sending at least four participants to the Tokyo conference, including its Director, Deputy Director and its Deputy General Counsel and the CAFC will be sending as many as eight participants including: the Chief Judge of the court, five other Circuit Judges, the Circuit Executive and Clerk of the court.

Consequently, I have a number of questions about the Tokyo conference, the other conferences in the International Series and the amount of government funds being spent on travel by the Federal Judiciary.  Accordingly, please respond to the following requests for information:

1. Has the CAFC previously sponsored or is it committed to sponsor any of the conferences in the International Series?  If so, for each such conference, set forth the date(s), location, title and subject matter.  Also, for each such conference, set forth how much the CAFC paid or is planning to pay to be a sponsor.

2. Has the CAFC paid for any of its judges or employees to attend any of the past conferences in the International Series?  If so, for each such conference, identify by name and title, the judge(s) and/or employee(s) who attended.  Also, for each such conference identify the date(s), location, title and subject matter.  Finally, for each such conference, set forth how much the CAFC paid for the judge(s) and/or employee(s) to attend, broken down by (a) conference fees, (b) travel expenses, (c) hotel expenses, (d) meals and (e) other expenses.

3. Is the CAFC planning to pay for any of its judges or employees to attend the Tokyo conference?  If so, identify by name and title, the judge(s) and/or employee(s) who are scheduled to attend.  Also, set forth how much the CAFC is planning to spend in connection with its judges and/or employees attending, broken down by: (a) conference fees, (b) travel expenses, (c) hotel expenses, (d) meals and (e) other expenses.

4. If you submit your responses after the Tokyo conference has taken place and CAFC judges or employees attended, identify by name and title, the judge(s) and/or employee(s) who actually attended, if any.  Also, if applicable, set forth how much the CAFC actually paid for the judge(s) and/or employee(s) to attend, broken down by (a) conference fees, (b) travel expenses, (c) hotel expenses, (d) meals and (e) other expenses.

5. Other than the Tokyo conference, is the CAFC planning on paying to have any of its judges or employees attend any of the other conferences in the International Series?  If so, for each such conference, identify by name and title, the judge(s) and/or employee(s) who are scheduled to attend.  If specific individuals are not yet scheduled to attend, for each conference set forth how many individuals the CAFC is planning on paying for.  Also, for each such conference identify the date(s), location, title and subject matter.  Finally, for each such conference, set forth how much the CAFC is planning to pay for its judge(s) and/or employee(s) to attend, broken down by (a) conference fees, (b) travel expenses, (c) hotel expenses, (d) meals and (e) other expenses.

6. During the last three years, has the Federal Judiciary (including the CAFC) sponsored any conferences or seminars?  If so, for each such conference or seminar, set forth the date(s), location, title and subject matter.  Also, for each such conference or seminar, set forth how much the Federal Judiciary paid to be a sponsor.

7. During the last three years, has the Federal Judiciary paid for any of its judge(s) and/or employees to attend a conference or seminar?  If so, for each such conference or seminar, set forth the date(s), location, title and subject matter.  And for each such conference/seminar, identify by name and title, the judge(s) and/or employee(s) who attended.  Also, for each conference or seminar, set forth how much the Federal Judiciary paid for the judge(s) and/or employee(s) to attend, broken down by (a) conference fees, (b) travel expenses, (c) hotel expenses, (d) meals and (e) other expenses.

8. During the next three years, is the Federal Judiciary planning to sponsor any conferences or seminars?  If so, for each such conference or seminar, set forth the date(s), location, title and subject matter.  Also, for each such conference or seminar, set forth how much the Federal Judiciary is planning to pay to be a sponsor.

9. During the next three years, is the Federal Judiciary planning to pay for any of its judge(s) and/or employees to attend a conference or seminar?  If so, for each such conference or seminar, set forth the date(s), location, title and subject matter.  Also, for each such conference or seminar, set forth how much the Federal Judiciary is planning to pay for its judge(s) or employee(s) to attend.  If possible break down those amounts by: (a) conference fees, (b) travel expenses, (c) hotel expenses, (d) meals and (e) other expenses.

10. Does the Federal Judiciary have a policy governing its sponsorship of conferences or seminars?  If so, and if that policy is in writing, provide a copy of the document.  If the Federal Judiciary has a policy but it is not in writing, set forth the policy and explain why it is not a written policy.

11. Does the Federal Judiciary have a policy governing its paying for its judges or employees to attend conferences or seminars?  If so, and if that policy is in writing, provide a copy of the document.  If the Federal Judiciary has a policy but it is not in writing, set forth the policy and explain why it is not a written policy.

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) are pressing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on missing a deadline for drafting regulations for 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.

"Prompt federal guidance is urgently needed to ensure a smooth path toward increasing disclosure, eliminating conflicts and ultimately providing patients with the tools they need to make informed health choices," Grassley and Kohl wrote in a letter to CMS Administrator Dr. Donald Berwick.

