14 Oct 2011

Free Trade Agreements with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea

By Grassley Press

The topic of the day is jobs.  The question gets asked a lot: What policies can we implement to create jobs?  With more than 9 percent unemployment in this country, we should be talking about how to create jobs.

The truth is, for years we have known one clear and simple way to create jobs and stimulate growth in our economy.  It would create and support thousands of jobs, possibly even hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Of course I am talking about implementing the trade deals reached with Panama, South Korea, and Colombia that we entered into back in 2006 and 2007.  I have pushed for passage of these deals for nearly five years.

Yet, congressional Democrats and, later, President Obama, continued to put up barriers that prevented their consideration and passage.  There is no clearer and easier way of creating jobs in the near term than passing the implementing bills now before us and sending them to the President.

According to the National Association of Manufacturers, 100,000 jobs will be created by the implementation of these trade deals.  There are estimates from other sources that suggest the number of jobs created may be even higher.

The Obama administration estimates the Korea trade deal alone will create 70,000 additional jobs for the U.S. work force.

Not only do these trade deals expand opportunities for U.S. workers, but they also present tremendous opportunities for American farmers.  It is estimated the Korean deal could increase the price farmers receive for their hogs by $10 per hog

The Colombian deal will level the playing field for U.S. corn farmers so they can begin to reclaim some of the market share they lost due to high tariffs.

The agreement with Panama will bring about better opportunities for a variety of agriculture products including beef, poultry, and pork, just to name a few.

I came down to the Senate floor today to express my support for these trade deals and urge passage.  We have been waiting a long time to get to this point, and I am eager to cast my vote in support of all three deals.

But as the finish line nears on these deals, the American people should be asking why President Obama has dragged his feet on these for so long.

The President has wasted time and tax dollars with stimulus programs, which did not produce any measureable amount of jobs.  The stimulus plan failed to do what President Obama promised Americans.  Now he wants to try it again with yet another costly stimulus program.

We don't need more government spending to create jobs; we know that doesn't work.  Rather, we should be doing what we know works.

We need to continue opening markets for U.S. exports.  I could go into the other ways to stimulate our economy such as providing businesses with more certainty by reining in unnecessary regulations, but I will save that for another time.

We need to pass these trade deals, and we need to do it now.  American workers need them now.  But let's not stop there.

The President can provide certainty to businesses, farmers, and workers in this way; he can renew his commitment to expanding trade opportunities.

In January 2010 the President said he wanted to double exports by 2015, which was welcome news.  But actions speak louder than words, Mr. President.  You have repeatedly delayed these trade deals, your administration has routinely dodged the question of when you will request trade promotion authority, and you have not laid out a clear strategic plan for in fact reaching the trade goal you expressed at the beginning of 2010.

We are now nearly two years further down the road.  While it may be tough to reach the goal of doubling exports by 2015, we can still push on toward that goal.  The more we do to open new markets and then get out of the way, the more it will help this struggling economy.

I have three steps to continue helping U.S. businesses, farmers, and most of all workers.  First, we pass these three trade deals now, with no more political gamesmanship by this administration.  Second, Congress passes trade promotion authority so the administration can responsibly seek out opportunities for greater market access for U.S. products.  And finally, the administration makes it a top priority to actually seek out more opportunities for opening foreign markets for U.S. products.

We live in a global economy.  We once led the way in forming trade agreements and expanding trade relationships.  But we have lost our way under the Obama administration.  We need to re-establish our position as the world leader in opening and expanding markets.  Passing these trade deals is a crucial, and long overdue, first step.

I urge my colleagues to help U.S. businesses, farmers, and workers by voting in support of the Panama, Colombia, and South Korea trade deals.

