Contributions to College Savings Iowa accounts must be made by December 31, 2010

DES MOINES, IA (12/23/2010)(readMedia)-- Once again, the year has flown by, and it's already time to start looking ahead to 2011. Before the big ball drops on New Year's Eve, State Treasurer Michael L. Fitzgerald has an important reminder about College Savings Iowa. "The new year is upon us, but before you start celebrating, don't forget to make your final contributions to your College Savings Iowa accounts," Fitzgerald said. "If you're still looking for the perfect gift for a child or grandchild, don't miss this opportunity to give them a gift that will last a lifetime."

Contributions to College Savings Iowa must be made by the end of the year to qualify for 2010 state tax deductions. Account holders can deduct up to $2,811 for each open account and can contribute online at www.collegesavingsiowa.com.* All other contributions must be submitted by December 31, 2010. Contributions sent by mail must postmark checks by December 31, 2010.

College Savings Iowa lets anyone - parents, grandparents, friends and relatives - invest for college on behalf of a child. Investors do not need to be a state resident and can withdraw their investments tax-free to pay for qualified higher education expenses including tuition, books, supplies and room and board at any eligible college, university, community college or accredited technical training school in the United Sates or abroad.** For more information about College Savings Iowa, call 888-672-9116 or visit collegesavingsiowa.com.

* Adjusted annually for inflation. If withdrawals are not qualified, the deductions must be added back to Iowa taxable income.

** Earnings on non-qualified withdrawals may be subject to federal income tax and a 10% federal penalty tax, as well as state income taxes. The availability of tax or other benefits may be contingent on meeting other requirements.

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley has asked the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to account for the way their departments allocate and utilize taxpayer monies aimed at health care fraud.  In his request, Grassley expressed concern about the stagnating number of criminal prosecutions for health care fraud, despite increased federal spending to fight fraud.

"The data raises all kinds of questions," Grassley said.  "Congress has been increasing appropriations for the anti-fraud program that's jointly run by Justice and HHS.  Administration leaders promote the value of a special fraud prevention and enforcement task force known as HEAT.  The health care law enacted this year dedicates even more federal dollars to these efforts.  Yet, despite the record number of defendants, actual criminal convictions for health care fraud violations are flat resulting in a falling conviction rate."

Grassley said that if the administration is focusing on civil prosecutions of health care fraud at the expense of criminal prosecutions, the risk may be that penalties simply become part of the cost of doing business for those engaged in fraud.

Grassley also said that HEAT criminal investigations grew from 30 in fiscal 2008 to 82 in fiscal 2009, yet the total nationwide number of criminal health care fraud convictions is down.  "This raises a question of whether the focus of the HEAT initiative is redirecting resources away from overall criminal enforcement of health care laws," Grassley said.

Grassley said of even greater concern is the plummeting conviction rate for criminal health care fraud cases.  Of the 803 criminal defendants charged in fiscal 2009, only 583 were convicted or plea bargained.  That represents a 72 percent conviction rate compared to past rates that topped 90 percent.

"Statistically speaking, the data shows that despite increased cases and defendants, fewer bad guys are going to jail for ripping off Medicare and Medicaid.  I want to know why the Justice Department is having a tougher time putting people behind bars when we're giving them millions more to do the job," Grassley said.

Grassley has long worked in Congress to strengthen efforts against health care fraud.  Legislation he co-authored in 1986 empowered citizen whistleblowers to file suit on behalf of the taxpayers against those who fraudulently claim federal funds, including Medicare, Medicaid, contract payments, disaster assistance, and other benefits, subsidies, grants and loans.  The amount recovered through the False Claims Act since the 1986 update was enacted is over $27 billion, which otherwise would be lost to fraud.  The whistleblower updates are a major force against health care fraud.

In the new year, Grassley will begin serving as Ranking Member of the Committee on Judiciary.  For the last ten years, Grassley has been either Ranking Member of Chairman of the Committee on Finance, which has jurisdiction over Medicare or Medicaid.  He will continue to serve as a senior member of the Finance Committee.

