{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "is_view": false, "human_description_en": "where party = \"Republican\", state = \"IA\" and year = 2013 sorted by date descending", "rows": [["https://web.archive.org/web/20140110164209/http://www.grassley.senate.gov:80/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47871", "Grassley to Kick Off 99-County Tour", "2013-12-23", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley will begin holding meetings with Iowans in every county again next year with meetings in Floyd and Chickasaw counties on Friday, Jan. 3.\u201cRepresentative government is a two-way street, and it\u2019s strengthened by dialogue between elected officials and the people we represent,\u201d Grassley said.\u00a0 \u201cI look forward to events and meetings where I listen to comments, hear concerns and respond directly to questions.\u00a0 I\u2019m committed to keeping in touch with Iowans.\u201d Grassley has held at least one meeting with Iowans in each of the state\u2019s 99 counties every year since he was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1980.  Grassley will be available for 15 minutes before the meeting at Nashua-Plainfield High School and 15 minutes after the meeting at Mitas Tires to answer questions from local reporters.\u00a0 Otherwise, members of the media should contact the individual host about each event, as Grassley is a guest of each organization.  Here are the details of Grassley\u2019s schedule for Friday, Jan. 3: 12:45-1:45 p.m.  \nQ&A with students at Nashua-Plainfield High School  \n612 Greeley Street  \nNashua  \n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *The press availability from 12:30-12:45 p.m. will be in the main office. 2:15-3:15 p.m.  \nTour and Q&A with employees at Mitas Tires North America, Inc.  \n1200 Rove Avenue  \nCharles City  \n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *The press availability from 3:15-3:30 p.m. will be in the conference room. -30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043045/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47867", "Grassley Joins Effort to Stop OSHA's Illegal Regulatory Actions", "2013-12-23", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON- Sen. Chuck Grassley has joined 42 other senators in requesting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to stop unlawful regulations on small family farms.\n  \nSince 1976, Congress has exempted small, family-run farms with 10 or fewer employees from OSHA regulations.\u00a0 However, in a 2011 memo, OSHA asserted that on-farm grain storage and handling was not part of farm operations.\u00a0 By viewing grain storage as distinct from the farming operation, the senators\u2019 request said OSHA is creating an artificial distinction that would subject virtually every farm to OSHA regulations without allowing for congressional review and public comment, and in defiance of the law.\u00a0\n  \n\u201cOSHA is overstepping its bounds here,\u201d Grassley said.\u00a0 \u201cGrain storage is an essential part of farming.\u00a0 The federal government is expanding its reach to include farms that should be exempt, and is doing so despite the clear intent of Congress.\u201d\n  \nThe request from senators was made in a letter to Department of Labor Secretary Thomas Perez, who oversees OSHA, as well as to OSHA, asking that OSHA update guidance correcting its misinterpretation of the law.\n  \nThis bipartisan effort is led by Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.).\u00a0 The letter also was signed by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Dan Coats (R-Ind.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), John Thune (R-S.D.), David Vitter (R-La.) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.).\nThe text of the letter is below. A copy of the signed letter can be found here. December 20, 2013  \n\u00a0  \nThe Honorable Thomas E. Perez  \nSecretary  \nU.S. Department of Labor  \n200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.  \nWashington, DC 20210  \n\u00a0  \nDear Secretary Perez:  \n\u00a0  \nWe write to you regarding reports that regulators at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have begun taking regulatory actions against farms that are specifically exempted by Congress from regulatory enforcement conducted by OSHA. Since 1976, Congress has included specific language in appropriations bills prohibiting OSHA from using appropriated funds to apply requirements under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1976 to farming operations with 10 or fewer employees.\u00a0\n  \nIt has come to our attention that OSHA is now interpreting this provision so narrowly that virtually every grain farm in the country would be subject to OSHA regulations.\u00a0 OSHA\u2019s interpretation defies the intent of Congress in exempting farming operations from the standards of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.\u00a0\n  \nIn viewing a farm\u2019s \u201cgrain bin operation\u201d as somehow distinct from its farming operation, OSHA is creating an artificial distinction in an apparent effort to circumvent the Congressional prohibition on regulating farms.\u00a0 The use of grain bins is an integral part of farming operations.\u00a0 Without grain bins, farmers must sell corn and soybeans immediately after harvest, when prices are usually low.\u00a0 Storing grain in bins is thus a fundamental aspect of farming.\u00a0 Any farm that employs 10 or fewer employees and used grain bins only for storage prior to marketing should be exempt, as required by law, from OSHA regulations.\u00a0\n  \nA memo issued by the Director of Enforcement Programs on June 28, 2011, stated that \u201cmany of these small farm employers mistakenly assume that the Appropriations Rider precludes OSHA from conducting enforcement activities regardless of the type of operations performed on the farm.\u201d\u00a0 The memo declares that all activities under SIC 072\u2014including drying and fumigating grain\u2014are subject to all OSHA requirements (the memo did not even mention grain storage).\u00a0 There are many farms that have grain dryers on-farm to address wet harvest conditions or fumigate grain to prevent pests from ruining a crop prior to marketing.\u00a0 These are basic, common, and responsible farming activities that OSHA has arbitrarily decided are non-exempt.  \n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\nWorker safety is an important concern for all of us\u2014including the many farmers who probably know better than OSHA regulators how to keep themselves and their employees safe on farms.\u00a0 If the Administration believes that OSHA should be able to enforce its regulations on farms, it should make that case to Congress rather than twisting the law in the service of bureaucratic mission creep.\u00a0 Until then, Congress has spoken clearly and we sincerely hope that you will support America\u2019s farmers and respect the intent of Congress by reining in OSHA.  \n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\nWe would ask that you direct OSHA to take the following three steps to alleviate this concern.\u00a0 First, OSHA should cease all actions predicated on this interpretation, which is inconsistent with Congressional intent.\u00a0 It is important that OSHA also issue guidance correcting this misinterpretation of the law.\u00a0 We suggest consulting with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and organizations representing farmers to assist with this guidance.\u00a0 Finally, we ask that OSHA provide a list and description of regulatory actions taken against farms with incorrectly categorized non-farming activities and 10 or fewer employees since the June 2011 memo.\u00a0 Given the nearly four decades of Congressional prohibition of OSHA enforcement against farms, this should be a simple request to fulfil.  \n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\nWe would appreciate your response by February 1, 2014, to include a copy of the corrected guidance, the data regarding enforcement actions on farms, and confirmation that OSHA will cease such enforcement.\n-30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-joins-effort-stop-oshas-illegal-regulatory-actions", "Grassley Joins Effort to Stop OSHA's Illegal Regulatory Actions", "2013-12-23", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON- Sen. Chuck Grassley has joined 42 other senators in requesting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to stop unlawful regulations on small family farms.\nSince 1976, Congress has exempted small, family-run farms with 10 or fewer employees from OSHA regulations. However, in a 2011 memo, OSHA asserted that on-farm grain storage and handling was not part of farm operations. By viewing grain storage as distinct from the farming operation, the senators' request said OSHA is creating an artificial distinction that would subject virtually every farm to OSHA regulations without allowing for congressional review and public comment, and in defiance of the law.\nOSHA is overstepping its bounds here, Grassley said. Grain storage is an essential part of farming. The federal government is expanding its reach to include farms that should be exempt, and is doing so despite the clear intent of Congress.\nThe request from senators was made in a letter to Department of Labor Secretary Thomas Perez, who oversees OSHA, as well as to OSHA, asking that OSHA update guidance correcting its misinterpretation of the law.\nThis bipartisan effort is led by Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.). The letter also was signed by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Dan Coats (R-Ind.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), John Thune (R-S.D.), David Vitter (R-La.) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.).\nThe text of the letter is below. A copy of the signed letter can be found  here.\nDecember 20, 2013    The Honorable Thomas E. Perez  Secretary  U.S. Department of Labor  200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.  Washington, DC 20210    Dear Secretary Perez:    We write to you regarding reports that regulators at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have begun taking regulatory actions against farms that are specifically exempted by Congress from regulatory enforcement conducted by OSHA. Since 1976, Congress has included specific language in appropriations bills prohibiting OSHA from using appropriated funds to apply requirements under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1976 to farming operations with 10 or fewer employees.\nIt has come to our attention that OSHA is now interpreting this provision so narrowly that virtually every grain farm in the country would be subject to OSHA regulations. OSHA's interpretation defies the intent of Congress in exempting farming operations from the standards of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.\nIn viewing a farm's grain bin operation as somehow distinct from its farming operation, OSHA is creating an artificial distinction in an apparent effort to circumvent the Congressional prohibition on regulating farms. The use of grain bins is an integral part of farming operations. Without grain bins, farmers must sell corn and soybeans immediately after harvest, when prices are usually low. Storing grain in bins is thus a fundamental aspect of farming. Any farm that employs 10 or fewer employees and used grain bins only for storage prior to marketing should be exempt, as required by law, from OSHA regulations.\nA memo issued by the Director of Enforcement Programs on June 28, 2011, stated that many of these small farm employers mistakenly assume that the Appropriations Rider precludes OSHA from conducting enforcement activities regardless of the type of operations performed on the farm. The memo declares that all activities under SIC 072including drying and fumigating grainare subject to all OSHA requirements (the memo did not even mention grain storage). There are many farms that have grain dryers on-farm to address wet harvest conditions or fumigate grain to prevent pests from ruining a crop prior to marketing. These are basic, common, and responsible farming activities that OSHA has arbitrarily decided are non-exempt.  \nWorker safety is an important concern for all of usincluding the many farmers who probably know better than OSHA regulators how to keep themselves and their employees safe on farms. If the Administration believes that OSHA should be able to enforce its regulations on farms, it should make that case to Congress rather than twisting the law in the service of bureaucratic mission creep. Until then, Congress has spoken clearly and we sincerely hope that you will support America's farmers and respect the intent of Congress by reining in OSHA.  \nWe would ask that you direct OSHA to take the following three steps to alleviate this concern. First, OSHA should cease all actions predicated on this interpretation, which is inconsistent with Congressional intent. It is important that OSHA also issue guidance correcting this misinterpretation of the law. We suggest consulting with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and organizations representing farmers to assist with this guidance. Finally, we ask that OSHA provide a list and description of regulatory actions taken against farms with incorrectly categorized non-farming activities and 10 or fewer employees since the June 2011 memo. Given the nearly four decades of Congressional prohibition of OSHA enforcement against farms, this should be a simple request to fulfil.  \nWe would appreciate your response by February 1, 2014, to include a copy of the corrected guidance, the data regarding enforcement actions on farms, and confirmation that OSHA will cease such enforcement.  \n-30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-kick-99-county-tour", "Grassley to Kick Off 99-County Tour", "2013-12-23", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley will begin holding meetings with Iowans in every county again next year with meetings in Floyd and Chickasaw counties on Friday, Jan. 3.\nRepresentative government is a two-way street, and it's strengthened by dialogue between elected officials and the people we represent, Grassley said. I look forward to events and meetings where I listen to comments, hear concerns and respond directly to questions. I'm committed to keeping in touch with Iowans.\nGrassley has held at least one meeting with Iowans in each of the state's 99 counties every year since he was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1980.\nGrassley will be available for 15 minutes before the meeting at Nashua-Plainfield High School and 15 minutes after the meeting at Mitas Tires to answer questions from local reporters. Otherwise, members of the media should contact the individual host about each event, as Grassley is a guest of each organization.\nHere are the details of Grassley's schedule for Friday, Jan. 3:\n12:45-1:45 p.m.  Q&A with students at Nashua-Plainfield High School  612 Greeley Street  Nashua   *The press availability from 12:30-12:45 p.m. will be in the main office.\n2:15-3:15 p.m.  Tour and Q&A with employees at Mitas Tires North America, Inc.  1200 Rove Avenue  Charles City   *The press availability from 3:15-3:30 p.m. will be in the conference room.\n-30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043052/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47853", "EB-5 Visa Program Faces Tough Questions", "2013-12-20", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "The EB-5 visa program has been used for decades as a tool to encourage foreign investment and job creation in the United States in exchange for a U.S. visa.\u00a0 Over the past three years, there has been a remarkable increase in the amount of foreigners using this visa program.\u00a0 At first glance, this appeared to be a positive development.\u00a0 But, as whistleblowers came forward, and we took a detailed look, there appear to be some major flaws that need fixing. For instance, last week I sent a letter to the Acting Director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement inquiring about a memo from his agency that expressed grave concerns about the EB-5 visa program.\u00a0 The internal memo identified several areas of vulnerability within the EB-5 visa program, and it questioned whether the vulnerabilities could be fixed in order to \u201censure the integrity of the program.\u201d I was especially concerned about a section of the memo that outlines how the EB-5 program \u201cmay be abused by Iranian operatives to infiltrate the United States.\u201d\u00a0 According to the memo, Immigrations and Custom Enforcement investigators became concerned about the program while scrutinizing operatives who allegedly \u201cfacilitate terrorism and are involved in an illicit procurement network that exports items to Iran... .\u201d Whistleblowers provided this memo, as well as evidence that the leadership team at Citizenship and Immigration Services was susceptible to political pressure and favoritism.\u00a0 The U.S. immigration system should be governed by equal application of the law\u2014not by who has the best political connections to the director of the agency.\u00a0 Unfortunately, despite concerns of many senators and an ongoing investigation by the independent Inspector General at the Department of Homeland Security, Senate Democrats proceeded to vote on the now former director of Citizenship and Immigration Services to be the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. The national security concerns that whistleblowers brought forward, along with the internal memo, show reason to take a hard look at the EB-5 visa program and what fixes need to be made to ensure that the security of the American people isn\u2019t compromised.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043100/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47848", "Report Card for 113th Congress", "2013-12-20", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "As the first session of the 113th Congress ends, year-end performance reviews are under way.\u00a0 Public opinion of Washington is remarkably low.\u00a0 The mismanaged roll out of the federal health insurance website and broken promises from the President have frustrated many Americans.\u00a0 A shortsighted decision by the Senate Majority Leader to trample on minority party rights has likely poisoned the well for sweeping bipartisan achievements in the U.S. Senate.   \n\u00a0  \nStill, rank-and-file lawmakers in Congress continue working on the people\u2019s business that affects the lives of ordinary families, workers, farmers, students, soldiers, veterans and retirees.\u00a0 From keeping rural health care and higher education accessible to hardworking Iowa families; to championing renewable energy that\u2019s good for consumers, the environment and economy; balancing intelligence-gathering with privacy rights; or, challenging the administration\u2019s decision to sweep the trafficking and sale of illicit drugs under the prosecutorial rug, I\u2019m working to make sure the nation\u2019s public policies square with the principles of good governance and proper stewardship of tax dollars.  \n\u00a0  \nAs a member of the Senate Budget, Agriculture, Finance committees, Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee and co-chair of the International Narcotics Control and Foster Youth caucuses, I\u2019ve participated this year in scores of congressional oversight, nomination and legislative hearings to advance economic and social policies that build upon America\u2019s landscape of opportunity, mobility and prosperity.\u00a0 Whereas many in Washington seem to believe that redistributing wealth and raising taxes magically will solve income inequality, cure global warming and achieve world peace, the fact is that Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.Washington needs to take less so that Americans can do more spending and investing with their hard-earned money to create jobs and prosperity.  \n\u00a0  \nIt\u2019s frustrating this Congress busted the spending caps agreed to in August 2011.\u00a0 Although Washington won\u2019t face a government shutdown after the New Year, it\u2019s irresponsible to raise an additional $63 billion in revenue over the next 10 years, but spend it all over the next two years.\u00a0 These kinds of budget agreements contribute towards the $17 trillion national debt hanging over the taxpaying public\u2019s head.  \n\u00a0  \nHere are a few items of business I\u2019m working on to try to make a difference in how government serves \u201cWe the People.\u201d \u2022\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Strengthening whistleblower protections.\u00a0 Washington can\u2019t afford to weaken incentives that encourage civil servants and private sector contractors to come forward with information about waste, fraud and abuse. Congress needs to step up oversight as tax dollars flow throughout the federal bureaucracy and the courts need to stop diluting whistleblower protections. A provision was included in the National Defense Authorization Act to protect military whistleblowers from retaliation. Much more needs to be done, including passage of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand\u2019s bipartisan bill to root out sexual assault in the military. \u2022\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Vetting nominees.\u00a0 Whether it\u2019s the IRS, Homeland Security or lifelong appointments to serve on the federal bench, members of the U.S. Senate have the constitutional duty of advice and consent.\u00a0 Scrutiny of these nominees is an integral function of our republic\u2019s system of checks and balances that demands more than rubber-stamp approval. \u2022\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Promoting sibling connections and beefing up child support enforcement.\u00a0 I\u2019m working to secure bipartisan legislation that would help siblings retain ties with one another when a child is placed in foster care or parental rights are terminated.\u00a0 Moreover, the bill moving through Congress would give states more tools to recover money that family courts have determined is owed to custodial parents. \u2022\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Championing renewable energy.\u00a0 It\u2019s disappointing the Obama administration has proposed rules that would roll back the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) in 2014.\u00a0 From rental income earned from wind farms to the market value boost for Iowa commodities, policies such as the wind energy and biodiesel tax credits and the RFS have helped foster job creation and economic growth to the rural economy.\u00a0 I\u2019ll continue beating the drum in Congress to scuttle Big Oil\u2019s efforts to dismantle America\u2019s renewable energy policy. \u2022\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Reforming farm payment system.\u00a0 My efforts to install payment caps that limit how much individual farmers may receive per year were included in the Senate and House versions of the farm and food bill.\u00a0 Reasonable limits are needed to keep the farm safety net defensible, especially as Congress considers sizable savings in nutrition assistance spending. \u2022\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Cracking down on patent trolls.\u00a0 A legislative remedy is necessary to curb the prevalence of abusive patent litigation.\u00a0 The budding patent troll phenomenon is forcing businesses to divert scarce resources towards settlement or litigation that would otherwise be channeled towards innovation, research, development, job creation or expansion.\u00a0 I\u2019m working on legislation that would strengthen the integrity of the U.S. patent system that has allowed innovators and inventors to flourish and prosper for generations. \u2022\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Securing access to rural health care, increasing oversight and expanding transparency of Medicare payments.\u00a0 During committee mark-up of a must-pass Medicare physician payment bill, I secured bipartisan amendments that would make permanent a payment index that helps Iowa providers receive fair reimbursement relative to medical providers in other parts of the country; continue the Medicare-dependent hospital program to recognize the valuable service these hospitals serve in their low population areas; beef up independent investigation and oversight of Medicare spending; and establish a free, searchable Medicare payment database.  \n\u00a0  \nRegardless of the overall record of the 113th Congress, my work in the U.S. Senate is full steam ahead as the new year begins.\u00a0 My nose is to the grindstone in Washington, and I\u2019m launching my 34th annual 99-county road trip for meetings with Iowans.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043406/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47860", "Farm and Nutrition Bill Payment Limits/Actively Engaged Update", "2013-12-20", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, one of two working family farmers in the Senate, made the following comment about the current status of the farm and nutrition bill negotiations and his provisions to place a hard cap on farm payments and the actively engaged loophole. \u201cAs members of Congress head home for the holidays, farm bill negotiators still have a to-do list.\u00a0 It\u2019s my understanding that the last remaining issue to be resolved is my provision to place a hard cap on farm payments and close the loophole that tens of thousands of people are using claiming to be actively engaged in the business of farming.\u00a0 These provisions are in both bills, and should not be subject to negotiation.\u00a0 They should have DO NOT TOUCH stamped across that section of the bill.\u00a0 Unfortunately, the minority in both the House and Senate who voted against these provisions are a majority on the conference committee, so it remains a fight to the end.\u00a0 To close loopholes for food stamps, but leave open loopholes for the biggest farmers to exploit taxpayers is the wrong way to do business.\u00a0 We ought to apply scrutiny and end abuse in all programs.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043413/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47840", "Homegrown Energy That Makes Sense", "2013-12-20", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "The U.S. Senate exhibits more bipartisanship than what makes the biggest headlines.\u00a0 This week, a bipartisan group of 16 senators met with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy to deliver a single message:\u00a0 The agency\u2019s proposed reduction of the Renewable Fuel Standard for 2014 would discourage investment and hurt jobs in rural communities across the country while undermining a homegrown fuel supply. The EPA wants to lower the biodiesel target below current industry production levels and reduce the conventional ethanol target by more than a billion gallons.\u00a0\u00a0 In a Capitol Hill meeting, Administrator McCarthy listened to senators\u2019 concerns.\u00a0 I tried to impress upon her that while President Obama and his administration have claimed to be in favor of domestic biofuels, this proposal is a step backward and will harm our efforts to further diversify our fuel supply.\u00a0 The fact is, the \u201cblend wall\u201d limiting the amount of ethanol that can be blended with gasoline is a result of Big Oil\u2019s obstruction to higher ethanol blends, and the EPA\u2019s proposal rewards its obstruction.\u00a0 The Administrator heard a lot about the harm this proposal would do to the environment, our national and energy security, and our rural economies.\u00a0 I also personally relayed the request of the entire Iowa delegation to host a field hearing in Iowa to hear directly from farmers and biofuels producers about the benefits of the RFS. The EPA has a record of deciding major policy issues without hearing directly from the employers, workers and communities affected.\u00a0 That\u2019s a poor way to conduct the nation\u2019s business.\u00a0 I hope the Capitol Hill meeting persuaded the agency\u2019s leader on that point.\u00a0 Meanwhile, an example of forward-thinking energy policy unfolded in Iowa.\u00a0 The MidAmerican Energy Company announced that it plans to add up to 1,050 megawatts of wind generation in Iowa by year-end 2015, including up to 448 new wind turbines, in Grundy, Madison, Marshall, O\u2019Brien and Webster counties.\u00a0 All of the blades for the expansion will be manufactured in Fort Madison, according to MidAmerican. As the author of the first-ever production tax credit for wind energy in 1992, I was pleased to see the kind of extraordinary investment in wind-energy production that emphasizes the value and success of the federal production tax credit.