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 HHS to establish guidance on how manufacturers submit information and how the information would be made available to the public no later than October 1, 2011.

The Sunshine Act was developed by Grassley and Kohl after numerous investigations and hearings revealed that large sums of money were going to physicians for sometimes questionable purposes. Some of these payments were the subject of a federal criminal inquiry which resulted in $400 million in fines and legal costs paid by the major orthopedic medical device manufacturers. Ultimately, Congress passed the Sunshine Act as part of the health care reform law in response to growing concerns over industry payments to physicians and their potential negative effects on patient care and the need to restrain health care costs.

In their letter, Grassley and Kohl also asked why CMS failed to meet the statutory deadline and requested a timeline on establishing regulations.

Manufacturers and GPOs are required to start complying with the law by collecting payment data beginning January 1, 2012, and must begin reporting this information to the government on March 31, 2013. Starting September 30, 2013, the details of these payments must be made available to the public. Violations of the disclosure requirements can result in civil monetary penalties ranging from $1,000 to $100,000.

The text of the letter follows.

October 3, 2011

Donald Berwick, M.D., M.P.P

Administrator

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

200 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20201

Dear Administrator Berwick:

As authors and sponsors of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act (Sunshine Act), which was included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, we write today to express our severe disappointment in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for failing to meet the October 1, 2011, deadline to draft the regulations mandated by the health care reform law.

While many interactions between the pharmaceutical and medical device industries and medical professionals are beneficial to medical science and lead to innovation, the Sunshine Act was developed after numerous investigations and hearings revealed that large sums of money were going to physicians for sometimes questionable purposes.  Some of these payments were the subject of a federal criminal inquiry which resulted in $400 million in fines and legal costs paid by the major orthopedic medical device manufacturers.  Ultimately, Congress passed the Sunshine Act in response to growing concerns over industry payments to physicians and their potential negative effects on patient care and efforts to restrain healthcare costs.

Under the provisions of this law, manufacturers are required to report to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) all payments to physicians, including consulting fees, honoraria, travel, and entertainment, for public disclosure by the Secretary.  The Secretary is then instructed to include the identity of the manufacturer, the physician, and the drug or device associated with the payment on the internet.  An additional provision requires manufacturers and group purchasing organizations (GPOs) to report all ownership or investment interests held by physicians or members of their family, also for public reporting by the Secretary.  It is our understanding that the Secretary has delegated implementation of this provision to CMS.

Manufacturers and GPOs are required to start complying with the law by collecting data beginning January 1, 2012, and must begin reporting this information to the government on March 31, 2013.  Beginning on September 30, 2013, the details of these payments are to be made available to the public.  Violations of the disclosure requirements can result in civil monetary penalties ranging from $1,000 to $100,000.

In order to ensure that manufacturers had adequate time to comply, the law required that the Secretary establish procedures not later than October 1, 2011, describing how manufactures are to submit information and how the information will be made available to the public.  In addition, in establishing these procedures the Secretary was required to "consult with the Inspector General, affected industry, consumers, consumer advocates and other interested parties to ensure that the information made available to the public is presented in the appropriate context."

The deadline for establishing procedures has passed and there has not been, to our knowledge, adequate consultation with either industry representatives or consumer advocates.  Therefore, we are concerned that CMS's failure to implement the statutory provisions on time with clear guidance, standards and definitions will create confusion among both manufacturers and consumers, potentially placing taxpayer dollars at risk.

Although many of the large pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers, universities, and even the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have already begun to implement disclosure policies voluntarily, we are concerned that smaller companies are waiting for clarity and direction from CMS and will find the lack of timely guidance burdensome and costly.  Prompt federal guidance is urgently needed to ensure a smooth path toward increasing disclosure, eliminating conflicts, and ultimately providing patients with the tools they need to make informed health choices.

In a conference call with our staff on Friday, September 23, 2011, your agency assured us that you have sent the proposed rule over to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. So that we may better monitor this progress, please answer the following questions in writing no later than October 14, 2011:

(1)   What is your timetable for implementing the Sunshine Act?

(2)   When did you originally send the proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)?  Please include any dates that follow-up was conducted and for what reason.

(3) Why have you failed to meet the statutory deadline?

(4) What is the anticipated release date of the preliminary regulations?  How long will the regulations be open for comment as required by the statute? What is your timeline for issuing final regulations?

In addition to your written response, please have the appropriate CMS officials contact our staff no later than October 7 to schedule an in-depth briefing on these issues and an open discussion on a path forward that allows both a timely implementation and a robust comment period.

Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Erika Smith of the Senate Judiciary Committee staff at (202) 224-5225 or Jack Mitchell of the Senate Special Committee on Aging staff at (202) 224-5364. Thank you for your immediate attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley                       Herb Kohl

Ranking Member                         Chairman