Click here to read Grassley's letter, including the data and analysis.

"I voted against the Treaty because it makes the United States give up more than Russia, it's silent on the major issue of tactical nuclear weapons, and the verification mechanism is weaker than START I, which I supported in 1992.  Amendments to make corrections were shot down in order to have the Treaty finalized by an arbitrary deadline and seemingly for a political victory.  Beyond that, the prospects of a nuclear war are far greater today with Iran and North Korea, so that's where U.S. national security concerns and work should be primarily focused."

In addition, the text of his extended statement follows here.

Floor Statement of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

Vote Against the New START Treaty

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Mr. President.  Before I begin my remarks on the New START treaty, I'd like to point out to my colleagues that in 2002, I voted in favor of the Moscow Treaty.  I was also one of 93 Senators who voted in favor of START I in 1992.

I recognize the importance of maintaining a positive and cooperative relationship with Russia.  The proponents of the New START treaty argue that this treaty is necessary to continue the goodwill between our countries and the much-touted "reset" in our relations.  More importantly to me, however, are the merits of the treaty itself.  The Senate should not simply ratify this treaty to appease Russia or as a signal of cooperation with them.  The treaty should be considered based on its impact on our national security and the security of our allies.

A nuclear arms control treaty can be evaluated based on the level of parity it brings to the two parties.   In this regard, I believe this treaty falls short.  The fact is, while this treaty places new limits on warheads, as well as deployed and non-deployed delivery vehicles, Russia is already below the limit on delivery vehicles.  The treaty primarily imposes new limits on the U.S., while requiring modest, if any, reductions on the Russian side.  Also alarming is that this treaty is silent on the matter of tactical nuclear weapons.  It is believed that Russia has a ten-to-one advantage over the U.S. in terms of tactical nuclear weapons.

The Administration has argued that this treaty is necessary to provide strategic stability.  However, if we're reducing our strategic weapons without regard to Russia's overwhelming advantage on tactical nuclear weapons, I question whether this reduction isn't weakening strategic stability.  It should also be mentioned that some proponents of the New START treaty were critical of the 2002 Moscow Treaty for failing to reduce Russian tactical nuclear weapons.  I believe our leverage with the Russians to begin placing meaningful limits on tactical nuclear weapons existed with this treaty.  Now, I see no clear path to negotiating reductions in tactical nuclear weapons.

Like many of my colleagues, I have serious concerns about the inclusion of references to and limitations on U.S. plans for missile defense.  I don't believe there should be a connection between strategic nuclear weapons reductions and our plans for missile defense.   I'm equally troubled that Russia issued a unilateral statement at the treaty's signing stating that the treaty "may be effective and viable only in conditions where there is no qualitative or quantitative build-up in the missile defense system capabilities of the United States of America."

It's positive that the Resolution of Ratification makes a strong statement that the treaty does not limit the deployment of U.S. missile defense systems, other than those contained in Article Five.  It also says that the Russian statement on missile defense does not impose a legal obligation on the United States.  While I would have preferred that this treaty not contain any language on missile defense, I appreciate the work of the Foreign Relations Chairman and Ranking Member to include this language in the ratification resolution.  But the fact remains, this language is simply our opinion and is non-binding.

This treaty reverses the gains made in the Moscow Treaty which de-linked offensive and defensive capabilities.  Although a modified amendment on missile defense to the resolution of ratification was agreed to today, I'm disappointed that the Senate could not agree to the amendment offered by Senator McCain which would have stricken the language in the treaty's preamble that arguably gives Russia a say on our future missile defense plans.

Finally, Mr. President, I also share the serious concerns related to the issue of verification.  It has been the subject of much debate, and deservedly so.  I agree with the sentiment that as our deployed strategic nuclear weapons are reduced, it becomes more and more critical that the remaining weapons can be relied upon.  As the number of weapons is reduced, it becomes more important that we know that the Russians are abiding by the limits of the treaty.