\u00a0 Wind energy continues to prove that it\u2019s a force in America\u2019s energy supply by delivering clean, renewable power.\u00a0 Wind energy comes from local farms, it\u2019s for local customers and, most often, it adds investment value to local communities.\u00a0 Wind energy makes sense for America\u2019s future.\u00a0 The same is true for ethanol and biodiesel, as the EPA would be wise to note.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043834/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47845", "Budget Deal:  Too Much Spending, Too Little Discipline", "2013-12-20", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "This week, the Senate gave final approval to the House-Senate budget deal that sets upcoming levels for government spending.\u00a0  \n\u00a0  \nWhile I appreciate the bipartisan effort that brokered this budget deal, I couldn\u2019t support the proposal.\u00a0 It spends an additional $63 billion over the next two years when we have a $17 trillion debt.\u00a0 To offset that higher spending, it raises revenue over ten years but spends that money in the first two years.\u00a0 It raises fees on air travelers and corporate pension premiums and reduces retirement benefits for military retirees to offset unrelated spending.\u00a0 The spending cuts are meager, and nearly all of them are put off until 2022 and 2023.\u00a0 We\u2019ll never get the nation\u2019s fiscal house in order if we keep kicking the can down the road, or pretending the can doesn\u2019t exist. As a start at fiscal discipline, we should at least abide by the spending caps put in place in August 2011 that provided a $2.1 trillion increase in the nation\u2019s debt ceiling.\u00a0 This budget deal emphasizes that Congress has a spending problem.\u00a0 In the new year, I\u2019ll continue to advocate for fiscal restraint and getting the most value for tax dollars spent.\u00a0\u00a0 One of Congress\u2019 primary duties is enacting a budget and appropriating spending.\u00a0 That means there are always opportunities to reduce spending if we just have the will to do it.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043840/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47834", "Grassley, Casey Promote Proposal to Allow Residents of Continuing Care Retirement Communities to Receive Medicare Services in Integrated Arrangement", "2013-12-20", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Grassley, Casey Promote Proposal to Allow Residents of Continuing Care Retirement Communities to Receive Medicare Services in Integrated ArrangementWASHINGTON -- Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania said today they hope to advance their proposal to make it easier for the residents of Continuing Care Retirement Communities to receive Medicare services through care coordination and disease management services provided onsite.\u00a0 These services would avoid hospitalizations and lower the total cost of care for seniors as they age in place, and their needs increase.\u00a0\u00a0\n  \n\u201cThe physician payments bill approved in committee depends on the creation of models where providers are willing to take on risk and provide quality care,\u201d Grassley said.\u00a0 \u201cIf nursing home communities are willing to meet those goals and standards, we should allow them that opportunity.\u00a0 The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation should be testing models like the one suggested in this amendment.\u201d \u201cWhile Congress has taken steps to more toward better care coordination, we must continue to look for innovative ways to move the Medicare program forward when treating beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions,\u201d Casey said.\u00a0 \u201cI believe Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC) in Pennsylvania and around the country are up to this challenge.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0\n  \nGrassley and Casey filed but not offer an amendment to the physician payments bill considered in the Finance Committee last week that would require the federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation to consider allowing Continuing Care Retirement Communities to receive Medicare services provided under a risk-adjusted, per-person payment arrangement.\u00a0\u00a0 Grassley and Casey said these arrangements could improve the efficiency and quality of senior care and align incentives to provide the right care, at the right time, in the right setting.\u00a0\n  \nMedical homes, care coordination and disease management are among the most promising strategies for cost containment and quality improvement in health care delivery, especially the costs associated with Medicare beneficiaries with chronic conditions, the senators said.\u00a0 There are currently 2,000 Continuing Care Retirement Communities in the United States.\u00a0 Recent studies, including one in the New England Journal of Medicine, demonstrate that a congregate senior living environment such as in Continuing Care Retirement Communities is the ideal setting to integrate strategies to lower costs and improve outcomes for Medicare seniors because of the near-constant interaction between staff and residents.\n  \nUnder the Grassley-Casey proposal, the Continuing Care Retirement Communities would accept a diverse group of independent, non-acute seniors whose mix of chronic conditions could benefit from the care coordination and disease management services provided onsite to avoid hospitalizations and lower the total cost of care for seniors as they age in place and their needs increase.\u00a0 An interdisciplinary health care team led by salaried primary care physicians would integrate comprehensive primary and post-acute health care services into the residential community and coordinate acute and specialist care.\u00a0 Beneficiaries would receive Medicare services provided under a risk-adjusted, capitated payment arrangement.\n  \nGrassley and Casey said they will look for legislative opportunities to advance this proposal in the coming months.\n-30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/budget-deal-too-much-spending-too-little-discipline", "Budget Deal: Too Much Spending, Too Little Discipline", "2013-12-20", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "This week, the Senate gave final approval to the House-Senate budget deal that sets upcoming levels for government spending.  While I appreciate the bipartisan effort that brokered this budget deal, I couldn't support the proposal. It spends an additional $63 billion over the next two years when we have a $17 trillion debt. To offset that higher spending, it raises revenue over ten years but spends that money in the first two years. It raises fees on air travelers and corporate pension premiums and reduces retirement benefits for military retirees to offset unrelated spending. The spending cuts are meager, and nearly all of them are put off until 2022 and 2023. We'll never get the nation's fiscal house in order if we keep kicking the can down the road, or pretending the can doesn't exist. As a start at fiscal discipline, we should at least abide by the spending caps put in place in August 2011 that provided a $2.1 trillion increase in the nation's debt ceiling. This budget deal emphasizes that Congress has a spending problem. In the new year, I'll continue to advocate for fiscal restraint and getting the most value for tax dollars spent. One of Congress' primary duties is enacting a budget and appropriating spending. That means there are always opportunities to reduce spending if we just have the will to do it.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/eb-5-visa-program-faces-tough-questions", "EB-5 Visa Program Faces Tough Questions", "2013-12-20", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "The EB-5 visa program has been used for decades as a tool to encourage foreign investment and job creation in the United States in exchange for a U.S. visa. Over the past three years, there has been a remarkable increase in the amount of foreigners using this visa program. At first glance, this appeared to be a positive development. But, as whistleblowers came forward, and we took a detailed look, there appear to be some major flaws that need fixing.\nFor instance, last week I sent a letter to the Acting Director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement inquiring about a memo from his agency that expressed grave concerns about the EB-5 visa program. The internal memo identified several areas of vulnerability within the EB-5 visa program, and it questioned whether the vulnerabilities could be fixed in order to ensure the integrity of the program.\nI was especially concerned about a section of the memo that outlines how the EB-5 program may be abused by Iranian operatives to infiltrate the United States. According to the memo, Immigrations and Custom Enforcement investigators became concerned about the program while scrutinizing operatives who allegedly facilitate terrorism and are involved in an illicit procurement network that exports items to Iran... .\nWhistleblowers provided this memo, as well as evidence that the leadership team at Citizenship and Immigration Services was susceptible to political pressure and favoritism. The U.S. immigration system should be governed by equal application of the lawnot by who has the best political connections to the director of the agency. Unfortunately, despite concerns of many senators and an ongoing investigation by the independent Inspector General at the Department of Homeland Security, Senate Democrats proceeded to vote on the now former director of Citizenship and Immigration Services to be the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.\nThe national security concerns that whistleblowers brought forward, along with the internal memo, show reason to take a hard look at the EB-5 visa program and what fixes need to be made to ensure that the security of the American people isn't compromised.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/farm-and-nutrition-bill-payment-limitsactively-engaged-update", "Farm and Nutrition Bill Payment Limits/Actively Engaged Update", "2013-12-20", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, one of two working family farmers in the Senate, made the following comment about the current status of the farm and nutrition bill negotiations and his provisions to place a hard cap on farm payments and the actively engaged loophole.\nAs members of Congress head home for the holidays, farm bill negotiators still have a to-do list. It's my understanding that the last remaining issue to be resolved is my provision to place a hard cap on farm payments and close the loophole that tens of thousands of people are using claiming to be actively engaged in the business of farming. These provisions are in both bills, and should not be subject to negotiation. They should have DO NOT TOUCH stamped across that section of the bill. Unfortunately, the minority in both the House and Senate who voted against these provisions are a majority on the conference committee, so it remains a fight to the end. To close loopholes for food stamps, but leave open loopholes for the biggest farmers to exploit taxpayers is the wrong way to do business. We ought to apply scrutiny and end abuse in all programs.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-casey-promote-proposal-allow-residents-continuing-care-retirement", "Grassley, Casey Promote Proposal to Allow Residents of Continuing Care Retirement Communities to Receive Medicare Services in Integrated Arrangement", "2013-12-20", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Grassley, Casey Promote Proposal to Allow Residents of Continuing Care Retirement Communities to Receive Medicare Services in Integrated Arrangement\n\nWASHINGTON -- Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania said today they hope to advance their proposal to make it easier for the residents of Continuing Care Retirement Communities to receive Medicare services through care coordination and disease management services provided onsite. These services would avoid hospitalizations and lower the total cost of care for seniors as they age in place, and their needs increase.\nThe physician payments bill approved in committee depends on the creation of models where providers are willing to take on risk and provide quality care, Grassley said. If nursing home communities are willing to meet those goals and standards, we should allow them that opportunity. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation should be testing models like the one suggested in this amendment. While Congress has taken steps to more toward better care coordination, we must continue to look for innovative ways to move the Medicare program forward when treating beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions, Casey said. I believe Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC) in Pennsylvania and around the country are up to this challenge.\nGrassley and Casey filed but not offer an amendment to the physician payments bill considered in the Finance Committee last week that would require the federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation to consider allowing Continuing Care Retirement Communities to receive Medicare services provided under a risk-adjusted, per-person payment arrangement. Grassley and Casey said these arrangements could improve the efficiency and quality of senior care and align incentives to provide the right care, at the right time, in the right setting.\nMedical homes, care coordination and disease management are among the most promising strategies for cost containment and quality improvement in health care delivery, especially the costs associated with Medicare beneficiaries with chronic conditions, the senators said. There are currently 2,000 Continuing Care Retirement Communities in the United States. Recent studies, including one in the New England Journal of Medicine, demonstrate that a congregate senior living environment such as in Continuing Care Retirement Communities is the ideal setting to integrate strategies to lower costs and improve outcomes for Medicare seniors because of the near-constant interaction between staff and residents.\nUnder the Grassley-Casey proposal, the Continuing Care Retirement Communities would accept a diverse group of independent, non-acute seniors whose mix of chronic conditions could benefit from the care coordination and disease management services provided onsite to avoid hospitalizations and lower the total cost of care for seniors as they age in place and their needs increase. An interdisciplinary health care team led by salaried primary care physicians would integrate comprehensive primary and post-acute health care services into the residential community and coordinate acute and specialist care. Beneficiaries would receive Medicare services provided under a risk-adjusted, capitated payment arrangement.\nGrassley and Casey said they will look for legislative opportunities to advance this proposal in the coming months.\n-30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/homegrown-energy-makes-sense", "Homegrown Energy That Makes Sense", "2013-12-20", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "The U.S. Senate exhibits more bipartisanship than what makes the biggest headlines. This week, a bipartisan group of 16 senators met with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy to deliver a single message: The agency's proposed reduction of the Renewable Fuel Standard for 2014 would discourage investment and hurt jobs in rural communities across the country while undermining a homegrown fuel supply. The EPA wants to lower the biodiesel target below current industry production levels and reduce the conventional ethanol target by more than a billion gallons. In a Capitol Hill meeting, Administrator McCarthy listened to senators' concerns. I tried to impress upon her that while President Obama and his administration have claimed to be in favor of domestic biofuels, this proposal is a step backward and will harm our efforts to further diversify our fuel supply. The fact is, the blend wall limiting the amount of ethanol that can be blended with gasoline is a result of Big Oil's obstruction to higher ethanol blends, and the EPA's proposal rewards its obstruction. The Administrator heard a lot about the harm this proposal would do to the environment, our national and energy security, and our rural economies. I also personally relayed the request of the entire Iowa delegation to host a field hearing in Iowa to hear directly from farmers and biofuels producers about the benefits of the RFS. The EPA has a record of deciding major policy issues without hearing directly from the employers, workers and communities affected. That's a poor way to conduct the nation's business. I hope the Capitol Hill meeting persuaded the agency's leader on that point. Meanwhile, an example of forward-thinking energy policy unfolded in Iowa. The MidAmerican Energy Company announced that it plans to add up to 1,050 megawatts of wind generation in Iowa by year-end 2015, including up to 448 new wind turbines, in Grundy, Madison, Marshall, O'Brien and Webster counties. All of the blades for the expansion will be manufactured in Fort Madison, according to MidAmerican. As the author of the first-ever production tax credit for wind energy in 1992, I was pleased to see the kind of extraordinary investment in wind-energy production that emphasizes the value and success of the federal production tax credit. Wind energy continues to prove that it's a force in America's energy supply by delivering clean, renewable power. Wind energy comes from local farms, it's for local customers and, most often, it adds investment value to local communities. Wind energy makes sense for America's future. The same is true for ethanol and biodiesel, as the EPA would be wise to note.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/report-card-113th-congress", "Report Card for 113th Congress", "2013-12-20", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "As the first session of the 113th Congress ends, year-end performance reviews are under way. Public opinion of Washington is remarkably low. The mismanaged roll out of the federal health insurance website and broken promises from the President have frustrated many Americans. A shortsighted decision by the Senate Majority Leader to trample on minority party rights has likely poisoned the well for sweeping bipartisan achievements in the U.S. Senate. Still, rank-and-file lawmakers in Congress continue working on the people's business that affects the lives of ordinary families, workers, farmers, students, soldiers, veterans and retirees. From keeping rural health care and higher education accessible to hardworking Iowa families; to championing renewable energy that's good for consumers, the environment and economy; balancing intelligence-gathering with privacy rights; or, challenging the administration's decision to sweep the trafficking and sale of illicit drugs under the prosecutorial rug, I'm working to make sure the nation's public policies square with the principles of good governance and proper stewardship of tax dollars.  As a member of the Senate Budget, Agriculture, Finance committees, Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee and co-chair of the International Narcotics Control and Foster Youth caucuses, I've participated this year in scores of congressional oversight, nomination and legislative hearings to advance economic and social policies that build upon America's landscape of opportunity, mobility and prosperity. Whereas many in Washington seem to believe that redistributing wealth and raising taxes magically will solve income inequality, cure global warming and achieve world peace, the fact is that Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Washington needs to take less so that Americans can do more spending and investing with their hard-earned money to create jobs and prosperity.  It's frustrating this Congress busted the spending caps agreed to in August 2011. Although Washington won't face a government shutdown after the New Year, it's irresponsible to raise an additional $63 billion in revenue over the next 10 years, but spend it all over the next two years. These kinds of budget agreements contribute towards the $17 trillion national debt hanging over the taxpaying public's head.  Here are a few items of business I'm working on to try to make a difference in how government serves We the People.  Strengthening whistleblower protections. Washington can't afford to weaken incentives that encourage civil servants and private sector contractors to come forward with information about waste, fraud and abuse. Congress needs to step up oversight as tax dollars flow throughout the federal bureaucracy and the courts need to stop diluting whistleblower protections. A provision was included in the National Defense Authorization Act to protect military whistleblowers from retaliation. Much more needs to be done, including passage of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's bipartisan bill to root out sexual assault in the military.  Vetting nominees. Whether it's the IRS, Homeland Security or lifelong appointments to serve on the federal bench, members of the U.S. Senate have the constitutional duty of advice and consent. Scrutiny of these nominees is an integral function of our republic's system of checks and balances that demands more than rubber-stamp approval.  Promoting sibling connections and beefing up child support enforcement. I'm working to secure bipartisan legislation that would help siblings retain ties with one another when a child is placed in foster care or parental rights are terminated. Moreover, the bill moving through Congress would give states more tools to recover money that family courts have determined is owed to custodial parents.  Championing renewable energy. It's disappointing the Obama administration has proposed rules that would roll back the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) in 2014. From rental income earned from wind farms to the market value boost for Iowa commodities, policies such as the wind energy and biodiesel tax credits and the RFS have helped foster job creation and economic growth to the rural economy. I'll continue beating the drum in Congress to scuttle Big Oil's efforts to dismantle America's renewable energy policy.  Reforming farm payment system. My efforts to install payment caps that limit how much individual farmers may receive per year were included in the Senate and House versions of the farm and food bill. Reasonable limits are needed to keep the farm safety net defensible, especially as Congress considers sizable savings in nutrition assistance spending.  Cracking down on patent trolls. A legislative remedy is necessary to curb the prevalence of abusive patent litigation. The budding patent troll phenomenon is forcing businesses to divert scarce resources towards settlement or litigation that would otherwise be channeled towards innovation, research, development, job creation or expansion. I'm working on legislation that would strengthen the integrity of the U.S. patent system that has allowed innovators and inventors to flourish and prosper for generations.  Securing access to rural health care, increasing oversight and expanding transparency of Medicare payments. During committee mark-up of a must-pass Medicare physician payment bill, I secured bipartisan amendments that would make permanent a payment index that helps Iowa providers receive fair reimbursement relative to medical providers in other parts of the country; continue the Medicare-dependent hospital program to recognize the valuable service these hospitals serve in their low population areas; beef up independent investigation and oversight of Medicare spending; and establish a free, searchable Medicare payment database.  Regardless of the overall record of the 113th Congress, my work in the U.S. Senate is full steam ahead as the new year begins. My nose is to the grindstone in Washington, and I'm launching my 34th annual 99-county road trip for meetings with Iowans.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043107/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47829", "Continued Concerns with Mayorkas Nomination", "2013-12-19", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Prepared Floor Speech of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa  \nRanking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee  \nMayorkas Failed to Fix National Security Concerns  \nThursday, December 19, 2013 Just two days ago I was on this floor explaining the concerns I have with Mr. Mayorkas\u2019s nomination.\u00a0 I have additional information for my colleagues. Today, the Office of Inspector General, or OIG, for the Department of Homeland Security released an embargoed version of its audit of the EB-5 immigrant investor visa program.\u00a0 The report states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has difficulty ensuring the integrity of the program and does not always ensure that regional centers meet all eligibility requirements.\u00a0 Specifically, it said:  \n\u201cU.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services did not always enforce its own regulations and procedures to assist with managing the regional center program.\u201d \u201cUntil improvements are made, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is unable to prevent fraud and national security threats. . .\u201d \u201c[I]t cannot report the results of the program accurately or ensure the EB-5 program is benefiting the U.S. economy and creating jobs for U.S. citizens as created by Congress.\u201d You understand that Mr. Mayorkas is in charge of this program.\u00a0 The IG said that the agency needed to improve coordination and rely on the expertise of other agencies. The IG had several recommendations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that, frankly, should have been in place before now if the director was doing his job. In his comments on the draft report, Mr. Mayorkas claimed that he was already addressing the issues the OIG raised.\u00a0 He said his agency had \u201cdramatically enhanced collaboration with key government partners,\u201d such as the FBI.\u00a0 He also wrote that when his agency has concerns with EB-5 cases, it doesn\u2019t decide the cases until it has \u201cfully coordinated its approach with enforcement and intelligence partners.\u201d I\u2019ve seen examples of this so-called coordination Mr. Mayorkas talks about. But again, his words don\u2019t comport with the actual practice.\u00a0 When Homeland Security\u2019s law enforcement database, TECS, has a hit on someone applying for a regional center, Citizenship and Immigration Services sends an email to the law enforcement agency that put the record in. But, the problem is that Citizenship and Immigration Services isn\u2019t waiting for law enforcement.\u00a0  \nIn fact, information has come to my attention that Citizenship and Immigration Services employees are told to move forward if law enforcement doesn\u2019t respond in five days. That\u2019s just five days to find out what sensitive security or fraud information caused that person to be flagged.\u00a0 If law enforcement doesn\u2019t get back to Citizenship and Immigration Services soon enough, they just go ahead and approve the person\u2019s application. That\u2019s not coordination\u2014it\u2019s a sham.\u00a0 It should be simply unacceptable to any of us who are concerned about the national security of our country.\u00a0 It is not the sort of way to run a program with national security vulnerabilities.\u00a0 You should wait until the law enforcement responds.\u00a0 You need to know who's coming into this country, particularly when they're involved in a program where you buy your way into a country by supposedly investing and creating jobs in this country.\u00a0 Some people may want to get into this country for ulterior motives, and it may violate our national security.\u00a0 They don't care about creating jobs.\u00a0 If the visa gets them inside the country, you need to know if they're a threat to our national security. The only reason that US Citizenship and Immigration Services even does checks on regional centers at all is because of a push within the agency that Mr. Mayorkas and his management resisted.\u00a0 Now they\u2019re trying to take credit for it. More important is what his agency has not done.\u00a0 They refuse to kick out regional centers that invite national security problems.  \n\u00a0  \nMr. Mayorkas claims he doesn\u2019t have statutory authority, but the OIG audit recommended that Mr. Mayorkas should make clear on his own that fraud and national security concerns are a reason for regional centers to be kicked out of the program. The bottom line is that Mr. Mayorkas has not taken the steps that were within his power to guard against security vulnerabilities in the EB-5 program.