-30

14 Oct 2011

GRASSROOTS LEADERS OPPOSE DEFENSE BUDGET CUTS 55% OF TEA PARTY SUPPORTS DEFENSE SPENDING

By Travis Korson
Washington, DC October 11, 2011- At a panel discussion on October 5, 2011- "Providing for the Common Defense: The First Duty of the Super Committee" - four prominent grassroots and tea party leaders, several members of Congress, and defense policy experts joined the 'Coalition for the Common Defense' to launch a grassroots national public education campaign to prevent defense budget cuts against an already hollowed out military.
Congressional speakers included Rep. Randy Forbes (VA-4), Representative Trent Franks (AZ-2), Representative Paul Broun, MD (GA-10), and Representative Doug Lamborn (CO-5).
Grassroots and Tea Party leaders included Scott Cooper (Virginia Tea Party Federation), Joel Arends, Chairman and Founder, Veterans for a Strong America, and Jim Martin (chairman, 60 Plus Association with over 5 million supporters).
Crucial polling data on the Tea Party's support for a strong defense was presented by Colin Hanna, founder of Let Freedom Ring.  A large majority - 55% - of tea party supporters believe defense spending should be maintained at current levels, based on a nationwide poll of 1000 likely voters.  Only 34% of tea party supporters would cut the defense budget.
That polling data was reinforced by the Virginia Tea Party Federation's Scott Cooper, who stated that "We're going to have a cycle where we turn back and we make our common defense a priority. Providing for the common defense is the primary issue that is laid out in the preamble of the Constitution.  The Tea Party's support for the common defense is three fold: we're for constitutionally limited government. Then we're for financial/fiscal responsibility. And then we're for free markets."
Congressional speakers emphasized the threat to national security if greater cuts are made to the U.S. defense budget, which has already received $465 billion in cuts over the next ten years.
Representative Randy Forbes (VA-4) stated that "I would suggest to you for American to be great, we've got to have a strong economy and a strong military. We begin to unravel one and we begin to unravel the other. Now, is there anything that we can do? Do we just sit back and wring our hands? Well, let me just suggest to you there is something we can do. We will have a resolution. It's called Strong Defense, Strong America. All of the subcommittee chairmen for the Armed Services Committee have endorsed this resolution today. We will be moving it on the floor to try to get signatures on it and try to get it brought up before the Armed Services Committee.  It recounts how important defense is for the United States of America and if I could just paraphrase, it says, enough is enough. No more cuts to the military. We cannot balance this crisis on their backs. If you want to do something over the next few weeks, and we only have about a month, you can get as many people as you can to call as many people as they can and say sign on to this resolution so we can send a message to the super committee that we are going to make sure that America continues to have the strongest military in the world.
Representative Trent Franks (AZ-2) expressed concern about the Congressional Super Committee: "I'm convinced that if this so-called Super Committee fails and sequestration is triggered, it will mean undoing the greatest military force in the history of humanity. And potentially the beginning of our financial ruin as well, because the military creates all kinds of ripples in our economy and the high paying jobs that result. If there is any true stimulus that the government can make, it is to keep this country strong and to invest in the men and women who give everything they have for all of us. Not only do these cuts jeopardize our national security, of course they endanger our economy."
Representative Paul Broun (GA-10) noted: "We don't have enough Marines.  We don't have enough brigades in the Army. We don't have enough ships in the Navy. Or enough wings in the Air Force. We need to be building our military, not tearing it down. Our military is stretched to the limits. Families are being destroyed because of multiple deployments and our military is tired in the personnel, tired in the equipment. We need to be spending more on the military - which is the constitutional function of the federal government under the original intent."
Representative Doug Lamborn (CO-5) stated: "The Armed Services Committee expects at least twenty-five percent of the civilian workforce to be furloughed if this sequestration takes place. And according to Secretary Leon Panetta, at least a million jobs would be lost. He calls this a doomsday mechanism. So in closing, deeper cuts to our military would be so detrimental to our national security it's horrible to contemplate. There's no doubt that we can find efficiencies in a large budget like the Department of Defense has. And I am a fiscal conservative. But we don't want to cut capabilities. That's what I'm concerned about."
The full list of speakers for the program included (in order):
  • Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President, Center for Security Policy, Moderator
  • Representative J. Randy Forbes (VA-4)
  • Representative Trent Franks (AZ-2)
  • Tom Donnelly, Director, Center for Defense Studies, American Enterprise Institute
  • Rear Admiral Jim Carey, Chairman, Flag & General Officers' Network
  • Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring
  • Cord Sterling, Aerospace Industries Association
  • Representative Paul Broun, MD (GA-10)
  • Representative Doug Lamborn (CO-5)
  • Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness
  • Joel Arends, Chairman and Founder, Veterans for a Strong America
  • Jim Martin, Chairman, 60 Plus Association
  • Scott Cooper, VA Tea Party Federation
Transcripts and videos of the event can be located at http://forthecommondefense.org/?page_id=301.
Yesterday's panel also served as the formal launch for the 'Coalition for the Common Defense.' The Coalition for the Common Defense announced its 'Statement of Principles,' already supported by a significant group of nationally reknowned signnatories who have joined the effort to ensure that our military retains the needed capabilities to meet its Constitutionally required duties.
The Coalition for the Common Defense is an alliance of like-minded individuals and organizations who believe that without provision for the "common defense," as articulated by the Founders, the freedom that has allowed unprecedented opportunity and prosperity to flourish in this country would soon be imperiled. In this new age of budgetary cuts, the Coalition rejects the false choice between military strength and economic health contending that economic prosperity depends on a strong national defense. Through a series of events and strategic partnerships, the coalition is calling on elected officials, candidates for office and others who share our commitment to the common defense to uphold these principles.  We must return the United States to sensible fiscal principles without sacrificing our national security.
A full statement of principles can be located here. The Coalition of the Common Defense can be found online at www.forthecommondefense.org.
###
14 Oct 2011