After reviewing the classified material presented by Senator Bond, Ranking Member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have serious reservations about the new verification regime contained in the treaty.  Although Former Secretary of State James Baker supports ratification of the treaty, he stated that the verification mechanism in the New START treaty "does not appear as rigorous or extensive as the one that verified the numerous and diverse treaty obligations and prohibitions under START I."

I do regret that without a treaty in place that there is no verification regime, and no U.S. inspectors monitoring Russia's nuclear arms activities.  It's important to point out, however, that the Obama Administration had the ability to extend the verification regime for five years, as provided for in START I.  But the Obama Administration failed to act.   The Administration also insisted there would be a "bridging agreement" to continue verification until the entry into force of a successor agreement.  This agreement was never completed either.

I'm deeply disappointed that in these areas of concern, the Senate is simply being asked to be a "rubber stamp" rather than fulfill our constitutional obligation to provide our advice on these important matters.  Had the advice of the Senate on these important issues been incorporated into the treaty, I believe it would have gained overwhelming bipartisan support.  Without addressing these areas in a meaningful way, I am reluctantly unable to support it.

Washington Needs to Get on Board and Tackle Deficit Spending by U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

Taxpayers all across America can ring in the New Year with a sigh of relief. Thanks to a bipartisan agreement brokered between the White House and Republican congressional leaders, paychecks won't automatically see higher federal tax withholdings starting January 1.

For the last two years, the 111th Congress took a wait-and-see approach about taxes, causing considerable uncertainty for businesses that make investment and hiring decisions in part based on their tax burden. Many employers stockpiled cash instead of spending money on equipment upgrades or expanding their workforces. This uncertainty did not do the economic recovery any good.

Thankfully, the results of the mid-term elections delivered a crystal clear message in November. Washington went overboard. The federal spending spree and bailout binge added an even greater burden to taxpayers already on the hook for a $13.8 trillion national debt. Interest payments alone are eating up a growing percentage of the annual federal budget, including 414 billion tax dollars in fiscal year 2010.

A myth long used by big spenders inside the Beltway to justify raising taxes may at long last be on the chopping block. Raising taxes will not slay the deficit dragon. It does not cure the deficit problem; it serves as an invitation for big spenders to spend even more. Keeping the lid on tax hikes will force lawmakers to trim spending or keep borrowing. From my senior position in the U.S. Senate, I champion ways to keep the lid on spending. In 2010, I voted to reduce federal spending by $278 billion. America simply can't afford to keep borrowing more money.

Hopefully the bipartisan tax agreement signals a fresh start for the 112^th Congress and the White House to tackle the national debt. As the report by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform concluded:  There's no easy way out. Shared sacrifice and tough choices must be made to get America's fiscal house in order.

Right now, the first order of business is to get the American economy back on the right track. A healthy economy will create new jobs and get more people back to work. More people bringing home a paycheck means fewer families will rely on social services paid for by the government.

The tax relief signed into law is a good step in the right direction.  Here's what it does:

• extends the lower marginal tax rates on wages and income;
• renews 51 tax incentives tailored to trigger economic growth and employment (including tax incentives for ethanol and biodiesel);
• exempts family estates up to $5 million from a 35 percent federal death tax;
• indexes alternative minimum tax for inflation;
• extends refundable tax credits, including child tax credit and college tuition deduction created in the 2001 legislation I authored as Chairman of the Finance Committee;
• spurs business investment by allowing a 100 percent tax deduction for equipment purchases in 2011; and,
• boosts take-home pay by approving a two-percentage payroll tax holiday for workers in 2011, on wages up to 106,800. (Multiply your annual income by .02 to see how much more you can save, spend or invest in 2011 thanks to this tax break.)

Now Washington needs to get on the same page and tackle the looming fiscal crisis. Punting the ball down the field for another two years is a reckless, unacceptable choice. The voting public gets it. Washington needs to get on board.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010