\u00a0 The OIG audit report concludes: \u201cCurrently, USCIS cannot administer and manage the EB-5 regional center program effectively.\u201d Mr. Mayorkas has had ample notice of these problems for years.\u00a0 He has failed to take adequate action.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043111/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47826", "Grassley Statement on the Abuse of Cloture Motions", "2013-12-19", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa  \n\u201cThe Abuse of Cloture Motions\u201d  \nWednesday, December 19, 2013\n  \nThe Senate is poised to vote on a final National Defense Authorization Act after considering only two amendments. The Senate has not been functioning like it should for some time and the way the National Defense Authorization Act has been handled is just one example. I\u2019ve served in the majority and the minority with Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents so I\u2019ve seen it operate from every perspective.\u00a0 What\u2019s unique about the Senate is that the rules and traditions force senators to work together.\u00a0 That leads senators to understand where the other side is coming from, resulting in mutual respect and comity.\u00a0 I hear from a lot of Iowans who are upset at the tone they hear from Washington and the lack of bipartisanship.\u00a0 I\u2019ve often said that the Senate functions best when no party has more than about 55 seats.\u00a0 If you have much more than that, there is less of a tendency to want to work in a bipartisan fashion.\u00a0 That was true for most of my time in the Senate, but not now.\u00a0 Despite a current margin of just 5 seats in the Senate, there has been very little bipartisan cooperation.\u00a0 I suppose some Democratic senators really believe it when they say that this is all Republicans\u2019 fault.\u00a0 I think anyone who remembers how the Senate used to operate and has paid attention to how the current majority leadership has been running things, knows better.\u00a0 In fairness, quite a few members of the Senate don\u2019t remember how the Senate is supposed to operate because it has been dysfunctional ever since they were elected.\u00a0 Some senators previously served in the House of Representatives, where the majority party controls everything that happens.\u00a0 In the House of Representatives, the Rules Committee sets out the terms of debate for each bill. If you want to offer an amendment in the House, you have to go hat in hand to the Rules Committee and say, \u201cMother may I?\u201d If the House leadership doesn\u2019t like your amendment, you\u2019re out of luck.\u00a0 If that sounds familiar, that\u2019s because it is how the current Senate leadership has been running things lately. We have seen an absolutely unprecedented use, or I would say abuse, of cloture motions paired with a tactic called \u201cfilling the tree\u201d to block amendments being considered. That not only affects the minority party, but Democratic senators as well.\u00a0 I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, how many times have you had an amendment you wanted to offer that was important to your state, but you couldn\u2019t do it because amendments were blocked? The Senate Majority Leader has effectively become a one man version of the House Rules Committee, dictating what amendments will be debated and which ones will never see the light of day. This strips the ability of individual senators to effectively represent their state, regardless of party. It also virtually guarantees that any legislation the Senate votes on will be more partisan in nature. I would ask my colleagues across the aisle, isn\u2019t your first responsibility to the people of your state, not your party leadership? Are you really content to cede to your party leader the trust and responsibility placed in you by the voters of your state? How much longer can you go along with this? The people of Iowa sent me to the United States Senate to represent them, not to simply vote up or down on a purely partisan agenda dictated by the Majority Leader. Everyone complains about the lack of bipartisanship these days, but there is no opportunity for individual senators to work together across the aisle when legislation is drafted on a partisan basis and amendments are blocked. Bipartisanship requires giving individual senators a voice, regardless of party. When senators are only allowed to vote on items that are pre-approved by the Majority Leader, they lose the ability to effectively represent their state and become mere tools of their party leadership.\u00a0 It\u2019s no wonder Americans are so cynical about government now. In the last decade, when I was Chairman of the Finance Committee, and Republicans controlled the Senate, we wanted to actually get things done. In order for that to happen, we knew we had to accommodate the minority. We had to have patience, humility, and respect for the minority, attributes that don\u2019t exist on the other side anymore. And we had some major bipartisan accomplishments, from the largest tax cut in history to a Medicare prescription drug program to numerous trade agreements. Those kind of major bills don\u2019t happen anymore. The Senate rules provide that any senator may offer an amendment regardless of party affiliation.\u00a0 Each senator represents hundreds of thousands to millions of Americans and each has an individual right to offer amendments for consideration. The principle here isn\u2019t about political parties having their say, but duly elected senators participating in the legislative process. Again, as part of our duty to represent the citizens of our respective states, each senator has an individual right to offer amendments. This right cannot be outsourced to party leaders. The longstanding tradition of the Senate is that members of the minority party, as well as rank and file members of the majority party, have an opportunity to offer amendments for a vote by the Senate. That has historically been the case with the annual National Defense Authorization Act, but not this year. It typically takes a couple weeks to consider the National Defense Authorization Act. This year, the majority party leadership chose to wait until a week before the scheduled Thanksgiving recess to bring it up, leaving little time for the customary open debate and amendment process. Once the Defense Bill was brought up, rather than promptly starting to process amendments, the Majority Leader immediately blocked amendments so he could control what came up for a vote. The Senate ground to a halt, wasting time we didn\u2019t have when we could have been considering amendments from both sides. This process, as everyone here in the Senate knows, is called \u201cfilling the tree\u201d where the majority leader offers blocker amendments that block any other senator from offering their own amendment unless he agrees to set his blocker amendments aside.\u00a0 \u201cFilling the tree\u201d doesn\u2019t appear anywhere in the Senate rules. It\u2019s based on combining two precedents- the precedent that the Majority Leader has first right of recognition by the presiding officer and the precedent that only one first degree and one second degree amendment can be pending at any one time. Basically, the Majority Leader abuses his prerogative to cut in line and offer an amendment that does nothing more than, say, change the enacting date by one day for instance. That then blocks any other senator from exercising their right to offer an amendment. This so called filling the tree tactic used to be relatively rare, but it has become routine under the current leadership. This way, the Democratic leadership can prevent other senators from offering amendments they don\u2019t want to have to vote on. Then, with amendments blocked, the Majority Leader makes a motion to bring debate to a close, or \u201ccloture\u201d.\u00a0 When cloture is invoked, it sets up a limited time before a final vote must take place.\u00a0 By keeping amendments blocked while running out that clock, the majority leader can force a final vote on a bill without having to consider any amendments other than what he approves. It shouldn\u2019t be a surprise to anyone that members of the minority party who wish to offer amendments will vote against the motion to end debate until their amendments have been considered.\u00a0 When Republicans vote against the Democratic leader\u2019s motion to end debate, we are accused of \u201claunching a filibuster\u201d. In other words, unless we give up our right to participate fully in the legislative process, they say we are filibustering. Does that really count as a filibuster?  \nNo.\u00a0 The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has a helpful report on cloture motions and filibusters that makes this point clear. The CRS Report, \u201cCloture Attempts on Nominations: Data and Historical Development\u201d by Richard S. Beth contains an entire section titled, \u201cCloture Motions Do Not Correspond with Filibusters.\u201d\u00a0 It starts out, \u201cAlthough cloture affords the Senate a means for overcoming a filibuster, it is erroneous to assume that cases in which cloture is sought are always the same as those in which a filibuster occurs. Filibusters may occur without cloture being sought, and cloture may be sought when no filibuster is taking place. The reason is that cloture is sought by supporters of a matter, whereas filibusters are conducted by its opponents.\u201d It then goes on to explain various scenarios to illustrate this point. Several members of the majority have made a point of trying to confuse cloture motions with filibusters. We hear constantly that there have been an unprecedented number of Republican filibusters.\u00a0 They often point to a chart that purports to tally the number of filibusters and say that it is evidence of abuse of the Senate rules. That number they quote is the number of cloture motions, not filibusters. It\u2019s true that there have been a record number of cloture motions, and I also agree that the number amounts to an egregious abuse of the Senate rules. But, again, cloture motions do not correspond with filibusters. Cloture motions are filed by the majority party leadership, not the minority party. This abuse of cloture is a major cause of the Senate\u2019s current dysfunction. Again, this abuse of cloture, often combined with the blocking of amendments, prevents all senators from doing what they were sent here to do, not just members of the minority party. And, it\u2019s gotten even worse. Even where the Majority Leader has decided he\u2019s going to be open to amendments, he has created, out of whole cloth, new restrictions to limit senators\u2019 rights. First, he normally only opens up the amendment process if there\u2019s an agreement to limit amendments. And, this is usually only a handful or so. Then, he has magically determined that only \u201cgermane\u201d or \u201crelevant\u201d amendments can be considered. Of course, no where do the Senate rules require this, other than post cloture. Senators elected in the last few years appear to be ignorant of this fact.\u00a0 You\u2019ll hear some senators here argue against an amendment saying it\u2019s non-germane or non-relevant. They\u2019ve totally fallen for the Majority Leader\u2019s creative rulemaking, thus giving up one of their rights as a senator with which to represent their state. I can\u2019t count how many non-germane or non-relevant amendments I had to allow voted on when I processed bills when Republicans were in charge. They were usually tough, political votes, but we took them because we wanted to get things done. You don\u2019t see that nowadays. The current majority avoids tough votes at all costs. And that\u2019s why they don\u2019t get much done. The American people sent us here to represent them.\u00a0 That means voting, not avoiding tough votes. We sometimes hear that this is a question of majority rule versus minority obstruction. Again, that ignores that each senator is elected to represent their state, not simply to be an agent of their party. While a majority of senators may be from one party, they represent very different states and the agenda of the majority leader will not always be consistent with the interests of their states. When one individual, the Senate Majority Leader, controls what comes up for a vote, that is not majority rule. In fact, there are policies that have majority support in the Senate that have been denied a vote. What happened during Senate debate on the budget resolution seems to prove that point.\u00a0  \nThe special rules for the Budget Resolution limit debate, so it can\u2019t be filibustered, but allow for unlimited amendments.\u00a0 A Republican amendment in support of repealing the tax on life-saving medical devices in President Obama\u2019s health care law passed by an overwhelming 79 to 20, with more than half of Democrats voting with Republicans, rather than their party leader.\u00a0 A Republican amendment in support of approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline to bring oil from Canada passed 62 to 37. Votes like these that split the Democrats and hand a win to Republicans are exactly what the majority leader has been trying to avoid by blocking amendments.\u00a0 That\u2019s why the Senate didn\u2019t take up a budget resolution for more than three years.\u00a0 Still, the Budget Resolution isn\u2019t a law so unless legislation on these issues is allowed to come up for a vote, nothing will happen despite the support of a majority of the Senate. A case in point is the National Defense Authorization Act we are considering now. One of the amendments the Majority Leader blocked would have imposed sanctions on the Iranian regime. Everyone knew that this amendment enjoys broad bipartisan support and would have passed easily had it been allowed a vote. It had majority support, but the Senate was not allowed to work its will. Why? The Iran sanctions amendment was blocked because the President opposed it and it would have been a tough vote that divided Democrats. Is that a valid reason for shutting down the traditional open amendment process for the Defense Bill? I don\u2019t think so. Until we put an end to the abuse of cloture and the blocking of amendments, the Senate cannot function properly and the American people will continue to lack the representation they are entitled to.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043117/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47820", "Grassley Statement at Judiciary Committee Executive Business Meeting - Kadzik, Committee Matters", "2013-12-19", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Grassley Statement at Judiciary Committee Executive Business Meeting - Kadzik, Committee MattersPrepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa  \nRanking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary  \nExecutive Business Meeting  \nNominations:  \nJohn B. Owens to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit  \nMichelle T. Friedland, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit  \nNancy L. Moritz, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit  \nDavid Jeremiah Barron, to be United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit  \nMatthew Frederick Leitman, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan  \nJudith Ellen Levy, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan  \nLaurie J. Michelson, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan  \nLinda Vivienne Parker, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan  \nChristopher Reid Cooper, to be United States District Judge for the District of Columbia  \nGerald Austin McHugh, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania  \nM. Douglas Harpool, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri  \nEdward G. Smith, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania  \nSheryl H. Lipman, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Tennessee  \nStanley Allen Bastian, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington  \nManish S. Shah, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois  \nPeter Joseph Kadzik, to be an Assistant Attorney General  \nRobert L. Hobbs, to be United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Texas  \nGary L. Blankinship, to be United States Marshal for the Southern District of Texas  \nLegislation:  \nS.619 Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013,  \n\u00a0S.1410 Smarter Sentencing Act of 2013,  \nS.1675 Recidivism Reduction and Public Safety Act of 2013,  \nS.975 Court-Appointed Guardian Accountability and Senior Protection Act  \nThursday, December 19, 2013 Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear about the so-called obstruction being talked about.\u00a0 The reason we didn\u2019t have the business meeting on November 21st was because, minutes before it was scheduled to start, Senators learned we had to report to the floor because Senate Democrats were going to invoke the nuclear option, destroying two centuries of Senate history and precedent by breaking the rules with a simple majority vote. I want to give some figures to show that the so-called obstruction of nominees is a figment of imagination and is blatantly misleading.\u00a0 We have confirmed 44 judicial nominees this year.\u00a0 Contrast that with the 21 judicial nominees confirmed during President Bush\u2019s entire fifth year of his presidency. The only thing I can see that has been, and continues to be, obstructed is the rights of the minority. Today on the agenda we have two US Marshal nominees that can be done by voice vote. All the judicial nominations on the agenda appear for the first time, and we request they be held over. I understand that we will also be holding over the sentencing bills today as we continue to work on them, but that we may be taking up Senator Klobuchar\u2019s bill, S. 975. With regard to the nomination of Mr. Kadzik, it is no secret that I have concerns with this nomination.\u00a0 I felt that he was not forthcoming during his nomination hearing.\u00a0 I also still have major concerns about the lack of respect for congressional oversight process shown by the way Mr. Kadzik handled another committee\u2019s subpoena in 2001 for his testimony in the matter of billionaire tax fugitive Marc Rich.  \n\u00a0  \nThose concerns about respect for congressional oversight process are underscored by Mr. Kadzik\u2019s unwillingness to be responsive to this committee\u2019s Questions for the Record.\u00a0 Getting him to answer simple inquiries has required two or even three sets of questions.\u00a0 He wouldn\u2019t even promise to answer each individual question from members of this committee.\u00a0 In one set of responses, he repeated word-for-word the same answer to a previous question nine times.  \n\u00a0  \nWhen he had information he thought I didn\u2019t want to hear, he glossed over it.\u00a0 I asked Mr. Kadzik at his nomination hearing whether he intended to provide certain documents Chairman Darrell Issa and I had requested relating to a briefing by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.\u00a0 Since his response failed to mention the documents, I prompted him about the documents again at the hearing, and he evaded the question.\u00a0  \n\u00a0  \nOnly after two subsequent sets of Questions for the Record did Mr. Kadzik finally come clean and just say that the Department would not provide those documents \u201cexcept in the most extraordinary of circumstances.\u201d\u00a0 This is the type of information Mr. Kadzik should have provided initially, instead of avoiding the issue.\u00a0 Mr. Kadzik\u2019s seeming inability to give straightforward and accurate answers to simple questions causes real concern for me about his ability to perform this job.\u00a0  \n\u00a0  \nThe Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs needs to ensure that Congress receives accurate information from the department.\u00a0 This became a problem with Mr. Kadzik\u2019s predecessor, who made claims about Operation Fast and Furious that later had to be retracted.  \n\u00a0  \nAdditionally, I have concerns about Mr. Kadzik\u2019s track record at the Office of Legislative Affairs.\u00a0 I have numerous outstanding document requests related to a range of issues that need to be dealt with.\u00a0 One of them involves a bipartisan request for a Government Accountability Office study that Senator Whitehouse and I made over a year ago.\u00a0 The Office of Legislative Affairs, under Mr. Kadzik\u2019s direction, has helped block the Government Accountability Office\u2019s access to a database necessary for an important study on drug shortages.\u00a0  \n\u00a0  \nBoth in the Marc Rich matter and his current time in the Office of Legislative Affairs, Mr. Kadzik\u2019s actions suggest a lack of respect for the congressional oversight process.\u00a0 As a candidate to be Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs who already works in that office, Mr. Kadzik had the opportunity to demonstrate a real commitment to the role of congressional oversight in our constitutional system of check and balances.  \n\u00a0  \nThe Justice Department\u2019s Office of Legislative Affairs has a lot of work to do to rebuild trust and confidence after the false letter it sent to me and later withdrew on Fast and Furious.\u00a0 I wish I could say that Mr. Kadzik had demonstrated the kind of serious recommitment to open, honest, and forthright cooperation with congressional oversight that the office needs.\u00a0 Unfortunately, he has not.\u00a0 Therefore, I will vote no on his nomination. -30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043847/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47816", "Grassley Praises Data on Dually Eligibles in Medicare, Medicaid", "2013-12-19", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "The Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC) and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) have released a new data book, \u201cBeneficiaries Dually Eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.\u201d\u00a0 The merging of data to help inform Congress on the critical issue of dually eligible beneficiaries is an important step that Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa has advocated.\u00a0 Grassley has previously used information that was produced from jointly reconciled data by the two organizations that was the precursor to this report.\u00a0 Grassley made the following comment on this development. \u201cProviding better coordinated care and reducing costs for high-cost beneficiaries is critical for the future of Medicare and Medicaid.\u00a0\u00a0 All of us need to understand the needs and the costs of covering the dually eligible and other high-cost beneficiaries before we can find rational ways to control costs and preserve needed services.\u00a0 I appreciate the work of these two expert commissions to inform the debate.\u201d The joint analysis is available here.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/continued-concerns-mayorkas-nomination", "Continued Concerns with Mayorkas Nomination", "2013-12-19", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Prepared Floor Speech of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee Mayorkas Failed to Fix National Security Concerns Thursday, December 19, 2013 Just two days ago I was on this floor explaining the concerns I have with Mr. Mayorkas's nomination. I have additional information for my colleagues. Today, the Office of Inspector General, or OIG, for the Department of Homeland Security released an embargoed version of its audit of the EB-5 immigrant investor visa program. The report states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has difficulty ensuring the integrity of the program and does not always ensure that regional centers meet all eligibility requirements. Specifically, it said: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services did not always enforce its own regulations and procedures to assist with managing the regional center program. Until improvements are made, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is unable to prevent fraud and national security threats. . . [I]t cannot report the results of the program accurately or ensure the EB-5 program is benefiting the U.S. economy and creating jobs for U.S. citizens as created by Congress. You understand that Mr. Mayorkas is in charge of this program. The IG said that the agency needed to improve coordination and rely on the expertise of other agencies. The IG had several recommendations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that, frankly, should have been in place before now if the director was doing his job. In his comments on the draft report, Mr. Mayorkas claimed that he was already addressing the issues the OIG raised. He said his agency had dramatically enhanced collaboration with key government partners, such as the FBI. He also wrote that when his agency has concerns with EB-5 cases, it doesn't decide the cases until it has fully coordinated its approach with enforcement and intelligence partners. I've seen examples of this so-called coordination Mr. Mayorkas talks about. But again, his words don't comport with the actual practice. When Homeland Security's law enforcement database, TECS, has a hit on someone applying for a regional center, Citizenship and Immigration Services sends an email to the law enforcement agency that put the record in. But, the problem is that Citizenship and Immigration Services isn't waiting for law enforcement. In fact, information has come to my attention that Citizenship and Immigration Services employees are told to move forward if law enforcement doesn't respond in five days. That's just five days to find out what sensitive security or fraud information caused that person to be flagged. If law enforcement doesn't get back to Citizenship and Immigration Services soon enough, they just go ahead and approve the person's application. That's not coordinationit's a sham. It should be simply unacceptable to any of us who are concerned about the national security of our country. It is not the sort of way to run a program with national security vulnerabilities. You should wait until the law enforcement responds. You need to know who's coming into this country, particularly when they're involved in a program where you buy your way into a country by supposedly investing and creating jobs in this country. Some people may want to get into this country for ulterior motives, and it may violate our national security. They don't care about creating jobs. If the visa gets them inside the country, you need to know if they're a threat to our national security. The only reason that US Citizenship and Immigration Services even does checks on regional centers at all is because of a push within the agency that Mr. Mayorkas and his management resisted. Now they're trying to take credit for it. More important is what his agency has not done. They refuse to kick out regional centers that invite national security problems.  Mr. Mayorkas claims he doesn't have statutory authority, but the OIG audit recommended that Mr. Mayorkas should make clear on his own that fraud and national security concerns are a reason for regional centers to be kicked out of the program. The bottom line is that Mr. Mayorkas has not taken the steps that were within his power to guard against security vulnerabilities in the EB-5 program. The OIG audit report concludes: Currently, USCIS cannot administer and manage the EB-5 regional center program effectively. Mr. Mayorkas has had ample notice of these problems for years. He has failed to take adequate action.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-praises-data-dually-eligibles-medicare-medicaid", "Grassley Praises Data on Dually Eligibles in Medicare, Medicaid", "2013-12-19", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "The Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC) and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) have released a new data book, Beneficiaries Dually Eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. The merging of data to help inform Congress on the critical issue of dually eligible beneficiaries is an important step that Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa has advocated. Grassley has previously used information that was produced from jointly reconciled data by the two organizations that was the precursor to this report. Grassley made the following comment on this development. Providing better coordinated care and reducing costs for high-cost beneficiaries is critical for the future of Medicare and Medicaid. All of us need to understand the needs and the costs of covering the dually eligible and other high-cost beneficiaries before we can find rational ways to control costs and preserve needed services. I appreciate the work of these two expert commissions to inform the debate. The joint analysis is available here.