Senate vote on President Obama's stimulus proposal

By Randy Stalsberg
Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Senator Chuck Grassley issued the following comment about his vote against President Obama's proposal to spend $447 billion for economic stimulus.

"Since the 2009 stimulus bill was enacted, it's unclear that anything's been done to better safeguard the taxpayer dollars that would be pumped out in a second massive government spending bill like this one, despite the wasteful spending we saw with the first stimulus bill.  My own oversight pinpointed money for housing assistance squandered by gross mismanagement, funds going to contractors and grantees who owed the government hundreds of millions of dollars in tax debts, stimulus dollars directed to school districts known for poor fiscal management, big spending for electronic records conversion in a health technology system not yet prepared to handle it, programs to create green jobs that didn't result in any jobs, and trouble even defining what qualified as a green job.  Weatherization grants funded by the first stimulus program even created safety hazards because monitoring, testing and tracking the work fell by the wayside.

"What's more, President Obama's first stimulus bill didn't keep the unemployment rate down, and it's unclear how this one would create and sustain jobs.  Beyond that, whatever the details of the tax increase, there's plenty of evidence that raising taxes in a struggling economy only makes things worse.  Plus, since World War II, every dollar in new taxes has resulted in $1.17 in government spending.  We need to reduce government spending, not increase it.  Growing deficits and debt get in the way of economic growth and opportunity.

"Instead of a proposal that emphasizes higher taxes and more government spending, it's time for a new approach in Washington for economic recovery.  Private-sector employers need more certainty.  They need to know that higher taxes and more burdensome regulations are not just around the corner.  They need an international trade agenda that opens up new opportunities to sell U.S. manufactured products and services.  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.   Above all, Washington needs to do what it can to give employers confidence and encourage the entrepreneurial spirit of big and small businesses nationwide."

-30-

11 Oct 2011

Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Stresses Importance of the American Jobs Act for Iowans

By USDA Communications Office

DES MOINES, Iowa., Oct. 10, 2011 - Today, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack joined business and community leaders to discuss the Administration's strategy to strengthen the U.S. economy and to highlight what passage of the American Jobs Act will mean for Iowans.

