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-

Braley and Populists urge Boehner to allow vote on Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act

Washington, DC - Today, Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-01) joined the vice-chairs of the House Populist Caucus to urge House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor to allow a vote on legislation cracking down on Chinese currency manipulation.

The Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act would allow the United States to put new duties on goods imported from countries with undervalued currencies, like China.  Economists say that China's efforts to keep the value of its currency artificially low give it an unfair advantage in trade by keeping the costs of is exports artificially low.

"This is about making sure American businesses and manufacturers are on a level playing field with China," Populist Caucus Chair Bruce Braley said.  "For years, China has kept the price of its exports low by artificially keeping the value of its currency low.  American workers can't compete when the deck is stacked against them.  It's time to get tough on job-killing Chinese currency manipulation.  American workers can compete with the Chinese if they play by the same rules we do."

On October 11th, the Senate passed the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act by an overwhelming bipartisan margin of 63-35.  The House would likely approve the legislation, but Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor are preventing the bill from being brought up for a vote.

Braley and the Populist Caucus vice-chairs made their request in a letter that can be downloaded at the following link: http://go.usa.gov/9oE

"Our bill maintains the much needed safety net for farmers so we are assured that the American people will have a safe, abundant and inexpensive food supply.  It also closes loopholes that have reduced urban support for the farm bill," Grassley said.  "This is an easy way to save some additional funds in what's a very difficult task for the committee."

"Particularly given the budget environment we're in, it's important that our farm programs are effectively targeted to those who need the assistance the most: the small and medium-sized family farmers.  I hope that our bill can be incorporated into any recommendations made by the deficit reduction committee," said Johnson.

Grassley and Johnson introduced the legislation on June 9, 2011.  The legislation would set a limit of $250,000 for married couples for farm payments in an attempt to better target farm program payments to family farmers.  Specifically, the bill caps direct payments at $40,000; counter-cyclical payments at $60,000; and marketing loan gains (including forfeitures), loan deficiency payments, and commodity certificates at $150,000.  The bill also improves the standard which the Department of Agriculture uses to determine farmers who are actively engaged in their operations.

Here is a copy of the text of the letter.  A signed copy of the letter can be found by clicking here.

October 14, 2011

The Honorable Patty Murray                         The Honorable Jeb Hensarling

Co-Chair                       Co-Chair

Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction            Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction

The Capitol                        The Capitol

Washington, D.C.                           Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Murray and Representative Hensarling:

We are truly in uncharted territory with the debt reduction process now before us.  We are hard pressed to recall any process quite as unique as this one during our careers here in Congress.  You and the rest of the Joint Select Committee have a big task in front of you, and surely there will be some difficult decisions made in the coming weeks.

With all the hard decisions before you, we are providing a proposal that should be a common sense change to agriculture policy.  It is time for us to finally set hard payment limits on all commodity farm programs, as well as close the loopholes in current payment limitation law.

The specific changes we are proposing to the Joint Select Committee are contained in the bill we introduced, the Rural America Preservation Act of 2011 (S.1161).  That bill would do the following:

• It would establish caps of $20,000 on direct (fixed) payments, $30,000 on counter cyclical payments, and $75,000 on loan deficiency payments and marketing loan gains.

• The combined limit for married couples would be $250,000.  These limits would be reduced by varying amounts depending on the farmer's participation in ACRE, essentially setting the payment limitations at the effective caps, less the reductions in direct payments and marketing loan gains.

• The amendment improves the "measurable standard" by which USDA determines who should and should not receive farm payments.  It requires that management be personally provided on a regular, substantial, and continuous basis through direct supervision and direction of farming activities and labor and on-site services.

• It would provide savings of approximately $1.5 billion.

While we support commodity programs that provide a needed safety-net for farmers, the programs should not help big farmers get even bigger.  There's no problem with a farmer growing his operation, but the taxpayer should not have to subsidize it.  Under current law, nearly 70 percent of commodity farm payments go to the largest 10 percent of farmers.  There comes a point where some farms reach levels that allow them to weather the tough times on their own. Smaller farms do not have the same luxury.  In addition, setting a measurable standard for management of a farming operation will help prevent abuse of farm programs that is present under current law.

These proposed changes to payment limitations will help us target farm payments to those who really need them, the small- and medium-sized farmers who need a safety-net to help them get through rough patches as they produce this nation's food.

We understand there may be proposals submitted to the Joint Select Committee that would fundamentally change the commodity farm programs.  If one of these proposals is adopted by the Joint Select Committee, the language of our bill also would need to be revised to set a meaningful payment limitation for commodity programs.  Whatever the result, our main point is that setting a meaningful payment limitation and closing current loopholes in the law will provide savings and add integrity to the farm programs.  No matter what decision the Joint Select Committee makes regarding commodity programs, we urge you to ensure payment limitations and closing of loopholes plays a meaningful part.

We request the Joint Select Committee consider the policy reforms set out above, and if you have any questions, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley                       Tim Johnson

United States Senator                        United States Senato

Friday, October 14, 2011

During his weekly video address, Senator Chuck Grassley discusses taking a new approach to encourage economic recovery and job creation, given bipartisan opposition to the President's proposal for a new $447 billion spending plan.

Click here for audio.

Here is the text of the address:

This week, there was a bipartisan opposition in the Senate to the President's proposal for a new $447 billion spending plan.  The President's first big stimulus bill, enacted in 2009, didn't keep the unemployment rate down, and it's unclear how this second massive one would create and sustain jobs.  It also would raise taxes, and whatever the details of the tax increase, there's plenty of evidence that raising taxes in a struggling economy makes things worse.  Plus, since World War II, every dollar in new taxes has resulted in $1.17 in government spending.  That's the opposite direction that we should be headed.  The emphasis has got to be on reducing spending, not increasing taxes and a license for more spending.  In fact, what the President wants to do is pay for temporary programs with permanent tax hikes, so it's clear that this would lead to more government spending long past what he says would be an economic stimulus.  People at the grass roots know that growing deficits and debt are getting in the way of America's economic recovery.  And pessimism about Washington's ability to act in a fiscally responsible way by spending less is a damper on the economy.

So, instead of a proposal that emphasizes higher taxes and more government spending, it's time for a new approach.  Private-sector employers need certainty.  They need to know higher taxes and more burdensome regulations aren't just around the corner.  They need an international trade agenda that opens new doors sell U.S. products and services.  This week's action on three trade agreements are a start, but these agreements have been delayed unnecessarily for years now, and the rest of the world is moving ahead without us.  The administration needs to move forward on other trade initiatives without delay.  Affordable energy is needed, too.  It's time to ramp up production of traditional energy sources here at home and to expand alternative and renewable energy sources

Washington needs to give employers confidence and encourage the entrepreneurial spirit of big and small businesses nationwide.

-30-