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-statement-abuse-cloture-motions", "Grassley Statement on the Abuse of Cloture Motions", "2013-12-19", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of IowaThe Abuse of Cloture Motions Wednesday, December 19, 2013\nThe Senate is poised to vote on a final National Defense Authorization Act after considering only two amendments. The Senate has not been functioning like it should for some time and the way the National Defense Authorization Act has been handled is just one example. I've served in the majority and the minority with Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents so I've seen it operate from every perspective. What's unique about the Senate is that the rules and traditions force senators to work together. That leads senators to understand where the other side is coming from, resulting in mutual respect and comity. I hear from a lot of Iowans who are upset at the tone they hear from Washington and the lack of bipartisanship. I've often said that the Senate functions best when no party has more than about 55 seats. If you have much more than that, there is less of a tendency to want to work in a bipartisan fashion. That was true for most of my time in the Senate, but not now. Despite a current margin of just 5 seats in the Senate, there has been very little bipartisan cooperation. I suppose some Democratic senators really believe it when they say that this is all Republicans' fault. I think anyone who remembers how the Senate used to operate and has paid attention to how the current majority leadership has been running things, knows better. In fairness, quite a few members of the Senate don't remember how the Senate is supposed to operate because it has been dysfunctional ever since they were elected. Some senators previously served in the House of Representatives, where the majority party controls everything that happens. In the House of Representatives, the Rules Committee sets out the terms of debate for each bill. If you want to offer an amendment in the House, you have to go hat in hand to the Rules Committee and say, Mother may I? If the House leadership doesn't like your amendment, you're out of luck. If that sounds familiar, that's because it is how the current Senate leadership has been running things lately. We have seen an absolutely unprecedented use, or I would say abuse, of cloture motions paired with a tactic called filling the tree to block amendments being considered. That not only affects the minority party, but Democratic senators as well. I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, how many times have you had an amendment you wanted to offer that was important to your state, but you couldn't do it because amendments were blocked? The Senate Majority Leader has effectively become a one man version of the House Rules Committee, dictating what amendments will be debated and which ones will never see the light of day. This strips the ability of individual senators to effectively represent their state, regardless of party. It also virtually guarantees that any legislation the Senate votes on will be more partisan in nature. I would ask my colleagues across the aisle, isn't your first responsibility to the people of your state, not your party leadership? Are you really content to cede to your party leader the trust and responsibility placed in you by the voters of your state? How much longer can you go along with this? The people of Iowa sent me to the United States Senate to represent them, not to simply vote up or down on a purely partisan agenda dictated by the Majority Leader. Everyone complains about the lack of bipartisanship these days, but there is no opportunity for individual senators to work together across the aisle when legislation is drafted on a partisan basis and amendments are blocked. Bipartisanship requires giving individual senators a voice, regardless of party. When senators are only allowed to vote on items that are pre-approved by the Majority Leader, they lose the ability to effectively represent their state and become mere tools of their party leadership. It's no wonder Americans are so cynical about government now. In the last decade, when I was Chairman of the Finance Committee, and Republicans controlled the Senate, we wanted to actually get things done. In order for that to happen, we knew we had to accommodate the minority. We had to have patience, humility, and respect for the minority, attributes that don't exist on the other side anymore. And we had some major bipartisan accomplishments, from the largest tax cut in history to a Medicare prescription drug program to numerous trade agreements. Those kind of major bills don't happen anymore. The Senate rules provide that any senator may offer an amendment regardless of party affiliation. Each senator represents hundreds of thousands to millions of Americans and each has an individual right to offer amendments for consideration. The principle here isn't about political parties having their say, but duly elected senators participating in the legislative process. Again, as part of our duty to represent the citizens of our respective states, each senator has an individual right to offer amendments. This right cannot be outsourced to party leaders. The longstanding tradition of the Senate is that members of the minority party, as well as rank and file members of the majority party, have an opportunity to offer amendments for a vote by the Senate. That has historically been the case with the annual National Defense Authorization Act, but not this year. It typically takes a couple weeks to consider the National Defense Authorization Act. This year, the majority party leadership chose to wait until a week before the scheduled Thanksgiving recess to bring it up, leaving little time for the customary open debate and amendment process. Once the Defense Bill was brought up, rather than promptly starting to process amendments, the Majority Leader immediately blocked amendments so he could control what came up for a vote. The Senate ground to a halt, wasting time we didn't have when we could have been considering amendments from both sides. This process, as everyone here in the Senate knows, is called filling the tree where the majority leader offers blocker amendments that block any other senator from offering their own amendment unless he agrees to set his blocker amendments aside. Filling the tree doesn't appear anywhere in the Senate rules. It's based on combining two precedents- the precedent that the Majority Leader has first right of recognition by the presiding officer and the precedent that only one first degree and one second degree amendment can be pending at any one time. Basically, the Majority Leader abuses his prerogative to cut in line and offer an amendment that does nothing more than, say, change the enacting date by one day for instance. That then blocks any other senator from exercising their right to offer an amendment. This so called filling the tree tactic used to be relatively rare, but it has become routine under the current leadership. This way, the Democratic leadership can prevent other senators from offering amendments they don't want to have to vote on. Then, with amendments blocked, the Majority Leader makes a motion to bring debate to a close, or cloture. When cloture is invoked, it sets up a limited time before a final vote must take place. By keeping amendments blocked while running out that clock, the majority leader can force a final vote on a bill without having to consider any amendments other than what he approves. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that members of the minority party who wish to offer amendments will vote against the motion to end debate until their amendments have been considered. When Republicans vote against the Democratic leader's motion to end debate, we are accused of launching a filibuster. In other words, unless we give up our right to participate fully in the legislative process, they say we are filibustering. Does that really count as a filibuster? No. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has a helpful report on cloture motions and filibusters that makes this point clear. The CRS Report, Cloture Attempts on Nominations: Data and Historical Development by Richard S. Beth contains an entire section titled, Cloture Motions Do Not Correspond with Filibusters. It starts out, Although cloture affords the Senate a means for overcoming a filibuster, it is erroneous to assume that cases in which cloture is sought are always the same as those in which a filibuster occurs. Filibusters may occur without cloture being sought, and cloture may be sought when no filibuster is taking place. The reason is that cloture is sought by supporters of a matter, whereas filibusters are conducted by its opponents. It then goes on to explain various scenarios to illustrate this point. Several members of the majority have made a point of trying to confuse cloture motions with filibusters. We hear constantly that there have been an unprecedented number of Republican filibusters. They often point to a chart that purports to tally the number of filibusters and say that it is evidence of abuse of the Senate rules. That number they quote is the number of cloture motions, not filibusters. It's true that there have been a record number of cloture motions, and I also agree that the number amounts to an egregious abuse of the Senate rules. But, again, cloture motions do not correspond with filibusters. Cloture motions are filed by the majority party leadership, not the minority party. This abuse of cloture is a major cause of the Senate's current dysfunction. Again, this abuse of cloture, often combined with the blocking of amendments, prevents all senators from doing what they were sent here to do, not just members of the minority party. And, it's gotten even worse. Even where the Majority Leader has decided he's going to be open to amendments, he has created, out of whole cloth, new restrictions to limit senators' rights. First, he normally only opens up the amendment process if there's an agreement to limit amendments. And, this is usually only a handful or so. Then, he has magically determined that only germane or relevant amendments can be considered. Of course, no where do the Senate rules require this, other than post cloture. Senators elected in the last few years appear to be ignorant of this fact. You'll hear some senators here argue against an amendment saying it's non-germane or non-relevant. They've totally fallen for the Majority Leader's creative rulemaking, thus giving up one of their rights as a senator with which to represent their state. I can't count how many non-germane or non-relevant amendments I had to allow voted on when I processed bills when Republicans were in charge. They were usually tough, political votes, but we took them because we wanted to get things done. You don't see that nowadays. The current majority avoids tough votes at all costs. And that's why they don't get much done. The American people sent us here to represent them. That means voting, not avoiding tough votes. We sometimes hear that this is a question of majority rule versus minority obstruction. Again, that ignores that each senator is elected to represent their state, not simply to be an agent of their party. While a majority of senators may be from one party, they represent very different states and the agenda of the majority leader will not always be consistent with the interests of their states. When one individual, the Senate Majority Leader, controls what comes up for a vote, that is not majority rule. In fact, there are policies that have majority support in the Senate that have been denied a vote. What happened during Senate debate on the budget resolution seems to prove that point. The special rules for the Budget Resolution limit debate, so it can't be filibustered, but allow for unlimited amendments. A Republican amendment in support of repealing the tax on life-saving medical devices in President Obama's health care law passed by an overwhelming 79 to 20, with more than half of Democrats voting with Republicans, rather than their party leader. A Republican amendment in support of approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline to bring oil from Canada passed 62 to 37. Votes like these that split the Democrats and hand a win to Republicans are exactly what the majority leader has been trying to avoid by blocking amendments. That's why the Senate didn't take up a budget resolution for more than three years. Still, the Budget Resolution isn't a law so unless legislation on these issues is allowed to come up for a vote, nothing will happen despite the support of a majority of the Senate. A case in point is the National Defense Authorization Act we are considering now. One of the amendments the Majority Leader blocked would have imposed sanctions on the Iranian regime. Everyone knew that this amendment enjoys broad bipartisan support and would have passed easily had it been allowed a vote. It had majority support, but the Senate was not allowed to work its will. Why? The Iran sanctions amendment was blocked because the President opposed it and it would have been a tough vote that divided Democrats. Is that a valid reason for shutting down the traditional open amendment process for the Defense Bill? I don't think so. Until we put an end to the abuse of cloture and the blocking of amendments, the Senate cannot function properly and the American people will continue to lack the representation they are entitled to.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-statement-judiciary-committee-executive-business-meeting-kadzik", "Grassley Statement at Judiciary Committee Executive Business Meeting - Kadzik, Committee Matters", "2013-12-19", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Grassley Statement at Judiciary Committee Executive Business Meeting - Kadzik, Committee Matters\n\nPrepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary Executive Business Meeting Nominations: John B. Owens to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit Michelle T. Friedland, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit Nancy L. Moritz, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit David Jeremiah Barron, to be United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit Matthew Frederick Leitman, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan Judith Ellen Levy, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan Laurie J. Michelson, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan Linda Vivienne Parker, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan Christopher Reid Cooper, to be United States District Judge for the District of Columbia Gerald Austin McHugh, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania M. Douglas Harpool, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri Edward G. Smith, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Sheryl H. Lipman, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Tennessee Stanley Allen Bastian, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington Manish S. Shah, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois Peter Joseph Kadzik, to be an Assistant Attorney General Robert L. Hobbs, to be United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Texas Gary L. Blankinship, to be United States Marshal for the Southern District of Texas Legislation: S.619 Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013, S.1410 Smarter Sentencing Act of 2013, S.1675 Recidivism Reduction and Public Safety Act of 2013, S.975 Court-Appointed Guardian Accountability and Senior Protection Act Thursday, December 19, 2013 Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear about the so-called obstruction being talked about. The reason we didn't have the business meeting on November 21st was because, minutes before it was scheduled to start, Senators learned we had to report to the floor because Senate Democrats were going to invoke the nuclear option, destroying two centuries of Senate history and precedent by breaking the rules with a simple majority vote. I want to give some figures to show that the so-called obstruction of nominees is a figment of imagination and is blatantly misleading. We have confirmed 44 judicial nominees this year. Contrast that with the 21 judicial nominees confirmed during President Bush's entire fifth year of his presidency. The only thing I can see that has been, and continues to be, obstructed is the rights of the minority. Today on the agenda we have two US Marshal nominees that can be done by voice vote. All the judicial nominations on the agenda appear for the first time, and we request they be held over. I understand that we will also be holding over the sentencing bills today as we continue to work on them, but that we may be taking up Senator Klobuchar's bill, S. 975. With regard to the nomination of Mr. Kadzik, it is no secret that I have concerns with this nomination. I felt that he was not forthcoming during his nomination hearing. I also still have major concerns about the lack of respect for congressional oversight process shown by the way Mr. Kadzik handled another committee's subpoena in 2001 for his testimony in the matter of billionaire tax fugitive Marc Rich.  Those concerns about respect for congressional oversight process are underscored by Mr. Kadzik's unwillingness to be responsive to this committee's Questions for the Record. Getting him to answer simple inquiries has required two or even three sets of questions. He wouldn't even promise to answer each individual question from members of this committee. In one set of responses, he repeated word-for-word the same answer to a previous question nine times.  When he had information he thought I didn't want to hear, he glossed over it. I asked Mr. Kadzik at his nomination hearing whether he intended to provide certain documents Chairman Darrell Issa and I had requested relating to a briefing by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Since his response failed to mention the documents, I prompted him about the documents again at the hearing, and he evaded the question.  Only after two subsequent sets of Questions for the Record did Mr. Kadzik finally come clean and just say that the Department would not provide those documents except in the most extraordinary of circumstances. This is the type of information Mr. Kadzik should have provided initially, instead of avoiding the issue. Mr. Kadzik's seeming inability to give straightforward and accurate answers to simple questions causes real concern for me about his ability to perform this job.  The Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs needs to ensure that Congress receives accurate information from the department. This became a problem with Mr. Kadzik's predecessor, who made claims about Operation Fast and Furious that later had to be retracted.  Additionally, I have concerns about Mr. Kadzik's track record at the Office of Legislative Affairs. I have numerous outstanding document requests related to a range of issues that need to be dealt with. One of them involves a bipartisan request for a Government Accountability Office study that Senator Whitehouse and I made over a year ago. The Office of Legislative Affairs, under Mr. Kadzik's direction, has helped block the Government Accountability Office's access to a database necessary for an important study on drug shortages.  Both in the Marc Rich matter and his current time in the Office of Legislative Affairs, Mr. Kadzik's actions suggest a lack of respect for the congressional oversight process. As a candidate to be Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs who already works in that office, Mr. Kadzik had the opportunity to demonstrate a real commitment to the role of congressional oversight in our constitutional system of check and balances.  The Justice Department's Office of Legislative Affairs has a lot of work to do to rebuild trust and confidence after the false letter it sent to me and later withdrew on Fast and Furious. I wish I could say that Mr. Kadzik had demonstrated the kind of serious recommitment to open, honest, and forthright cooperation with congressional oversight that the office needs. Unfortunately, he has not. Therefore, I will vote no on his nomination. -30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043423/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47812", "Grassley Presses EPA Administrator on Proposed Reduction in Renewable Fuel Standard", "2013-12-18", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "For Immediate Release  \n\tDecember 18, 2013 \t\n  \nGrassley Presses EPA Administrator on Proposed Reduction in Renewable Fuel Standard  \nSen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today participated in a bipartisan senators\u2019 meeting with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy to discuss the Obama Administration\u2019s proposed reduction in the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).\u00a0 Grassley made the following comment after the meeting.\n\u00a0\n\u201cI\u2019m glad Administrator McCarthy listened to senators\u2019 concerns.\u00a0 I tried to impress upon her that while President Obama and his administration have claimed to be in favor of domestic biofuels, this proposal is a step backward and will harm our efforts to further diversify our fuel supply.\u00a0 The fact is, the blend wall is a result of Big Oil\u2019s obstruction to higher ethanol blends, and EPA\u2019s proposal rewards its obstruction.\u00a0 The Administrator heard a lot about the harm this proposal would do to the environment, our national and energy security, and our rural economies.\u00a0 I also personally relayed the request of the entire Iowa delegation to host a field hearing in Iowa to hear directly from farmers and biofuels producers about the benefits of the RFS.\u201d \n\u00a0\nThe bipartisan letter requesting a field hearing in Iowa is available here. \n\u00a0\nMore on Grassley\u2019s views on the proposed reduction is available here.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043855/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47795", "Grassley, Rockefeller, Carper Look to Advance Provision to Improve Care, Prevention of Obesity and Diabetes via Medicare and Medicaid", "2013-12-18", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Grassley, Rockefeller, Carper Look to Advance Provision to Improve Care, Prevention of Obesity and Diabetes via Medicare and MedicaidWASHINGTON \u2013 Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware said today they will look for opportunities to advance their bipartisan proposal to provide coverage of intensive behavioral therapy for obesity and the coordination of programs to prevent and treat obesity in Medicare and Medicaid.\u201cThe costs to society caused by diabetes and obesity are tremendous,\u201d Grassley said.\u00a0 \u201cThere are ways to reduce the incidence of both those conditions.\u00a0 Working with the Finance Committee on a bipartisan basis and the Congressional Budget Office, I\u2019m confident we can take steps to achieve better health for Americans battling these two conditions.\u201d \u201cI\u2019ve long held that preventive measures are one of the best ways we can improve health outcomes and save money on health care,\u201d Rockefeller said.\u00a0 \u201cChronic diseases like diabetes are expensive to manage and, if left unaddressed, lead to additional health problems down the road. Our effort works to prevent and manage obesity and diabetes through increased access to prevention programs for Medicare and Medicaid subscribers. This will lead to greater health care savings and has the potential to improve overall health outcomes which will boost the productivity and well being of our communities.\u201d  \u201cWe all know that obesity and diabetes are two of the main drivers of poor health and increasing health care costs in our country,\u201d Carper said. \u201cIf we do not rein in the growth of obesity and diabetes, this may be the first generation of Americans with a shorter life span than earlier generations.\u00a0 Overweight and obese patients are at increased risk for cancer, cardiovascular disorders, and other adverse health outcomes. Spending on diabetes treatment alone is one of the fastest growing parts of Medicare. To get this epidemic under control, we need to ensure that Medicare covers the full range of therapies and treatments that might help lower our country\u2019s obesity rates and better prevent chronic diseases like diabetes.\u201d Grassley, Rockefeller and Carper sponsored an amendment, which was offered and withdrawn, to the physician payments bill considered in the Finance Committee last week that would provide coverage of intensive behavioral therapy for obesity and the coordination of programs to prevent and treat obesity in Medicare and Medicaid.\u00a0 The proposal would establish diabetes prevention program services for eligible diabetes prevention program participants.\u00a0 It also would broaden coverage of prescription drugs for weight loss management under Medicaid and Medicare Part D.\u00a0 \u00a0 The proposal is meant to take advantage of existing anti-diabetes efforts and a new spate of federally approved weight loss drugs to address both diabetes and obesity, conditions that often interact. Grassley, Rockefeller and Carper said they will look for legislative opportunities to advance this proposal in the coming months while continuing to work with other sponsors of the legislation including Sens. Al Franken, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski.\u00a0 The senators also recognized the work of several senators and House members in this issue area and said they hope for bipartisan advancement of proposals to combat obesity and diabetes. -30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221044434/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47809", "Grassley Responds to Chairman Leahy's statement on Judiciary Committee matters", "2013-12-18", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following comment in response to a statement released earlier today by the Judiciary Committee Chairman. \u201cThere\u2019s no doubt that after the Democrats broke the rules to change the rules, it\u2019s going to be harder to get things done.\u00a0 There is only one party that voted for the irresponsible rules change.\u00a0 And, the fact of the matter is that given the atmosphere the Democrats created by invoking the nuclear option, nominations are going to be given added scrutiny. \u201cIt\u2019s interesting that Democrats are blaming Republicans for not being at an executive business meeting last month.\u00a0 They must have a short memory.\u00a0 That was the very day and time that the Democrats decided to ignore two centuries of Senate history and precedent to break the rules and invoked the nuclear option with a simple majority vote, thereby disrupting the committee mark-up. \u00a0 \u201cThe so-called obstruction of nominees is a figment of the Democrats\u2019 imagination.\u00a0 They are blatantly misleading the public.\u00a0 We have confirmed 44 judicial nominees this year alone.\u00a0 To put this number in context, the Democrats allowed only 21 of President Bush\u2019s judicial nominees to be confirmed in the fifth year of his presidency.\u00a0\u00a0 The only thing being obstructed is the rights of the minority. \u201cNow, they are resorting to new threats at the committee level.\u00a0 It\u2019s a sad commentary on the Democrats\u2019 rule of the Senate and the Obama administration.\u00a0 They are slowly but surely taking the world\u2019s greatest deliberative body and moving towards a majoritarian body, all in the name of rubberstamping the President\u2019s extremely unpopular regulatory agenda.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-presses-epa-administrator-proposed-reduction-renewable-fuel-standard", "Grassley Presses EPA Administrator on Proposed Reduction in Renewable Fuel Standard", "2013-12-18", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Grassley Presses EPA Administrator on Proposed Reduction in Renewable Fuel Standard\n\n\nSen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today participated in a bipartisan senators' meeting with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy to discuss the Obama Administration's proposed reduction in the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). Grassley made the following comment after the meeting.