 

"The American Jobs Act provides common-sense steps we can take right now to put more people back to work and put more money in the pockets of working Americans, without adding a dime to the deficit," said Vilsack. "In Iowa, this Act will provide a tax cut for over 60,000 businesses, support the jobs of 4,100 teachers and first responders and immediately provide over 5,000 construction workers a job improving highways and other critical infrastructure. Iowa families will receive a tax cut of around$1,580."

 

Secretary Vilsack also highlighted the need for quick passage of the pending trade agreements with Columbia, Panama, and South Korea. The agreements were sent to Congress this week and are awaiting approval.

 

"Full implementation of all three agreements will help farmers and ranchers add more than $2.3 billion a year to the American economy, which will support nearly 20,000 jobs, said Vilsack. "The Korean agreement alone will increase agricultural trade by $1.9 billion and have a greater economic impact that the last nine trade agreements combined."

 

Full details on the three trade agreements and comprehensive fact sheets on how the agreements will benefit Iowa are available at: http://www.fas.usda.gov/.

  • U.S.-Korea Trade Agreement Iowa Fact Sheet
  • U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Iowa Fact Sheet
  • U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Iowa Fact Sheet

The Obama Administration is calling on Congress to pass the American Jobs Act immediately. The Act has five components that will create jobs and strengthen Iowa's economy:

Tax Cuts to Help America's Small Businesses Hire and Grow

  • 60,000

Putting Workers Back on the Job While Rebuilding and Modernizing America

  • $385,900,000 in Iowa that could support a minimum of approximately 5,000
  • $287,200,000 in funds to Iowa to support up to 4,100
  • $132,600,000 in funding to support as many as 1,700
  • $56,700,000

 

Pathways Back to Work for Americans Looking for Jobs.

  • 34,000
  • Alongside these reforms, the President is reiterating his call to extend unemployment insurance, preventing 7,300
  • 800 adults and 2,300

 

Tax Relief for Every American Worker and Family

  • $51,000, will receive a tax cut of around $1,580.

 

#

11 Oct 2011

Governor Quinn Breaks Ground on University of Illinois Electrical and Computer Engineering Building

By Katelyn Tye

$95 Million Illinois Jobs Now! Project Will Create More Than 620 Jobs; Energy-Efficient Facility Will Help Develop New Technologies

URBANA - October 7, 2011. Governor Pat Quinn today joined University of Illinois President Michael J. Hogan to break ground on the school's new Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) Building. The $95 million facility will enhance educational opportunities, support research breakthroughs in computing, communications, nanotechnology and biotechnology, and set a new standard for energy-efficient buildings. The Illinois Jobs Now! project will create approximately 620 construction jobs, building what is projected to be the most energy-efficient engineering structure in the nation.

"The University of Illinois is home to some of the best and brightest minds in our state and we want to make sure they have the most cutting-edge technology available to them," Governor Quinn said. "Updated and energy-efficient higher education resources are vital to the success of our state's innovation and economic development."

The 232,000-square-foot building will include state-of-the-art classrooms, laboratories and equipment. The facility will consolidate programs now spread across the campus, creating an environment for cross-disciplinary innovation and expanding the University's potential for breakthrough discoveries. The advanced energy features are projected to make the facility the most energy-efficient engineering building in the nation. The combined structure is projected to reach zero net energy consumption on an annual basis, and would become the largest such structure in the United States.

"Great minds working together can plant seeds of innovation that may never take root when those same people work alone," President Hogan said. "The ECE department has a rich legacy of achievement - from transistors and medical imaging to LED lighting, communications and computing - and this new facility is an investment that will pave the way for new generations of breakthrough technology."

Design work on the facility is complete, and bids will be opened October 12. Construction is expected to start in November, with completion expected by August 2014. The ECE Building will be built to achieve LEED Platinum certification, the highest designation for a structure's energy efficiency and environmental impact. In addition, a solar energy component is planned from separate funds.