\n\n\n\n\nI'm glad Administrator McCarthy listened to senators' concerns. I tried to impress upon her that while President Obama and his administration have claimed to be in favor of domestic biofuels, this proposal is a step backward and will harm our efforts to further diversify our fuel supply. The fact is, the blend wall is a result of Big Oil's obstruction to higher ethanol blends, and EPA's proposal rewards its obstruction. The Administrator heard a lot about the harm this proposal would do to the environment, our national and energy security, and our rural economies. I also personally relayed the request of the entire Iowa delegation to host a field hearing in Iowa to hear directly from farmers and biofuels producers about the benefits of the RFS.\n\n\n\nThe bipartisan letter requesting a field hearing in Iowa is available  here  .\n\n\n\nMore on Grassley's views on the proposed reduction is available  here  .", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-responds-chairman-leahys-statement-judiciary-committee-matters", "Grassley Responds to Chairman Leahy's statement on Judiciary Committee matters", "2013-12-18", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following comment in response to a statement released earlier today by the Judiciary Committee Chairman. There's no doubt that after the Democrats broke the rules to change the rules, it's going to be harder to get things done. There is only one party that voted for the irresponsible rules change. And, the fact of the matter is that given the atmosphere the Democrats created by invoking the nuclear option, nominations are going to be given added scrutiny. It's interesting that Democrats are blaming Republicans for not being at an executive business meeting last month. They must have a short memory. That was the very day and time that the Democrats decided to ignore two centuries of Senate history and precedent to break the rules and invoked the nuclear option with a simple majority vote, thereby disrupting the committee mark-up.  The so-called obstruction of nominees is a figment of the Democrats' imagination. They are blatantly misleading the public. We have confirmed 44 judicial nominees this year alone. To put this number in context, the Democrats allowed only 21 of President Bush's judicial nominees to be confirmed in the fifth year of his presidency. The only thing being obstructed is the rights of the minority. Now, they are resorting to new threats at the committee level. It's a sad commentary on the Democrats' rule of the Senate and the Obama administration. They are slowly but surely taking the world's greatest deliberative body and moving towards a majoritarian body, all in the name of rubberstamping the President's extremely unpopular regulatory agenda.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-rockefeller-carper-look-advance-provision-improve-care-prevention", "Grassley, Rockefeller, Carper Look to Advance Provision to Improve Care, Prevention of Obesity and Diabetes via Medicare and Medicaid", "2013-12-18", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Grassley, Rockefeller, Carper Look to Advance Provision to Improve Care, Prevention of Obesity and Diabetes via Medicare and Medicaid\nWASHINGTON  Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware said today they will look for opportunities to advance their bipartisan proposal to provide coverage of intensive behavioral therapy for obesity and the coordination of programs to prevent and treat obesity in Medicare and Medicaid.The costs to society caused by diabetes and obesity are tremendous, Grassley said. There are ways to reduce the incidence of both those conditions. Working with the Finance Committee on a bipartisan basis and the Congressional Budget Office, I'm confident we can take steps to achieve better health for Americans battling these two conditions. I've long held that preventive measures are one of the best ways we can improve health outcomes and save money on health care, Rockefeller said. Chronic diseases like diabetes are expensive to manage and, if left unaddressed, lead to additional health problems down the road. Our effort works to prevent and manage obesity and diabetes through increased access to prevention programs for Medicare and Medicaid subscribers. This will lead to greater health care savings and has the potential to improve overall health outcomes which will boost the productivity and well being of our communities. We all know that obesity and diabetes are two of the main drivers of poor health and increasing health care costs in our country, Carper said. If we do not rein in the growth of obesity and diabetes, this may be the first generation of Americans with a shorter life span than earlier generations. Overweight and obese patients are at increased risk for cancer, cardiovascular disorders, and other adverse health outcomes. Spending on diabetes treatment alone is one of the fastest growing parts of Medicare. To get this epidemic under control, we need to ensure that Medicare covers the full range of therapies and treatments that might help lower our country's obesity rates and better prevent chronic diseases like diabetes. Grassley, Rockefeller and Carper sponsored an amendment, which was offered and withdrawn, to the physician payments bill considered in the Finance Committee last week that would provide coverage of intensive behavioral therapy for obesity and the coordination of programs to prevent and treat obesity in Medicare and Medicaid. The proposal would establish diabetes prevention program services for eligible diabetes prevention program participants. It also would broaden coverage of prescription drugs for weight loss management under Medicaid and Medicare Part D.  The proposal is meant to take advantage of existing anti-diabetes efforts and a new spate of federally approved weight loss drugs to address both diabetes and obesity, conditions that often interact. Grassley, Rockefeller and Carper said they will look for legislative opportunities to advance this proposal in the coming months while continuing to work with other sponsors of the legislation including Sens. Al Franken, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. The senators also recognized the work of several senators and House members in this issue area and said they hope for bipartisan advancement of proposals to combat obesity and diabetes. -30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043128/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47806", "Grassley Joins Effort to Reverse Negative Impact of Whistleblower Court Case", "2013-12-17", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013 Senator Chuck Grassley joined Senator Jon Tester to introduce legislation to help lessen the impact of a federal court ruling (Kaplan v. Conyers) that would have a chilling effect on whistleblowers who help root out waste, fraud and abuse from within the federal government. In Kaplan v. Conyers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed employment positions which are determined to be \u201csensitive\u201d to national security or \u201cnon-critical sensitive\u201d to national security, which means someone holding the position could have a negative effect on national security.\u00a0 The legislation seeks to rectify a part of Conyers by ensuring federal employees who have their positions deemed \u201csensitive\u201d or \u201cnon-critical sensitive\u201d are eligible to appeal the decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board.\u00a0 The Board hears appeals from civil service employees regarding merit system employment actions.\u00a0\u00a0 Grassley said that without the ability to appeal a decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board, potential whistleblowers throughout the federal government will likely think twice about reporting wrongdoing.\u00a0 He said even if a federal employee\u2019s current position is not considered sensitive, the court\u2019s ruling may make an employee who blows the whistle fear that his or her position may be designated non-critical sensitive as a means of retaliation. Grassley initially wrote President Obama on September 4, 2013, asking him to clarify protections for federal whistleblowers after the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision.\u00a0 The White House has not responded to Grassley\u2019s letter. \u201cThe Federal Circuit has historically been unsympathetic to whistleblowers, but the Conyers ruling is over the top.\u00a0 It\u2019s essentially a death knell to whistleblowers who are simply trying to help root out waste, fraud and abuse,\u201d Grassley said.\u00a0 \u201cThis legislation can help give whistleblowers assurances that their case will at least be heard by an independent board.\u201d A long-time advocate for whistleblowers, in addition to co-authoring the 1989 whistleblower law designed to protect federal whistleblowers, Grassley authored changes made in 1986 to the President Lincoln-era federal False Claims Act to empower private-sector whistleblowers.\u00a0 Since the 1986 amendments were signed into law, the False Claims Act has brought back more than $30 billion to the federal treasury, and has deterred even more fraudulent activity. In 2009, in coordination with Senator Patrick Leahy, Grassley worked to pass legislation to shore up whistleblower protections in the False Claims Act that had been eroded by the courts after years of litigation by defense and healthcare contractors. -30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043132/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47792", "Floor Speech of Sen. Chuck Grassley on the Nomination of Alejandro Mayorkis", "2013-12-17", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Floor Speech of Sen. Chuck Grassley on the Nomination of Alejandro Mayorkis\u00a0Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa\nRanking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee\nOn the Nomination of Alejandro Mayorkas to be Deputy Secretary, Department of Homeland Security  \n\n\u00a0\nI have major concerns with Mr. Mayorkas\u2019s nomination. First, I want to discuss how Mr. Mayorkas has carried out the President\u2019s directive giving legal status to thousands of individuals who are in the United States unlawfully. \u00a0 In 2012, Mr. Mayorkas was charged with implementing this President\u2019s directive, known as DACA.\u00a0 I have always questioned whether the President\u2019s directive is legal.\u00a0 The administration never responded to our request for their legal basis and opinions. This administration has not been transparent about who is getting deferred action, how they are processing them, and whether those who have been denied have been processed for removal. \u00a0 They may call this program \u201cDeferred Action for Childhood Arrivals\u201d but it clearly benefits older adults and possibly people who intentionally broke our laws.\u00a0 The agency didn\u2019t deny a single applicant until after the 2012 election.\u00a0 We still don\u2019t know how many people were actually denied.\u00a0 We do know, however, that people were approved despite shoddy evidence, such as an X-Box receipt and Facebook postings. They always seem to find a way to get an approval. And all denials for \u201cDACA\u201d have to be run through Washington.\u00a0 Adjudicators on the line were given clear instructions that they were not allowed to deny.\u00a0 Whistleblowers said that Mr. Mayorkas himself had to approve all denials. \u00a0 Think about that. No denial was allowed unless the head of the agency personally approved it.\u00a0 What kind of message does that send to the career employees trying to do their jobs impartially?\u00a0 The boss has his thumb on the scale. That isn\u2019t the rule of law. Mr. Mayorkas\u2019s message to adjudicators seems to have been that they had better \u201cget to a yes\u201d or he\u2019d personally get involved.\u00a0 This \u201cget to yes\u201d philosophy came up time and again with agency whistleblowers. \u00a0 The Office of Inspector General looked into the situation and confirmed what whistleblowers had said. A quarter of immigration service officers interviewed felt pressure to approve questionable applications.\u00a0 Ninety percent felt they didn\u2019t have sufficient time to complete interviews of those who seek benefits. \u00a0 The Office of Inspector General report clearly showed that the agency had been pervaded by the \u201cGet to Yes\u201d culture. \u00a0 Unfortunately, that culture hadn\u2019t changed under Mr. Mayorkas\u2019s leadership. In fact, based on concerns I heard from whistleblowers who contacted my office in mid-July of this year, it seems to have gotten worse. These whistleblowers were aware that Mr. Mayorkas had been nominated to this Homeland Security position in late June.\u00a0 They were also aware that since the fall of 2012, Mr. Mayorkas had been a subject of an Office of Inspector General investigation into allegations of ethical or criminal misconduct. When Mr. Mayorkas\u2019s nomination hearing was scheduled, the whistleblowers were surprised.\u00a0 They wondered why a hearing would proceed while the investigation was still open and pending, and contacted my office to make sure Congress was told about the investigation. \u00a0 The existence of an investigation was news to me.\u00a0 However, I don\u2019t sit on the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.\u00a0 So, my staff contacted the staff of the Ranking Member of that Committee, Dr. Coburn.\u00a0 His staff was also unaware that the nominee was under investigation by the Inspector General. It is extremely troubling that a hearing was scheduled to proceed without the Ranking Member of the committee knowing about a pending investigation of the nominee within the Executive Branch. Both my staff and Ranking Member Coburn\u2019s staff contacted the Inspector General\u2019s office.\u00a0 We told his office about the whistleblower allegations and asked for confirmation as to whether there was an open inquiry.\u00a0 This type of procedural information is routinely disclosed by an Inspector General\u2019s office to Congress\u2014and rightly so.\u00a0 Further, we asked for an explanation of why that information would be withheld while the committee was considering the nomination. The Senate has a constitutional function of providing advice and consent on nominations.\u00a0 In order to do our duty, every Senator who is asked to vote on that nominee needs to have all the relevant information about that nominee, such as a pending investigation. To its credit, the Office of the Inspector General answered our questions and confirmed there was indeed an open criminal investigation.\u00a0 Their written description stated that the inquiry involves \u201calleged conflicts of interest, misuse of position, mismanagement of the EB-5 program, and an appearance of impropriety by Mayorkas and other ... management officials.\u201d How was it possible that this information was withheld from staff for the Ranking Member of the committee considering the nomination? If not for the whistleblowers, would we have known? When a nominee is under investigation, the Senate has no business approving that nominee until the facts are in.\u00a0 Historically, committees have followed this precedent.\u00a0 As Ranking Member Coburn explained last week, both the President and the Vice President supported this precedent when they were in the Senate.\u00a0 In July 2005, one ambassadorial nominee owned a company under investigation.\u00a0 Then-Senator Biden spoke out in support of delaying voting on the nomination because of the investigations.\u00a0 Eventually the nominee\u2019s company agreed to settle the investigations against it.\u00a0 Then-Senator Obama\u2019s spokesman issued a statement saying that due to the fact that a settlement was reached, Senator Obama would not seek to block the nomination.\u00a0 Like then-Senators Obama and Biden, I believe the the Senate should wait for investigations to conclude. Or, if the Executive Branch is taking too long, then Congress should do its own fact finding. But, forcing Senators to vote in ignorance is not a legitimate option. It is irresponsible. Voting to approve a nominee who is under investigation without waiting for the facts is incredibly risky.\u00a0 What if the investigation determines that the allegations are true?\u00a0 Then by rushing to approve the nominee, this body would have failed in one of our key functions under the Constitution. \u00a0 I pointed this out when the Senate was considering the nomination of B. Todd Jones to become the permanent head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.\u00a0 Mr. Jones was the subject of an Office of Special Counsel investigation due to allegations that he retaliated against a whistleblower in the U.S. Attorney\u2019s office in Minnesota. \u00a0 As Mr. Jones\u2019s nomination progressed in the Senate, the Justice Department and the whistleblower agreed to try mediation.\u00a0 The Majority tried to claim that the Special Counsel\u2019s case was therefore closed.\u00a0 However, as I stated on this floor, the Special Counsel\u2019s investigation would continue if the mediation failed.\u00a0 Nevertheless, despite the open Special Counsel investigation, we voted on July 31 to confirm Mr. Jones. In early September, the whistleblower\u2019s mediation with the Justice Department did indeed fail.\u00a0 The Special Counsel has resumed its investigation of Mr. Jones, just as the Special Counsel had told the Senate that it would.\u00a0 So, the retaliation complaint against Mr. Jones is still pending today.\u00a0 We don\u2019t know what the outcome will be because we did not take the time to gather the facts as senators should. If we are unwilling to wait for an Executive Branch inquiry, then we should gather the facts ourselves. Last week, Ranking Member Coburn asked Chairman Levin if the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations would consider interviewing witnesses in the controversy involving Mr. Mayorkas.\u00a0 While he declined, Chairman Levin rightly noted that if the subcommittee were going to launch such an investigation, the vote on Mr. Mayorkas would need to be delayed. I completely agree. This vote should not take place until someone has been able to gather testimony and draw conclusions about the allegations. Whistleblowers have provided my office with very troubling evidence regarding the substance of some of the allegations.\u00a0 Much of the evidence involves the EB-5 regional center program, which Mr. Mayorkas is responsible for managing.\u00a0 The evidence appears to support allegations that Mr. Mayorkas and his leadership team at Citizenship and Immigration Services are susceptible to political pressure and favoritism.\u00a0 Our immigration system should be governed by equal application of the law\u2014not by who has the best political connections to the director of the agency. I have given Mr. Mayorkas a chance to defend himself and explain the evidence, which seems compelling.\u00a0 Back in July and August, I wrote several letters to Mr. Mayorkas outlining whistleblowers\u2019 allegations and attaching some of the documents they provided.\u00a0 I asked how he accounted for this evidence.\u00a0 But, he has utterly failed to reply to my letters. \u00a0 It\u2019s been four or five months since I sent Mr. Mayorkas these letters. Just like his personal oversight of DACA, these documents show Mr. Mayorkas being much more directly involved in individual EB-5 cases than he had led my staff or the Homeland Security Committee to believe.\u00a0 They appear to show him intervening in an EB-5 decision involving Gulf Coast Funds Management, an organization run by Hillary Clinton\u2019s brother, Anthony Rodham.\u00a0 This decision benefited GreenTech Automotive, a company run by Terry McAuliffe that was receiving funding from Gulf Coast Funds Management. This evidence about political influence and intervention is particularly troubling because of Mr. Mayorkas\u2019s prior history.\u00a0 In 2001 Mr. Mayorkas had a role in the group of pardons and commutations issued by President Clinton at the end of his second term.\u00a0 A 2002 House report found that then-U.S. Attorney Mayorkas inappropriately sought to influence a decision regarding whether drug trafficker Carlos Vignali\u2019s prison sentence should be commuted. However, my concerns about the investigation pending against Mr. Mayorkas are about more than just improper political influence. Under his leadership over the last few years, the EB-5 program has grown far beyond its original intent, which I supported.\u00a0 It is intended to be an avenue for foreign investors to participate in new commercial enterprises that create jobs in the United States in exchange for a U.S. visa.\u00a0 The program was created as a pilot, allowing regional centers to pool funds from investors to create new businesses.\u00a0 In the process, the centers had to prove they were creating U.S. jobs. \u00a0 Skeptics question if the program truly creates jobs. Whistleblowers have expressed concerns that foreign investors are not being vetted carefully enough. \u00a0 They say Mr. Mayorkas is more interested in approving applications quickly than making security checks more robust. \u00a0 Given what we know now about these security concerns inside the agency, Congress needs to re-examine the program.\u00a0 It should serve its purpose without compromising national security. Mr. Mayorkas claims that he has changed the program since learning of the fraud and security concerns.\u00a0 The only tangible change we have seen is that additional economists have been hired and adjudicators from California were moved to Washington, D.C.\u00a0 Yet moving the EB-5 process to Washington increased Mr. Mayorkas\u2019s control over the program, just as he has in the DACA program. Whistleblowers have provided me with emails from Mr. Mayorkas saying that he wants to keep fraud and national security concerns about GreenTech or the SLS Hotel in Las Vegas \u201cclose hold.\u201d\u00a0 As I said earlier, the rule of law isn\u2019t possible when the boss has his thumb on the scale. Further, the regional center program has serious national security risks that the Director hasn\u2019t addressed. \u00a0 He convened a working group with national security advisors, but no formal product was finalized.\u00a0 The inter-agency collaborations seemed to fizzle.\u00a0 Whistleblowers say the whole working group was mere window dressing. In the agency, employees received EB-5 applications from individuals with derogatory information about them in classified government files.\u00a0 But, they were given little or no guidance about how to make sure that such were denied.\u00a0 Instead, they were pressured to approve applications as quickly as possible.\u00a0 Simply put, the integrity of our immigration system is in question as long as the program continues without needed reforms, which could be done today. On May 15, 2012, Chairman Leahy and I wrote to Mr. Mayorkas regarding the program and expressed our concerns about the potential for abuse of the program. We asked for his commitment to administratively reform two aspects of the program.\u00a0 He responded that he was interested in the reforms, yet it has been 19 months and he has taken no action. Mr. Mayorkas says he\u2019s concerned with fraud and abuse in the program, but actions speak louder than words.\u00a0 Despite my recent letters with questions about fraud and security concerns, not to mention political influence, Mr. Mayorkas is either completely unwilling or unable to respond to the allegations. I sat down with Chairman Carper on August 1, and he agreed that I deserve answers to my questions from the nominee.\u00a0 But, now he has pressed forward without getting answers.\u00a0 I am truly surprised that this Majority is not interested in getting to the bottom of these allegations. If this body is unwilling to await until the end of an investigation or conduct its own inquiry, one day it will come back to bite us. As I said when B. Todd Jones was confirmed, eventually one of these situations will embarrass the Senate and damage the reputation of the federal government. If this Majority is determined to ignore ongoing investigations and ram through nominees, the American people should hold the Senate accountable for refusing to do its constitutional job.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043900/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47789", "Grassley Hopes to Include Pharmacists in Accountable Care Organizations", "2013-12-17", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON -- Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said today he will look for opportunities to advance his proposal to include pharmacists in Medicare\u2019s program encouraging providers to give coordinated, high quality care to their Medicare patients.\n  \n\u201cPharmacists can play a critical role in coordinated health care,\u201d Grassley said.\u00a0 \u201cAs Medicare moves toward payment policies that reward integrated care, we should recognize the role pharmacists play in encouraging adherence with doctors\u2019 drug prescriptions.\u201d Grassley filed an amendment to the physician payments bill considered in the Finance Committee last week that would include pharmacists in Medicare programs encouraging Accountable Care Organizations.\u00a0 These are groups of doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers who come together voluntarily to give coordinated, high quality care to their Medicare patients.\u00a0 The coordinated care is meant to achieve the right care, especially for chronically ill patients, while avoiding wasteful duplication and preventing medical errors. The organizations share in the savings they achieve for the Medicare program when they succeed in delivering high-quality care while avoiding wasteful duplication and spending.\u00a0 Medicare currently does not promote pharmacists\u2019 participation in Accountable Care Organizations, even though pharmacists play a significant role in overseeing patients\u2019 prescription adherence. Grassley said he will look for legislative opportunities to advance this proposal in the coming months.\u00a0 He also co-sponsored an amendment offered by Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware encouraging the development of quality metrics related to medication adherence.\n-30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043906/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47784", "Grassley, Bennet Look to Advance Provision for Children with Medically Complex Conditions", "2013-12-17", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Grassley, Bennet Look to Advance Provision for Children with Medically Complex ConditionsWASHINGTON \u2013 Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado said today they will look for ways to advance their provision to better coordinate care for children with complex medical conditions under Medicaid and the Children\u2019s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), leading to better care and health for these children.  \n\u00a0  \n\u201cConsidering creative models to promote better outcomes for children with medically complex conditions is something we need to explore in the future,\u201d Grassley said.\u00a0 \u201cWorking with the Finance Committee on a bipartisan basis and the Congressional Budget Office, I hope we can move these ideas forward.\u201d  \n\u00a0  \n\u201cKids in Colorado and around the country deserve doctors and hospitals that have every tool and resource they need to help them get better,\u201d Bennet said. \u201cWe need to explore ways that we can ensure kids are getting the seamless care they deserve. We\u2019ll continue to work closely with the Senate Finance Committee to get this signed into law.\u201d Grassley, Bennet and seven other bipartisan members of the Finance Committee sponsored an amendment to the physician payments bill considered in committee last week that would establish under the Medicaid program and Children\u2019s Health Insurance Program an accountable care collaborative providing a network of services to children with medically complex conditions.  \n\u00a0  \nThe amendment, which was offered and withdrawn, establishes a Medicaid Children\u2019s Care Coordination Program for children with complex medical conditions that would provide services through nationally designated children\u2019s hospital networks.\u00a0 Medically Complex Children are defined as those who are included in Clinical Risk Groups (CRG) 5b-9.\u00a0 The CRG methodology is a well-documented and accepted manner of classifying pediatric patients and their diagnoses nationally and can be adopted for these purposes easily.\u00a0  \n\u00a0  \nPatients in these groups have significant lifelong chronic diseases, limiting the probability of churning in and out of the network, Grassley and Bennet said.\u00a0 Approximately three million children in the country suffer from medically complex conditions, and two million of these children are in Medicaid, accounting for 6 percent of children enrolled in Medicaid and 40 percent of Medicaid spending on children.  \n\u00a0  \nChildren with medically complex conditions are often need of specialized care that requires services provided by providers found in states outside of the family\u2019s state of residence.\u00a0 Medicaid\u2019s state-based structure creates impediments to seamless, integrated models of care that may be more appropriate for these children.  \n\u00a0  \nChildren\u2019s hospitals are seen as the anchors to the nationally designated hospital network.\u00a0 While anchor hospitals will provide services for network patients including physician, inpatient and outpatient care, the network will necessarily include other hospitals, physicians, and providers to ensure these children receive the needed services in the most appropriate setting possible.\u00a0 Key to these networks is assurance that there is an adequate network to support the specific pediatric population, Grassley and Bennet said.  \n\u00a0  \nThrough integrated care and risk-based reimbursement, improved patient outcomes and lower health care costs can be achieved, the senators said.  \n\u00a0  \nGrassley and Bennet said they will look for legislative opportunities to advance this proposal in the coming months.  \n\u00a0  \n\n-30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043911/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47800", "Grassley Statement at Patent Trolls Hearing", "2013-12-17", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa  \nRanking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee  \nHearing on \u201cProtecting Small Businesses and  \nPromoting Innovation by Limiting Patent Troll Abuse\u201d  \nTuesday, December 17, 2013 Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing today.\u00a0 The United States is a global leader in innovating, creating and developing new technologies and products.\u00a0 Intellectual property protection plays a critical role in supporting technological advances, innovation and creativity.\u00a0 Patents and the U.S. patent system are a significant component of the American tradition of invention and innovation. However, the innovation and creativity that patents are supposed to protect is being threatened by purposely evasive and deceptive blanket demand letters and abusive litigation practices.\u00a0 According to one study, lawsuits by patent assertion entities have increased at an alarming rate \u2013 in fact, 62% of all patent lawsuits filed in 2012 were cases brought by patent assertion entities.\u00a0 Patent litigation abuse imposes high costs on American businesses, wasting precious resources that could instead be utilized for research, development, job creation and economic growth. Patent assertion entities, also known as patent trolls, focus on buying and asserting patents, rather than on developing or commercializing patented inventions.\u00a0 Patent trolls often assert these weak or poorly-granted patents against companies that are already utilizing technologies as ubiquitous as wireless email, digital video streaming and the internet.\u00a0 These entities frequently carry out their tactics behind the shield of patent holding subsidiaries, affiliates and shells of operating companies.\u00a0 Patent troll lawsuits rarely have merit:\u00a0 the statistics are they lose 92% of merits judgments.\u00a0 But the extent of the problem cannot be quantified by looking at these numbers alone.\u00a0 Most cases don\u2019t even get to this stage.\u00a0 Patent assertion entities usually set their royalty demands strategically below litigation costs.\u00a0 Consequently, companies make the determination that they should settle weak or meritless cases rather than run the risk of taking on expensive and risky patent litigation. The bottom line is that many small businesses just don\u2019t have the resources to litigate and so they submit to this kind of patent extortion.\u00a0 That\u2019s not right. This phenomenon of patent trolls has hit companies all over the country, and they\u2019ve targeted my state of Iowa as well.\u00a0 I recently met with a group of Iowans in Council Bluffs and heard stories about how patent trolls utilize overly broad patents to make claims of infringement against their businesses that are either simply engaging in normal business practices or have bought a technology product or service from a vendor.\u00a0\u00a0 Further, I\u2019ve received a number of letters from Iowans outlining their problems and frustration with these abuses.\u00a0\u00a0 They say that these trolls have forced their businesses to divert resources from productive endeavors to instead focus on researching vague demand letters and defending questionable infringement lawsuits.\u00a0 They \u2018re concerned that billions of dollars are being spent in unwarranted legal costs that could be put to more productive use.\u00a0 According to one of my constituents, \u201cthis practice is now completely out of control.\u201d I\u2019d like to quote from a letter that I received from groups representing a wide swath of businesses in my state.\u00a0 This letter is from Hy-Vee Food Stores, the Iowa Association of Business and Industry, the Iowa Lodging Association, the Motion Picture Association of Iowa, the Iowa Grocery Industry Association, the Technology Association of Iowa, the Iowa Restaurant Association, the Iowa Credit Union League, the Iowa Association of Realtors, the Iowa Telecommunications Association, the Iowa Biotechnology Association, the Iowa Bankers Association, the Independent Insurance Agents of Iowa, and the Iowa Retail Federation.\u00a0\u00a0 They write, \u201cFighting frivolous and burdensome patent lawsuits threatened and filed by patent trolls is an expensive distraction for a large cross-section of Iowa businesses.\u00a0 Rather than focus their efforts on important economic development catalysts such as innovation, job creation, and business growth, entrepreneurs and business owners from all industries and sizes are more frequently finding themselves diverting valuable attention and limited resources to defending expensive and unnecessary legal threats by patent trolls.\u00a0 Indeed, businesses, everyday Iowans, and Iowa\u2019s economy as a whole are adversely affected by the trolls\u2019 seemingly endless barrage of legal threats and frivolous suits.\u00a0 The trolls\u2019 misguided and unbridled mischief unnecessarily drives up costs that are, in part, passed on to Iowa\u2019s hardworking families and consumers.\u201d\u00a0 These groups are supportive of Congress taking action because they believe \u201cmeaningful reforms that make it difficult for patent trolls to continue their destructive business models, improve patent quality, and streamline patent infringement disputes will drastically reduce costs for Iowa businesses.\u201d I have other letters from Iowans describing their experiences with patent trolls.\u00a0 Quotes from some of these letters \u2013 according to BettrLife in Urbandale, \u201cwe must find a way to strengthen the requirements around patent infringement so unscrupulous lawyers can\u2019t work through loop-holes to take resources and dollars from companies that are trying to make a positive impact on businesses in their community and the overall economy.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 According to Kinze Manufacturing in Williamsburg, their patent troll experience \u201chas left a lasting impact . . . .\u00a0 .\u00a0 Contract negotiations with suppliers and service providers now routinely include allocation of liability in the event of patent trolling.\u00a0 These negotiations require additional resources and delay research, development and production of new products.\u00a0 This slows farmer\u2019s access to the latest technology.\u00a0 Technology which will help them get more out of every acre while reducing their costs and protecting their soil.\u201d\u00a0 According to Kum & Go based in West Des Moines, claims of patent trolls have cost the company \u201cthousands of dollars in legal fees and corporate counsel has wasted numerous hours dealing with these frivolous claims \u2013 time and money that should have been spent on core business functions.\u201d I\u2019ve also heard from Iowans that are concerned about the ability of patent holders to protect their intellectual property rights and enforce them against infringers.\u00a0 While they agree that litigation abuse does occur in the patent system, they are concerned that certain proposals will undermine the ability of legitimate patent holders to enforce their patent rights.\u00a0 These constituents include Iowa State University, the University of Iowa and independent inventors Robert Rees and Paul Morinville.\u00a0 I agree that it is important to maintain an appropriate balance between protecting the rights of legitimate patent holders and protecting against abusive practices and weak patents.\u00a0 We need to preserve patent property rights and valid patent enforcement tools which will promote invention, while targeting bad actors and their tactics that target and shake down businesses with weak and frivolous claims for a quick payday.\u00a0\u00a0 This will strengthen our patent system and benefit inventors, businesses and consumers alike. Mr. Chairman, I\u2019d like to put in the record letters from Iowa constituents, both expressing support and concerns with the various proposals we are considering in the Senate.\u00a0 I also have for the record letters from the National Retail Federation and Stop Patent Abuse Now Coalition expressing concerns with the customer stay provision as currently drafted in the House and Senate bills. Doing something about the abusive practices plaguing our patent system is important to keeping the United States competitive, creating jobs and boosting our economy.\u00a0 Members on both sides of the aisle agree that this abusive patent litigation hurts the ability of businesses to expand and flourish.\u00a0 We should pass effective legislation to curtail abuses of the legal system.\u00a0 I\u2019m encouraged that the House passed the Innovation Act by a large margin, and the White House issued a statement in support of that bill. So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about their experiences with abusive patent litigation tactics by patent trolls.\u00a0 I also look forward to hearing from our witness about their views on how we in Congress can help find a solution to this problem.\u00a0 And Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you to pass meaningful legislation that can alleviate the problems that many of our constituents are dealing with and that are harming our economy.\u00a0 Thank you. -30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043916/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47780", "Grassley: Budget Deal Promotes Too Much Spending", "2013-12-17", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "For Immediate Release  \n\tDecember 17, 2013 \t\n  \nGrassley: Budget Deal Promotes Too Much Spending  \nSen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following comment on his vote against proceeding to the Senate vote on the House-Senate budget deal and his intention to vote against the legislation on final passage.\u201cWhile I appreciate the bipartisan effort that brokered this budget deal, I can\u2019t support the proposal.\u00a0 It spends an additional $63 billion over the next two years when we have a $17 trillion debt.\u00a0 To offset that higher spending, it raises revenue over ten years but spends that money in the first two years.\u00a0 It raises fees on air travelers and corporate pension premiums and reduces retirement benefits for military retirees to offset unrelated spending.\u00a0 Nearly all of the meager spending cuts come way down the road, in 2022 and 2023.\u00a0 To get our fiscal house in order, we should at least abide by the spending caps put in place in August 2011 that provided a $2.1 trillion increase in the nation\u2019s debt ceiling.\u00a0 This budget deal emphasizes that Congress has a spending problem.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043921/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47777", "Grassley, Wyden Look to Advance Provision to Improve Independence for Young Medicaid Beneficiaries with Disabilities", "2013-12-17", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Grassley, Wyden Look to Advance Provision to Improve Independence for Young Medicaid Beneficiaries with DisabilitiesWASHINGTON \u2013 Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said today they will look for ways to advance their provision to improve independent living and community employment for teen-age and young adult Medicaid beneficiaries with disabilities. \u201cWe should use the power of the Medicaid and Medicare programs to improve options for people with disabilities,\u201d Grassley said.\u00a0 \u201cOur proposal promotes creativity and coordination to improve outcomes for these individuals.\u00a0 I look forward to continuing to work with the Finance Committee on a bipartisan basis and the Congressional Budget Office to make it a reality.\u201d \u201cThere have been too many stories of disabled individuals being taken advantage of in the workplace,\u201d Wyden said. \u201cOur proposal encourages states to use creative and innovative approaches to improve employment equity and help young people with disabilities become as independent and successful as possible.\u201d Grassley and Wyden sponsored an amendment, which was offered and withdrawn, to the physician payments bill considered in the Finance Committee last week that would create Medicaid bonuses for states that think creatively in coordinating services for the disabled across several programs \u2013 including vocational rehabilitation, education, housing, and transportation \u2013 that lead to more independent living and employment within the community.\u00a0 The proposal is directed at individuals ages 14 to 30 years old. Grassley and Wyden said Medicaid and Medicare are such major programs that they can and should help drive better outcomes for the participating individuals.\u00a0 The amendment took the approach of using Medicaid funding to create incentives to increase opportunities for youth with disabilities.\u00a0 With more coordination of health care and support services than exists now, Medicaid could lead to improved health for individuals with disabilities that could lead to independent living and employment.\u00a0 Grassley and Wyden said they will look for legislative opportunities to advance this proposal in the coming months.\n-30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221044442/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47803", "Grassley Statement at Hearing on The Federal Arbitration Act and Access to Justice", "2013-12-17", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Grassley Statement at Hearing on The Federal Arbitration Act and Access to JusticePrepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa  \nRanking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary  \nHearing on \u201cThe Federal Arbitration Act and  \nAccess to Justice: Will Recent Supreme Court Decisions Undermine the  \nRights of Consumers, Workers, and Small Businesses?\u201d  \nTuesday, December 16, 2013. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.\u00a0 It\u2019s always helpful to have experts in particular areas of the law come here to testify.\u00a0 I expect we\u2019ll learn a great deal today from our panel of witnesses.  \n\u00a0  \nThe Federal Arbitration Act was enacted in 1925 \u201cin response to widespread judicial hostility to arbitration agreements.\u201d\u00a0 Courts have held that the Federal Arbitration Act reflects the fundamental principle that arbitration is a matter of contract.\u00a0 And the Supreme Court, as we\u2019ll discuss today, has said that courts are to place arbitration agreements on equal footing with other contracts.\u00a0 We find arbitration agreements in many consumer contracts.\u00a0 These form contracts used in cell phone service agreements or credit card agreements routinely include an arbitration clause.\u00a0 Sometimes we read these agreements; sometimes we don\u2019t.\u00a0 But then again, form contracts have long outnumbered custom drafted contracts.\u00a0 So this isn\u2019t something new.\u00a0 As with anything, there are pros and cons to arbitration clauses.\u00a0 We\u2019ll hear about both today.\u00a0 I expect we\u2019ll also hear that businesses, in the wake of recent Supreme Court cases, still must decide whether to include arbitration clauses in their user agreements.\u00a0 Despite the predictions from some that arbitration clauses would become the default position. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today.\u00a0 Particularly, I look forward to testimony explaining what we can expect following the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in the American Express case.\u00a0 Absent class action provisions, will consumers really lack an ability to have their dispute adjudicated?\u00a0 Also, what direction will we see arbitration clauses move going forward?\u00a0 In the wake of the American Express and AT&T Mobility cases, I hope the witnesses can separate myth from reality, today, and give us a clear picture of what\u2019s next. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.\u00a0 I look forward to this hearing.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/floor-speech-sen-chuck-grassley-nomination-alejandro-mayorkis", "Floor Speech of Sen. Chuck Grassley on the Nomination of Alejandro Mayorkis", "2013-12-17", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Floor Speech of Sen. Chuck Grassley on the Nomination of Alejandro Mayorkis\n\n\nPrepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of IowaRanking Member, Senate Judiciary CommitteeOn the Nomination of Alejandro Mayorkas to be Deputy Secretary, Department of Homeland Security\n\nI have major concerns with Mr. Mayorkas's nomination. First, I want to discuss how Mr. Mayorkas has carried out the President's directive giving legal status to thousands of individuals who are in the United States unlawfully.  In 2012, Mr. Mayorkas was charged with implementing this President's directive, known as DACA. I have always questioned whether the President's directive is legal. The administration never responded to our request for their legal basis and opinions. This administration has not been transparent about who is getting deferred action, how they are processing them, and whether those who have been denied have been processed for removal.  They may call this program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals but it clearly benefits older adults and possibly people who intentionally broke our laws. The agency didn't deny a single applicant until after the 2012 election. We still don't know how many people were actually denied. We do know, however, that people were approved despite shoddy evidence, such as an X-Box receipt and Facebook postings. They always seem to find a way to get an approval. And all denials for DACA have to be run through Washington. Adjudicators on the line were given clear instructions that they were not allowed to deny. Whistleblowers said that Mr. Mayorkas himself had to approve all denials.  Think about that. No denial was allowed unless the head of the agency personally approved it. What kind of message does that send to the career employees trying to do their jobs impartially? The boss has his thumb on the scale. That isn't the rule of law. Mr. Mayorkas's message to adjudicators seems to have been that they had better get to a yes or he'd personally get involved. This get to yes philosophy came up time and again with agency whistleblowers.  The Office of Inspector General looked into the situation and confirmed what whistleblowers had said. A quarter of immigration service officers interviewed felt pressure to approve questionable applications. Ninety percent felt they didn't have sufficient time to complete interviews of those who seek benefits.  The Office of Inspector General report clearly showed that the agency had been pervaded by the Get to Yes culture.  Unfortunately, that culture hadn't changed under Mr. Mayorkas's leadership. In fact, based on concerns I heard from whistleblowers who contacted my office in mid-July of this year, it seems to have gotten worse. These whistleblowers were aware that Mr. Mayorkas had been nominated to this Homeland Security position in late June. They were also aware that since the fall of 2012, Mr. Mayorkas had been a subject of an Office of Inspector General investigation into allegations of ethical or criminal misconduct. When Mr. Mayorkas's nomination hearing was scheduled, the whistleblowers were surprised. They wondered why a hearing would proceed while the investigation was still open and pending, and contacted my office to make sure Congress was told about the investigation.  The existence of an investigation was news to me. However, I don't sit on the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. So, my staff contacted the staff of the Ranking Member of that Committee, Dr. Coburn. His staff was also unaware that the nominee was under investigation by the Inspector General. It is extremely troubling that a hearing was scheduled to proceed without the Ranking Member of the committee knowing about a pending investigation of the nominee within the Executive Branch. Both my staff and Ranking Member Coburn's staff contacted the Inspector General's office. We told his office about the whistleblower allegations and asked for confirmation as to whether there was an open inquiry. This type of procedural information is routinely disclosed by an Inspector General's office to Congressand rightly so. Further, we asked for an explanation of why that information would be withheld while the committee was considering the nomination. The Senate has a constitutional function of providing advice and consent on nominations. In order to do our duty, every Senator who is asked to vote on that nominee needs to have all the relevant information about that nominee, such as a pending investigation. To its credit, the Office of the Inspector General answered our questions and confirmed there was indeed an open criminal investigation. Their written description stated that the inquiry involves alleged conflicts of interest, misuse of position, mismanagement of the EB-5 program, and an appearance of impropriety by Mayorkas and other ... management officials. How was it possible that this information was withheld from staff for the Ranking Member of the committee considering the nomination? If not for the whistleblowers, would we have known? When a nominee is under investigation, the Senate has no business approving that nominee until the facts are in. Historically, committees have followed this precedent. As Ranking Member Coburn explained last week, both the President and the Vice President supported this precedent when they were in the Senate. In July 2005, one ambassadorial nominee owned a company under investigation. Then-Senator Biden spoke out in support of delaying voting on the nomination because of the investigations. Eventually the nominee's company agreed to settle the investigations against it. Then-Senator Obama's spokesman issued a statement saying that due to the fact that a settlement was reached, Senator Obama would not seek to block the nomination. Like then-Senators Obama and Biden, I believe the the Senate should wait for investigations to conclude. Or, if the Executive Branch is taking too long, then Congress should do its own fact finding. But, forcing Senators to vote in ignorance is not a legitimate option. It is irresponsible. Voting to approve a nominee who is under investigation without waiting for the facts is incredibly risky. What if the investigation determines that the allegations are true? Then by rushing to approve the nominee, this body would have failed in one of our key functions under the Constitution.  I pointed this out when the Senate was considering the nomination of B. Todd Jones to become the permanent head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Mr. Jones was the subject of an Office of Special Counsel investigation due to allegations that he retaliated against a whistleblower in the U.S. Attorney's office in Minnesota.  As Mr. Jones's nomination progressed in the Senate, the Justice Department and the whistleblower agreed to try mediation. The Majority tried to claim that the Special Counsel's case was therefore closed. However, as I stated on this floor, the Special Counsel's investigation would continue if the mediation failed. Nevertheless, despite the open Special Counsel investigation, we voted on July 31 to confirm Mr. Jones. In early September, the whistleblower's mediation with the Justice Department did indeed fail. The Special Counsel has resumed its investigation of Mr. Jones, just as the Special Counsel had told the Senate that it would. So, the retaliation complaint against Mr. Jones is still pending today. We don't know what the outcome will be because we did not take the time to gather the facts as senators should. If we are unwilling to wait for an Executive Branch inquiry, then we should gather the facts ourselves. Last week, Ranking Member Coburn asked Chairman Levin if the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations would consider interviewing witnesses in the controversy involving Mr. Mayorkas. While he declined, Chairman Levin rightly noted that if the subcommittee were going to launch such an investigation, the vote on Mr. Mayorkas would need to be delayed. I completely agree. This vote should not take place until someone has been able to gather testimony and draw conclusions about the allegations. Whistleblowers have provided my office with very troubling evidence regarding the substance of some of the allegations. Much of the evidence involves the EB-5 regional center program, which Mr. Mayorkas is responsible for managing. The evidence appears to support allegations that Mr. Mayorkas and his leadership team at Citizenship and Immigration Services are susceptible to political pressure and favoritism. Our immigration system should be governed by equal application of the lawnot by who has the best political connections to the director of the agency. I have given Mr. Mayorkas a chance to defend himself and explain the evidence, which seems compelling. Back in July and August, I wrote several letters to Mr. Mayorkas outlining whistleblowers' allegations and attaching some of the documents they provided. I asked how he accounted for this evidence. But, he has utterly failed to reply to my letters.  It's been four or five months since I sent Mr. Mayorkas these letters. Just like his personal oversight of DACA, these documents show Mr. Mayorkas being much more directly involved in individual EB-5 cases than he had led my staff or the Homeland Security Committee to believe. They appear to show him intervening in an EB-5 decision involving Gulf Coast Funds Management, an organization run by Hillary Clinton's brother, Anthony Rodham. This decision benefited GreenTech Automotive, a company run by Terry McAuliffe that was receiving funding from Gulf Coast Funds Management. This evidence about political influence and intervention is particularly troubling because of Mr. Mayorkas's prior history. In 2001 Mr. Mayorkas had a role in the group of pardons and commutations issued by President Clinton at the end of his second term. A 2002 House report found that then-U.S. Attorney Mayorkas inappropriately sought to influence a decision regarding whether drug trafficker Carlos Vignali's prison sentence should be commuted. However, my concerns about the investigation pending against Mr. Mayorkas are about more than just improper political influence. Under his leadership over the last few years, the EB-5 program has grown far beyond its original intent, which I supported. It is intended to be an avenue for foreign investors to participate in new commercial enterprises that create jobs in the United States in exchange for a U.S. visa. The program was created as a pilot, allowing regional centers to pool funds from investors to create new businesses. In the process, the centers had to prove they were creating U.S. jobs.  Skeptics question if the program truly creates jobs. Whistleblowers have expressed concerns that foreign investors are not being vetted carefully enough.  They say Mr. Mayorkas is more interested in approving applications quickly than making security checks more robust.  