The ECE Building construction will be overseen by the Illinois Capital Development Board, which administers all non-road, state-funded construction projects. The $95 million facility will be built with $47.5 million in state capital funds and $47.5 million in private funds from university donors.

Governor Quinn's Illinois Jobs Now! program includes $1.5 billion for higher education, including $788 million for public universities and $400 million for community colleges. The $31 billion program is expected to create more than 400,000 jobs over six years.

###
04 Oct 2011

Governor Quinn Statement on Ford Jobs Announcement

By Katelyn Tye

CHICAGO - October 4, 2011. Governor Pat Quinn today released a statement regarding Ford Motor Company's jobs announcement:

"I'm extremely pleased that Ford is strengthening its commitment to the State of Illinois to create 2,000 new jobs and stimulate the economy with an additional $200 million new investment."

"This is the direct result of a strong relationship we have forged with Ford and builds on our success in 2010 when we helped Ford create 1,200 new jobs and invest $400 million to produce the new Explorer SUV, which was supported by an expansion of my Administration's Economic Development for a Growing Economy (EDGE) tax credit designed to help revitalize the automotive industry, one of Illinois' leading employers."

"Ford and the UAW have worked together to reach an agreement that - when finalized- will provide a solid increase in jobs and investment. The kind of economic growth in Illinois that this agreement outlines would have multiplying benefits for our communities. My Administration looks forward to continue working closely with the UAW and Ford to expand their operations and put more people to work for a new production shift at the Chicago Assembly Plant that could begin early next year."

###
04 Oct 2011

Braley and Populist Caucus Demand Answers from Obama on Trade Agreements

By Jeff Giertz

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

# # #
04 Oct 2011

More Conference Expenditures Placed Under Microscope

By Grassley Press

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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

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

Grassley and Kohl Urge Action on Sunshine Law

By Grassley Press

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

Committee on the Judiciary                      Senate Special Committee on Aging
03 Oct 2011

Morthland Proposes Sales Tax Exemptions for IL Farmers

By Rich Morthland

Moline, IL...State Representative Rich Morthland (R-Cordova) has filed legislation offering sales tax exemptions for Illinois farmers. House Bill 3817 exempts the sales tax imposed on fence posts, fencing, and farm gates. House Bill 3818 exempts the sale tax imposed on baling twine, baling wire, plastic bags, plastic sleeves, and plastic sheeting

Representative Morthland, a seventh generation Illinois farmer, explained that farmers cross the Mississippi River to Iowa to make agricultural supply purchases because Iowa has a more favorable tax structure.

"Every time a farmer crosses the river to buy agricultural products, the State of Illinois loses employment potential and revenue opportunities on all of the purchases made that currently do not qualify for the sales tax exemption," Morthland said.

Morthland's legislation requires that the purchaser certifies the items will be used for farm production.

"Sales taxes on agricultural production goods act like a cumulative value added tax which, incidentally, Illinois rejected under Rod Blagojevich," Morthland said. "Some people will look at this like, 'it's just fence materials and twine,' but to the Illinois farmer who buys in bulk, these taxes can be burdensome."

###

Pages

Subscribe & Listen to Reader Podcasts

On Stands Now

 

Tagged Content

    

Two Ways to Subscribe

1. Subscribe to free weekly e-mail content updates.

You'll get both the current official narrative challenge and What's Happenin' in the Quad Cities.
(Did you know we publish a new Real Astrology and RCR Crossword every week?) 

Subscribe!

* indicates required

2. Get 12 monthly issues mailed first class for $48

Get 12 issues mailed monthly for $48 per year.

Get the printed Reader edition mailed to you (or anyone you want) first-class for 12 months for $48.
$24 goes to postage and handling, $24 goes to keeping the doors open!

Click this link to Subscribe now.