Given what we know now about these security concerns inside the agency, Congress needs to re-examine the program. It should serve its purpose without compromising national security. Mr. Mayorkas claims that he has changed the program since learning of the fraud and security concerns. The only tangible change we have seen is that additional economists have been hired and adjudicators from California were moved to Washington, D.C. Yet moving the EB-5 process to Washington increased Mr. Mayorkas's control over the program, just as he has in the DACA program. Whistleblowers have provided me with emails from Mr. Mayorkas saying that he wants to keep fraud and national security concerns about GreenTech or the SLS Hotel in Las Vegas close hold. As I said earlier, the rule of law isn't possible when the boss has his thumb on the scale. Further, the regional center program has serious national security risks that the Director hasn't addressed.  He convened a working group with national security advisors, but no formal product was finalized. The inter-agency collaborations seemed to fizzle. Whistleblowers say the whole working group was mere window dressing. In the agency, employees received EB-5 applications from individuals with derogatory information about them in classified government files. But, they were given little or no guidance about how to make sure that such were denied. Instead, they were pressured to approve applications as quickly as possible. Simply put, the integrity of our immigration system is in question as long as the program continues without needed reforms, which could be done today. On May 15, 2012, Chairman Leahy and I wrote to Mr. Mayorkas regarding the program and expressed our concerns about the potential for abuse of the program. We asked for his commitment to administratively reform two aspects of the program. He responded that he was interested in the reforms, yet it has been 19 months and he has taken no action. Mr. Mayorkas says he's concerned with fraud and abuse in the program, but actions speak louder than words. Despite my recent letters with questions about fraud and security concerns, not to mention political influence, Mr. Mayorkas is either completely unwilling or unable to respond to the allegations. I sat down with Chairman Carper on August 1, and he agreed that I deserve answers to my questions from the nominee. But, now he has pressed forward without getting answers. I am truly surprised that this Majority is not interested in getting to the bottom of these allegations. If this body is unwilling to await until the end of an investigation or conduct its own inquiry, one day it will come back to bite us. As I said when B. Todd Jones was confirmed, eventually one of these situations will embarrass the Senate and damage the reputation of the federal government. If this Majority is determined to ignore ongoing investigations and ram through nominees, the American people should hold the Senate accountable for refusing to do its constitutional job.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-bennet-look-advance-provision-children-medically-complex-conditions", "Grassley, Bennet Look to Advance Provision for Children with Medically Complex Conditions", "2013-12-17", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Grassley, Bennet Look to Advance Provision for Children with Medically Complex Conditions\n\nWASHINGTON  Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado said today they will look for ways to advance their provision to better coordinate care for children with complex medical conditions under Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), leading to better care and health for these children.  Considering creative models to promote better outcomes for children with medically complex conditions is something we need to explore in the future, Grassley said. Working with the Finance Committee on a bipartisan basis and the Congressional Budget Office, I hope we can move these ideas forward.  Kids in Colorado and around the country deserve doctors and hospitals that have every tool and resource they need to help them get better, Bennet said. We need to explore ways that we can ensure kids are getting the seamless care they deserve. We'll continue to work closely with the Senate Finance Committee to get this signed into law. Grassley, Bennet and seven other bipartisan members of the Finance Committee sponsored an amendment to the physician payments bill considered in committee last week that would establish under the Medicaid program and Children's Health Insurance Program an accountable care collaborative providing a network of services to children with medically complex conditions.  The amendment, which was offered and withdrawn, establishes a Medicaid Children's Care Coordination Program for children with complex medical conditions that would provide services through nationally designated children's hospital networks. Medically Complex Children are defined as those who are included in Clinical Risk Groups (CRG) 5b-9. The CRG methodology is a well-documented and accepted manner of classifying pediatric patients and their diagnoses nationally and can be adopted for these purposes easily.  Patients in these groups have significant lifelong chronic diseases, limiting the probability of churning in and out of the network, Grassley and Bennet said. Approximately three million children in the country suffer from medically complex conditions, and two million of these children are in Medicaid, accounting for 6 percent of children enrolled in Medicaid and 40 percent of Medicaid spending on children.  Children with medically complex conditions are often need of specialized care that requires services provided by providers found in states outside of the family's state of residence. Medicaid's state-based structure creates impediments to seamless, integrated models of care that may be more appropriate for these children.  Children's hospitals are seen as the anchors to the nationally designated hospital network. While anchor hospitals will provide services for network patients including physician, inpatient and outpatient care, the network will necessarily include other hospitals, physicians, and providers to ensure these children receive the needed services in the most appropriate setting possible. Key to these networks is assurance that there is an adequate network to support the specific pediatric population, Grassley and Bennet said.  Through integrated care and risk-based reimbursement, improved patient outcomes and lower health care costs can be achieved, the senators said.  Grassley and Bennet said they will look for legislative opportunities to advance this proposal in the coming months.   \n-30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-budget-deal-promotes-too-much-spending", "Grassley: Budget Deal Promotes Too Much Spending", "2013-12-17", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following comment on his vote against proceeding to the Senate vote on the House-Senate budget deal and his intention to vote against the legislation on final passage.While I appreciate the bipartisan effort that brokered this budget deal, I can't support the proposal. It spends an additional $63 billion over the next two years when we have a $17 trillion debt. To offset that higher spending, it raises revenue over ten years but spends that money in the first two years. It raises fees on air travelers and corporate pension premiums and reduces retirement benefits for military retirees to offset unrelated spending. Nearly all of the meager spending cuts come way down the road, in 2022 and 2023. To get our fiscal house in order, we should at least abide by the spending caps put in place in August 2011 that provided a $2.1 trillion increase in the nation's debt ceiling. This budget deal emphasizes that Congress has a spending problem.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-hopes-include-pharmacists-accountable-care-organizations", "Grassley Hopes to Include Pharmacists in Accountable Care Organizations", "2013-12-17", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON -- Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said today he will look for opportunities to advance his proposal to include pharmacists in Medicare's program encouraging providers to give coordinated, high quality care to their Medicare patients.\nPharmacists can play a critical role in coordinated health care, Grassley said. As Medicare moves toward payment policies that reward integrated care, we should recognize the role pharmacists play in encouraging adherence with doctors' drug prescriptions. Grassley filed an amendment to the physician payments bill considered in the Finance Committee last week that would include pharmacists in Medicare programs encouraging Accountable Care Organizations. These are groups of doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers who come together voluntarily to give coordinated, high quality care to their Medicare patients. The coordinated care is meant to achieve the right care, especially for chronically ill patients, while avoiding wasteful duplication and preventing medical errors. The organizations share in the savings they achieve for the Medicare program when they succeed in delivering high-quality care while avoiding wasteful duplication and spending. Medicare currently does not promote pharmacists' participation in Accountable Care Organizations, even though pharmacists play a significant role in overseeing patients' prescription adherence. Grassley said he will look for legislative opportunities to advance this proposal in the coming months. He also co-sponsored an amendment offered by Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware encouraging the development of quality metrics related to medication adherence.\n-30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-statement-hearing-federal-arbitration-act-and-access-justice", "Grassley Statement at Hearing on The Federal Arbitration Act and Access to Justice", "2013-12-17", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Grassley Statement at Hearing on The Federal Arbitration Act and Access to Justice\n\nPrepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary Hearing on The Federal Arbitration Act and Access to Justice: Will Recent Supreme Court Decisions Undermine the Rights of Consumers, Workers, and Small Businesses? Tuesday, December 16, 2013. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. It's always helpful to have experts in particular areas of the law come here to testify. I expect we'll learn a great deal today from our panel of witnesses.  The Federal Arbitration Act was enacted in 1925 in response to widespread judicial hostility to arbitration agreements. Courts have held that the Federal Arbitration Act reflects the fundamental principle that arbitration is a matter of contract. And the Supreme Court, as we'll discuss today, has said that courts are to place arbitration agreements on equal footing with other contracts. We find arbitration agreements in many consumer contracts. These form contracts used in cell phone service agreements or credit card agreements routinely include an arbitration clause. Sometimes we read these agreements; sometimes we don't. But then again, form contracts have long outnumbered custom drafted contracts. So this isn't something new. As with anything, there are pros and cons to arbitration clauses. We'll hear about both today. I expect we'll also hear that businesses, in the wake of recent Supreme Court cases, still must decide whether to include arbitration clauses in their user agreements. Despite the predictions from some that arbitration clauses would become the default position. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. Particularly, I look forward to testimony explaining what we can expect following the Supreme Court's decision in the American Express case. Absent class action provisions, will consumers really lack an ability to have their dispute adjudicated? Also, what direction will we see arbitration clauses move going forward? In the wake of the American Express and AT&T Mobility cases, I hope the witnesses can separate myth from reality, today, and give us a clear picture of what's next. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to this hearing.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-statement-patent-trolls-hearing", "Grassley Statement at Patent Trolls Hearing", "2013-12-17", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa  Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee  Hearing on Protecting Small Businesses and  Promoting Innovation by Limiting Patent Troll Abuse  Tuesday, December 17, 2013\nMr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing today. The United States is a global leader in innovating, creating and developing new technologies and products. Intellectual property protection plays a critical role in supporting technological advances, innovation and creativity. Patents and the U.S. patent system are a significant component of the American tradition of invention and innovation.\nHowever, the innovation and creativity that patents are supposed to protect is being threatened by purposely evasive and deceptive blanket demand letters and abusive litigation practices. According to one study, lawsuits by patent assertion entities have increased at an alarming rate  in fact, 62% of all patent lawsuits filed in 2012 were cases brought by patent assertion entities. Patent litigation abuse imposes high costs on American businesses, wasting precious resources that could instead be utilized for research, development, job creation and economic growth.\nPatent assertion entities, also known as patent trolls, focus on buying and asserting patents, rather than on developing or commercializing patented inventions. Patent trolls often assert these weak or poorly-granted patents against companies that are already utilizing technologies as ubiquitous as wireless email, digital video streaming and the internet. These entities frequently carry out their tactics behind the shield of patent holding subsidiaries, affiliates and shells of operating companies.\nPatent troll lawsuits rarely have merit: the statistics are they lose 92% of merits judgments. But the extent of the problem cannot be quantified by looking at these numbers alone. Most cases don't even get to this stage. Patent assertion entities usually set their royalty demands strategically below litigation costs. Consequently, companies make the determination that they should settle weak or meritless cases rather than run the risk of taking on expensive and risky patent litigation. The bottom line is that many small businesses just don't have the resources to litigate and so they submit to this kind of patent extortion. That's not right.\nThis phenomenon of patent trolls has hit companies all over the country, and they've targeted my state of Iowa as well. I recently met with a group of Iowans in Council Bluffs and heard stories about how patent trolls utilize overly broad patents to make claims of infringement against their businesses that are either simply engaging in normal business practices or have bought a technology product or service from a vendor. Further, I've received a number of letters from Iowans outlining their problems and frustration with these abuses. They say that these trolls have forced their businesses to divert resources from productive endeavors to instead focus on researching vague demand letters and defending questionable infringement lawsuits. They re concerned that billions of dollars are being spent in unwarranted legal costs that could be put to more productive use. According to one of my constituents, this practice is now completely out of control.\nI'd like to quote from a letter that I received from groups representing a wide swath of businesses in my state. This letter is from Hy-Vee Food Stores, the Iowa Association of Business and Industry, the Iowa Lodging Association, the Motion Picture Association of Iowa, the Iowa Grocery Industry Association, the Technology Association of Iowa, the Iowa Restaurant Association, the Iowa Credit Union League, the Iowa Association of Realtors, the Iowa Telecommunications Association, the Iowa Biotechnology Association, the Iowa Bankers Association, the Independent Insurance Agents of Iowa, and the Iowa Retail Federation.\nThey write, Fighting frivolous and burdensome patent lawsuits threatened and filed by patent trolls is an expensive distraction for a large cross-section of Iowa businesses. Rather than focus their efforts on important economic development catalysts such as innovation, job creation, and business growth, entrepreneurs and business owners from all industries and sizes are more frequently finding themselves diverting valuable attention and limited resources to defending expensive and unnecessary legal threats by patent trolls. Indeed, businesses, everyday Iowans, and Iowa's economy as a whole are adversely affected by the trolls' seemingly endless barrage of legal threats and frivolous suits. The trolls' misguided and unbridled mischief unnecessarily drives up costs that are, in part, passed on to Iowa's hardworking families and consumers. These groups are supportive of Congress taking action because they believe meaningful reforms that make it difficult for patent trolls to continue their destructive business models, improve patent quality, and streamline patent infringement disputes will drastically reduce costs for Iowa businesses.\nI have other letters from Iowans describing their experiences with patent trolls. Quotes from some of these letters  according to BettrLife in Urbandale, we must find a way to strengthen the requirements around patent infringement so unscrupulous lawyers can't work through loop-holes to take resources and dollars from companies that are trying to make a positive impact on businesses in their community and the overall economy. According to Kinze Manufacturing in Williamsburg, their patent troll experience has left a lasting impact . . . . . Contract negotiations with suppliers and service providers now routinely include allocation of liability in the event of patent trolling. These negotiations require additional resources and delay research, development and production of new products. This slows farmer's access to the latest technology. Technology which will help them get more out of every acre while reducing their costs and protecting their soil. According to Kum & Go based in West Des Moines, claims of patent trolls have cost the company thousands of dollars in legal fees and corporate counsel has wasted numerous hours dealing with these frivolous claims  time and money that should have been spent on core business functions.\nI've also heard from Iowans that are concerned about the ability of patent holders to protect their intellectual property rights and enforce them against infringers. While they agree that litigation abuse does occur in the patent system, they are concerned that certain proposals will undermine the ability of legitimate patent holders to enforce their patent rights. These constituents include Iowa State University, the University of Iowa and independent inventors Robert Rees and Paul Morinville.\nI agree that it is important to maintain an appropriate balance between protecting the rights of legitimate patent holders and protecting against abusive practices and weak patents. We need to preserve patent property rights and valid patent enforcement tools which will promote invention, while targeting bad actors and their tactics that target and shake down businesses with weak and frivolous claims for a quick payday. This will strengthen our patent system and benefit inventors, businesses and consumers alike.\nMr. Chairman, I'd like to put in the record letters from Iowa constituents, both expressing support and concerns with the various proposals we are considering in the Senate. I also have for the record letters from the National Retail Federation and Stop Patent Abuse Now Coalition expressing concerns with the customer stay provision as currently drafted in the House and Senate bills.\nDoing something about the abusive practices plaguing our patent system is important to keeping the United States competitive, creating jobs and boosting our economy. Members on both sides of the aisle agree that this abusive patent litigation hurts the ability of businesses to expand and flourish. We should pass effective legislation to curtail abuses of the legal system. I'm encouraged that the House passed the Innovation Act by a large margin, and the White House issued a statement in support of that bill.\nSo I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about their experiences with abusive patent litigation tactics by patent trolls. I also look forward to hearing from our witness about their views on how we in Congress can help find a solution to this problem. And Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you to pass meaningful legislation that can alleviate the problems that many of our constituents are dealing with and that are harming our economy. Thank you.\n-30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-wyden-look-advance-provision-improve-independence-young-medicaid", "Grassley, Wyden Look to Advance Provision to Improve Independence for Young Medicaid Beneficiaries with Disabilities", "2013-12-17", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Grassley, Wyden Look to Advance Provision to Improve Independence for Young Medicaid Beneficiaries with Disabilities\n\nWASHINGTON  Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said today they will look for ways to advance their provision to improve independent living and community employment for teen-age and young adult Medicaid beneficiaries with disabilities. We should use the power of the Medicaid and Medicare programs to improve options for people with disabilities, Grassley said. Our proposal promotes creativity and coordination to improve outcomes for these individuals. I look forward to continuing to work with the Finance Committee on a bipartisan basis and the Congressional Budget Office to make it a reality. There have been too many stories of disabled individuals being taken advantage of in the workplace, Wyden said. Our proposal encourages states to use creative and innovative approaches to improve employment equity and help young people with disabilities become as independent and successful as possible. Grassley and Wyden sponsored an amendment, which was offered and withdrawn, to the physician payments bill considered in the Finance Committee last week that would create Medicaid bonuses for states that think creatively in coordinating services for the disabled across several programs  including vocational rehabilitation, education, housing, and transportation  that lead to more independent living and employment within the community. The proposal is directed at individuals ages 14 to 30 years old. Grassley and Wyden said Medicaid and Medicare are such major programs that they can and should help drive better outcomes for the participating individuals. The amendment took the approach of using Medicaid funding to create incentives to increase opportunities for youth with disabilities. With more coordination of health care and support services than exists now, Medicaid could lead to improved health for individuals with disabilities that could lead to independent living and employment. Grassley and Wyden said they will look for legislative opportunities to advance this proposal in the coming months.\n-30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043139/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47768", "Grassley, Reed Seeks Answers on Expungement of Investor Complaints", "2013-12-16", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON, DC \u2013 In an effort to protect investors and the integrity of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority\u2019s (FINRA) BrokerCheck program, U.S. Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) today sent a bipartisan letter asking FINRA to clarify and strengthen standards for expungement of investor complaints against brokers. Citing a recent Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association (PIABA) study, which found that FINRA arbitrators granted expungement relief in 96.9% of cases from May 2009 through December 2011, the U.S. Senators said they are concerned about the number of times investor complaints may be expunged, or removed, from publicly available broker records maintained by FINRA via BrokerCheck. The Senators wrote: \u201cWe share FINRA\u2019s view that \u2018expungement is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only under appropriate circumstances,\u2019 and that it should be permitted \u2018only when it has no meaningful investor protection or regulatory value.\u2019\u00a0 However, we believe that meaningful investor protection includes the disclosure of whether a customer dispute was settled.\u00a0\u00a0 Not just for transparency sake, but also to help prospective investors make informed decisions about which individuals or firms with whom to do business.\u201d In an effort to determine if the high percentage of expungements are warranted, the Senators asked FINRA to publicly detail the number of instances in which FINRA has questioned or challenged the provision of expungement relief and provide a detailed description of the circumstances of each case.\u00a0 The Senators also asked FINRA to respond to the recommended changes cited in the PIABA study and explain whether FINRA intends to adopt each recommendation.\u00a0 Full text of the letter follows (PDF attached here): December 16, 2013 Mr. Richard G. Ketchum  \nChairman and Chief Executive Officer  \nFinancial Industry Regulatory Authority  \n1735 K Street, NW  \nWashington, DC 20006 Dear Mr. Ketchum: Given our interest in improving transparency of our financial markets, we are writing in response to a recent Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association (PIABA) study, which raises concerns about the number of times investor complaints may be expunged, or removed, from publicly available broker records maintained by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).\u00a0 FINRA provides information to investors through BrokerCheck, which FINRA believes, \u201cshould be the first resource investors turn to when choosing whether to do business or continue to do business with a particular firm or individual.\u201d\u00a0 However, as the PIABA study indicates, this system may not enable investors to easily obtain all the information necessary to determine whether to hire a particular FINRA registered broker.\u00a0 According to the PIABA study, expungement relief was granted in 96.9% of cases from May 2009 through December 2011. We share FINRA\u2019s view that \u201cexpungement is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only under appropriate circumstances,\u201d and that it should be permitted \u201conly when it has no meaningful investor protection or regulatory value.\u201d\u00a0 However, we believe that meaningful investor protection includes the disclosure of whether a customer dispute was settled.\u00a0\u00a0 Not just for transparency sake, but also to help prospective investors make informed decisions about which individuals or firms with whom to do business. Given our interest in fair financial markets and transparency, we request that you provide a response to each of the five recommendations cited in the PIABA study and explain whether and why or why not FINRA intends to adopt each recommendation.\u00a0 Additionally, please provide: 1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The number of instances in which FINRA has questioned or challenged the provision of expungement relief and a detailed description of the circumstances of each case. 2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Any draft legislative language that would be necessary to provide FINRA with the authority to ensure that expungment relief is provided \u201conly when it has no meaningful investor protection or regulatory value,\u201d if you do not believe such authority already exists. Please provide a response by January 6, 2014.\u00a0 Thank you for your attention to this important matter.\u00a0 Sincerely, Jack Reed\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0  \nCharles E. Grassley", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221050107/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47772", "Grassley Comments on Investment in Wind Energy", "2013-12-16", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Senator Chuck Grassley today commented on the announcement by MidAmerican Energy Company that it plans to add up to 1,050 megawatts of wind generation in Iowa by year-end 2015, which would include up to 448 new wind turbines, in Grundy, Madison, Marshall, O\u2019Brien and Webster counties.\u00a0 All of the blades for the expansion will be manufactured in Fort Madison, according to MidAmerican. \u00a0Grassley comment:  \n\u201cThis sort of extraordinary investment in wind-energy production emphasizes the value and success of the federal production tax credit.\u00a0 Wind energy continues to prove that it\u2019s a force in America\u2019s energy supply by delivering clean, renewable power.\u00a0 Wind energy comes from local farms, it\u2019s for local customers and, most often, it adds investment value to local communities.\u00a0 Wind energy makes sense for America\u2019s future.\u201d Background information:  \nA Grassley amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 1992 established the production tax credit for wind energy.\u00a0 The idea behind Senator Grassley\u2019s proposal was to try to level the playing field with coal-fired and nuclear electricity generation.\u00a0 Today, the wind-energy industry supports 75,000 jobs nationwide.\u00a0 Iowa ranks third among every state for wind production, and there are 6,000 wind-energy related jobs in Iowa.\u00a0 Under the wind-energy production tax credit, which Senator Grassley has worked successfully to extend numerous times, producers are eligible for a tax credit for each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced by a qualified project during the first 10 years of operations.\u00a0 Right now, the tax credit is 2.3 cents per kilowatt-hour.\u00a0 This tax credit is available only when wind energy is produced, so it\u2019s tax relief that rewards results.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-comments-investment-wind-energy", "Grassley Comments on Investment in Wind Energy", "2013-12-16", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Senator Chuck Grassley today commented on the announcement by MidAmerican Energy Company that it plans to add up to 1,050 megawatts of wind generation in Iowa by year-end 2015, which would include up to 448 new wind turbines, in Grundy, Madison, Marshall, O'Brien and Webster counties. All of the blades for the expansion will be manufactured in Fort Madison, according to MidAmerican. Grassley comment: This sort of extraordinary investment in wind-energy production emphasizes the value and success of the federal production tax credit. Wind energy continues to prove that it's a force in America's energy supply by delivering clean, renewable power. Wind energy comes from local farms, it's for local customers and, most often, it adds investment value to local communities. Wind energy makes sense for America's future. Background information: A Grassley amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 1992 established the production tax credit for wind energy. The idea behind Senator Grassley's proposal was to try to level the playing field with coal-fired and nuclear electricity generation. Today, the wind-energy industry supports 75,000 jobs nationwide. Iowa ranks third among every state for wind production, and there are 6,000 wind-energy related jobs in Iowa. Under the wind-energy production tax credit, which Senator Grassley has worked successfully to extend numerous times, producers are eligible for a tax credit for each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced by a qualified project during the first 10 years of operations. Right now, the tax credit is 2.3 cents per kilowatt-hour. This tax credit is available only when wind energy is produced, so it's tax relief that rewards results.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-reed-seeks-answers-expungement-investor-complaints", "Grassley, Reed Seeks Answers on Expungement of Investor Complaints", "2013-12-16", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON, DC  In an effort to protect investors and the integrity of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority's (FINRA) BrokerCheck program, U.S. Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) today sent a bipartisan letter asking FINRA to clarify and strengthen standards for expungement of investor complaints against brokers.\nCiting a recent Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association (PIABA) study, which found that FINRA arbitrators granted expungement relief in 96.9% of cases from May 2009 through December 2011, the U.S. Senators said they are concerned about the number of times investor complaints may be expunged, or removed, from publicly available broker records maintained by FINRA via BrokerCheck.\nThe Senators wrote: We share FINRA's view that expungement is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only under appropriate circumstances,' and that it should be permitted only when it has no meaningful investor protection or regulatory value.' However, we believe that meaningful investor protection includes the disclosure of whether a customer dispute was settled. Not just for transparency sake, but also to help prospective investors make informed decisions about which individuals or firms with whom to do business.\nIn an effort to determine if the high percentage of expungements are warranted, the Senators asked FINRA to publicly detail the number of instances in which FINRA has questioned or challenged the provision of expungement relief and provide a detailed description of the circumstances of each case. The Senators also asked FINRA to respond to the recommended changes cited in the PIABA study and explain whether FINRA intends to adopt each recommendation.\nFull text of the letter follows (PDF attached here):\nDecember 16, 2013\nMr. Richard G. Ketchum  \nChairman and Chief Executive Officer  \nFinancial Industry Regulatory Authority  \n1735 K Street, NW  \nWashington, DC 20006\nDear Mr. Ketchum:\nGiven our interest in improving transparency of our financial markets, we are writing in response to a recent Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association (PIABA) study, which raises concerns about the number of times investor complaints may be expunged, or removed, from publicly available broker records maintained by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).\nFINRA provides information to investors through BrokerCheck, which FINRA believes, should be the first resource investors turn to when choosing whether to do business or continue to do business with a particular firm or individual. However, as the PIABA study indicates, this system may not enable investors to easily obtain all the information necessary to determine whether to hire a particular FINRA registered broker. According to the PIABA study, expungement relief was granted in 96.9% of cases from May 2009 through December 2011.\nWe share FINRA's view that expungement is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only under appropriate circumstances, and that it should be permitted only when it has no meaningful investor protection or regulatory value. However, we believe that meaningful investor protection includes the disclosure of whether a customer dispute was settled. Not just for transparency sake, but also to help prospective investors make informed decisions about which individuals or firms with whom to do business.\nGiven our interest in fair financial markets and transparency, we request that you provide a response to each of the five recommendations cited in the PIABA study and explain whether and why or why not FINRA intends to adopt each recommendation. Additionally, please provide:\n1. The number of instances in which FINRA has questioned or challenged the provision of expungement relief and a detailed description of the circumstances of each case.\n2. Any draft legislative language that would be necessary to provide FINRA with the authority to ensure that expungment relief is provided only when it has no meaningful investor protection or regulatory value, if you do not believe such authority already exists.\nPlease provide a response by January 6, 2014. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.\nSincerely,\nJack Reed  \nCharles E. Grassley", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043143/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47758", "Q&A on the IRS Commissioner", "2013-12-13", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Q: Will new leadership at the IRS fix the agency\u2019s recent problems?  \nA: As the tax collector-in-chief for the federal treasury, the Internal Revenue Service and its commissioner bear a Herculean task to administer and enforce a tax code blanketing a nation of 300-plus million citizens.\u00a0 Regrettably, the agency\u2019s efforts to uphold the public trust have fallen far short of heroism by any definition.\u00a0 Considering its core mission is to serve the taxpaying public, the beleaguered agency has substantial fence-mending to tend to after a number of self-inflicted scandals.\u00a0 These include the flagrant misuse of tax dollars for lavish conferences and repressive targeting of taxpayers during the 2010 and 2012 election cycles.\u00a0 That extra scrutiny was directed towards groups seeking tax-exempt status and whose political views primarily differed from the current administration.\u00a0 Now the IRS has proposed new rules that would impose new restrictions on political speech by these same tax-exempt social welfare organizations, while providing an exemption for tax-exempt labor unions.\u00a0 The proposal ought to raise a red flag to all those interested in engaging and educating the public about elections. Throughout my decades of public service, I have worked to foster greater participation among the electorate, not less.\u00a0 The next commissioner of the IRS should not allow the agency to undermine constitutional principles of free speech and civic engagement.\n  \nWith its thicket of tax laws, rules and regulations covering individuals, households, businesses, non-profit charities and tax-exempt organizations, the federal agency by any measure has a tall order to fill.\u00a0 Unfortunately, the IRS has flunked fundamental metrics of accountability and transparency.\u00a0 In an era of federal deficits lined up as far as the eye can see, the IRS must work effectively to help close the fiscal gap through principles of good governance, sound stewardship of tax dollars and faithful execution of collecting taxes owed.\u00a0 Due to its spate of scandals, the IRS now also must work to close the credibility gap with the taxpaying public.\u00a0 Our system of voluntary compliance depends upon it.\u00a0 During a recent congressional hearing held to vet the next IRS Commissioner, I used the opportunity to get the nominee\u2019s views and demeanor on the public record.\u00a0 As we\u2019ve learned from the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act, style and substance matter.\u00a0 It\u2019s critical to have a leader at the helm who will take a hands-on approach to trouble-shoot and address problems, not a feigned hands-off approach that believes ignorance somehow will whitewash incompetence.\u00a0 As a senior lawmaker on the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, I will continue making good use of my constitutional oversight authority to hold the IRS accountable.\u00a0 Considering our current fiscal challenges and the IRS\u2019 expansive new role to implement and enforce the Affordable Care Act, the IRS can expect regular check-ups from this U.S. Senator to restore integrity and service to the Internal Revenue Service.  \n\n  \nQ: What issues did you raise at the nomination hearing?  \nA:\u00a0 For starters, I wanted to clear the air about a common misconception in Washington, D.C.\u00a0 That is the mistaken notion that Washington knows best.\u00a0 The Affordable Care Act provides a perfect illustration of this misguided belief.\u00a0 The President\u2019s health care law redirects one-sixth of the U.S. economy and assigns vast new responsibilities to an already bloated federal bureaucracy.\u00a0 As we witnessed on Oct. 1, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) exposed embarrassing incompetence after toiling for three and a half years and spending hundreds of millions of tax dollars to create an infamously flawed website.\u00a0 And not yet so visible to the public\u2019s eye is that the IRS will play a central role in administering the new health care law, such as issuing refundable tax credits to insurers that would offset the costs of insurance premiums and administering the employer and individual mandates and penalties.\u00a0 Already the IRS has delayed for one year the employer mandate and reporting requirements for insurers and employers.\u00a0 The IRS must still issue these regulations and install reliable software systems to determine eligibility and compliance.\u00a0 In addition, the IRS confronts notorious challenges rooting out waste, fraud and abuse in improper payments under the Earned Income Tax Credit program.\u00a0 In fact, the EITC improper payment rate has exceeded 20 percent for the last decade.\u00a0 The Affordable Care Act has created yet another federal spigot from which to siphon tax dollars.\u00a0 That\u2019s why it\u2019s even more important for the next IRS commissioner to welcome as many partners to the policy and enforcement table as possible.\u00a0 Whistleblowers and private debt collection companies offer very useful tools to add to the IRS arsenal to collect taxes that are owed and to fight waste, fraud and abuse.\u00a0 The IRS has been slow to take advantage of whistleblowers who highlight tax cheating, to my disappointment as the author of beefed-up whistleblower incentives.\u00a0 Considering the IRS is taking on more responsibilities than ever before, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue needs all the help he can get.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/qa-irs-commissioner", "Q&A on the IRS Commissioner", "2013-12-13", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Q: Will new leadership at the IRS fix the agency's recent problems? A: As the tax collector-in-chief for the federal treasury, the Internal Revenue Service and its commissioner bear a Herculean task to administer and enforce a tax code blanketing a nation of 300-plus million citizens. Regrettably, the agency's efforts to uphold the public trust have fallen far short of heroism by any definition. Considering its core mission is to serve the taxpaying public, the beleaguered agency has substantial fence-mending to tend to after a number of self-inflicted scandals. These include the flagrant misuse of tax dollars for lavish conferences and repressive targeting of taxpayers during the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. That extra scrutiny was directed towards groups seeking tax-exempt status and whose political views primarily differed from the current administration. Now the IRS has proposed new rules that would impose new restrictions on political speech by these same tax-exempt social welfare organizations, while providing an exemption for tax-exempt labor unions. The proposal ought to raise a red flag to all those interested in engaging and educating the public about elections. Throughout my decades of public service, I have worked to foster greater participation among the electorate, not less. The next commissioner of the IRS should not allow the agency to undermine constitutional principles of free speech and civic engagement.\nWith its thicket of tax laws, rules and regulations covering individuals, households, businesses, non-profit charities and tax-exempt organizations, the federal agency by any measure has a tall order to fill. Unfortunately, the IRS has flunked fundamental metrics of accountability and transparency. In an era of federal deficits lined up as far as the eye can see, the IRS must work effectively to help close the fiscal gap through principles of good governance, sound stewardship of tax dollars and faithful execution of collecting taxes owed. Due to its spate of scandals, the IRS now also must work to close the credibility gap with the taxpaying public. Our system of voluntary compliance depends upon it. During a recent congressional hearing held to vet the next IRS Commissioner, I used the opportunity to get the nominee's views and demeanor on the public record. As we've learned from the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act, style and substance matter. It's critical to have a leader at the helm who will take a hands-on approach to trouble-shoot and address problems, not a feigned hands-off approach that believes ignorance somehow will whitewash incompetence. As a senior lawmaker on the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, I will continue making good use of my constitutional oversight authority to hold the IRS accountable. Considering our current fiscal challenges and the IRS' expansive new role to implement and enforce the Affordable Care Act, the IRS can expect regular check-ups from this U.S. Senator to restore integrity and service to the Internal Revenue Service.  \n  Q: What issues did you raise at the nomination hearing? A: For starters, I wanted to clear the air about a common misconception in Washington, D.C. That is the mistaken notion that Washington knows best. The Affordable Care Act provides a perfect illustration of this misguided belief. The President's health care law redirects one-sixth of the U.S. economy and assigns vast new responsibilities to an already bloated federal bureaucracy. As we witnessed on Oct. 1, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) exposed embarrassing incompetence after toiling for three and a half years and spending hundreds of millions of tax dollars to create an infamously flawed website. And not yet so visible to the public's eye is that the IRS will play a central role in administering the new health care law, such as issuing refundable tax credits to insurers that would offset the costs of insurance premiums and administering the employer and individual mandates and penalties. Already the IRS has delayed for one year the employer mandate and reporting requirements for insurers and employers. The IRS must still issue these regulations and install reliable software systems to determine eligibility and compliance. In addition, the IRS confronts notorious challenges rooting out waste, fraud and abuse in improper payments under the Earned Income Tax Credit program. In fact, the EITC improper payment rate has exceeded 20 percent for the last decade. The Affordable Care Act has created yet another federal spigot from which to siphon tax dollars. That's why it's even more important for the next IRS commissioner to welcome as many partners to the policy and enforcement table as possible. Whistleblowers and private debt collection companies offer very useful tools to add to the IRS arsenal to collect taxes that are owed and to fight waste, fraud and abuse. The IRS has been slow to take advantage of whistleblowers who highlight tax cheating, to my disappointment as the author of beefed-up whistleblower incentives. Considering the IRS is taking on more responsibilities than ever before, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue needs all the help he can get.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043150/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47751", "Grassley Child Welfare Provisions Advance Via Committee", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "For Immediate Release  \n\tDecember 12, 2013 \t\n  \nGrassley Child Welfare Provisions Advance Via Committee  \nWASHINGTON \u2013 Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today received bipartisan committee approval for his child welfare policy improvements including promoting sibling connections in foster care and strengthening child support enforcement. \u00a0  \n\u00a0  \n\u201cChild welfare experts tell you and common sense tells you children benefit when they\u2019re kept together and have strong relationships,\u201d Grassley said.\u00a0 \u201cThis legislation removes barriers to federal law that prevent families of siblings from knowing when a child is placed in foster care or siblings from losing ties when parental rights are terminated.\u00a0 This will help maintain sibling relationships and in turn help the kids.  \n\u00a0  \n\u201cThe child support provisions help states recover money that family courts have determined is owed to custodial parents.\u00a0\u00a0 We ought to do more to make sure money owed gets to the parents and children who need and deserve it.\u00a0 Child support enforcement helps make sure families are strong and independent.\u201d  \n\u00a0  \nThe Finance Committee approved the Grassley provisions as part of broad child welfare legislation, the Supporting At-Risk Children Act of 2013. \u00a0  \n\u00a0  \nThe sibling provisions are based on the Sibling Connections Act introduced by Grassley and Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia this week.\u00a0 The Sibling Connections Act follows the example of at least five states, including Iowa, that have passed legislation or regulation that recognizes the parents of siblings as \u201crelatives\u201d for foster care placement. \u00a0  \n\u00a0  \nThat means the parents of a child\u2019s siblings are notified when the child enters foster care, allowing the adult guardians to try to maintain the sibling relationships. \u00a0  \n\u00a0  \nAlso, the bill corrects the current situation in which siblings lose their status as siblings when their parents\u2019 rights are terminated.\u00a0 The loss of sibling status undermines the requirement of the landmark Fostering Connections law that siblings be placed together whenever possible.  \n\u00a0  \nThe child support enforcement measures are drawn from legislation from Grassley and Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey.\u00a0\u00a0 Provisions from their bill that passed in committee today would:   \n\u00a0  \n--Require the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to use federal and, if necessary, state child support enforcement methods to ensure compliance with any U.S. treaty obligations associated with any multilateral child support convention to which the United States is a party. \u00a0  \n\u00a0  \n--Require states, in order to receive federal funding, to implement amendments made by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. \u00a0  \n\u00a0  \n--Expand access to the Federal Parent Locator Service to assist states in locating noncustodial parents, putative fathers, and custodial parties to ensure compliance with their child support obligations. \u00a0  \n\u00a0  \nIn addition to the Grassley-authored provisions, the broad children\u2019s welfare bill that advanced today included several priorities of strong interest to Grassley, including reauthorizing adoption incentives; provisions to help reunite foster children with loved ones, and significant improvements to protect youth from sex trafficking. \u00a0  \n\u00a0  \nGrassley is a long-time advocate for adoption and improving foster care, especially the challenges facing those who age out of the system.\u00a0 He is the co-founder and co-chair of the bipartisan Senate Caucus on Foster Youth.\u00a0 He has secured several key legislative improvements to promote adoption.\u00a0 More information is available here.  \n\u00a0  \nGrassley is former chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee.\u00a0 He is a senior member of the committee.   \n\u00a0  \n-30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043157/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47748", "Grassley Health Care Provisions Advance in Key Committee Bill", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013 Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today received key committee approval of his measures to increase fair treatment of Iowa doctors in Medicare, improve spending for health care oversight, and increase the transparency of Medicare payments to doctors, among other measures.  \n\u00a0  \n\u201cThese provisions increase value and transparency in federal health care programs,\u201d Grassley said.\u00a0 \u201cIt\u2019s important to advance bipartisan measures that make Medicare and Medicaid work better for beneficiaries and taxpayers.\u201d  \n\u00a0  \nGrassley filed amendments that were accepted during the Finance Committee\u2019s consideration of a Medicare physician payment bill.\u00a0 Grassley amendments passed by the committee include:  \n\u00a0  \n--A provision to provide for the improved use of funds received by the Department Health and Human Services for oversight and investigative activities.\u00a0 The department\u2019s Office of the Inspector General protects the integrity of HHS programs and the health and welfare of the people they serve.\u00a0 The inspector general\u2019s office is responsible for providing oversight of nearly $1 trillion in HHS spending oversight, or about $0.24 of every federal dollar. Its responsibilities have grown with expanded programs including the Affordable Care Act.\u00a0 Grassley\u2019s provision allows the inspector general to receive and retain three percent of all collections pursuant to civil debt collection actions related to false claims or frauds involving the Medicare program.  \n\u00a0  \n--A provision to help Iowa providers who are geographically disadvantaged by Medicare compared to those in other areas of the country.\u00a0\u00a0 Under current law, the Medicare fee schedule is adjusted geographically for three factors to reflect differences in the cost of resources needed to produce physician services: physician work, practice expense, and medical malpractice insurance.\u00a0\u00a0 The Grassley amendment makes permanent the existing floor 1.0 on the physician work index under the Medicare physician fee schedule, which helps Iowa providers receive fair reimbursement relative to their peers in other parts of the country, so they are encouraged to continue serving Iowans.  \n\u00a0  \n--An extension of provisions to help rural hospitals.\u00a0 Grassley and Sen. Chuck Schumer included language to continue the Medicare-dependent hospital program and enhanced low-volume Medicare adjustment for prospective payment system hospitals.\u00a0 These provisions are helpful for rural hospitals in low population areas that are more dependent on Medicare than their urban counterparts and provide valuable health care to their communities.  \n\u00a0  \n--Language that would make Medicare claims data available to the public.\u00a0 Both the House and Senate versions of legislation addressing the Medicare physician payment formula include the key provisions from Grassley and Sen. Ron Wyden\u2019s Medicare Data Access for Transparency and Accountability Act (Medicare DATA Act). This would establish a free, searchable Medicare payment database that would be readily available to the public online at no cost.\u00a0 Today\u2019s action is the first time the legislation has passed out of the committee.  \n\u00a0  \n\u201cTransparency draws in the public and invites analysis of policy and spending,\u201d Grassley said. \u201cMore transparency has made a difference in accountability in the tax-exempt sector, and it does the same wherever it\u2019s applied in health care.\u201d  \n\u00a0  \n--A fix to a provision in the underlying bill that created a potential disincentive for providers to participate in Medicaid.\u00a0\u00a0 Doctors are increasingly reluctant to participate in Medicaid, yet their participation is critical to the level of service provided by the program.  \n\u00a0  \n--A provision directing a study by the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC) of individuals whose shifting income and other changing status makes it difficult to track their eligibility for Medicaid or transitional medical assistance.\u00a0 \u201cUnderstanding the volatility in income for these individuals will be helpful in informing future policy making,\u201d Grassley said.  \n\u00a0  \nGrassley also spoke in favor of an amendment from Sen. Debbie Stabenow to establish criteria for Federally Qualified Community Behavioral Health Centers to ensure the centers cover a broad range of mental health services, including 24-hour crisis care, increased integration of physical, mental and substance abuse treatment so they are treated simultaneously rather than separately, and expanded support for families of people living with mental health issues.  \n\u00a0  \nOn the underlying bill approved by the committee on voice vote today, Grassley said he supported repeal of the sustainable growth rate and the replacement bill but urged caution and careful analysis of the replacement bill\u2019s effects, especially on certain kinds of providers. \u00a0  \n\u00a0  \n\u201cIf it ends up that the formula in this bill hurts mostly rural providers or mostly providers who treat complex patients or mostly providers who are specialists or mostly providers who are already high quality performers, we can come back and fix it legislatively, even though we all know the winners under the formula will fight against any change,\u201d Grassley said.\u00a0 \u201cThe bill does provide the Secretary authority to fix the problem herself if Congress doesn\u2019t act.\u00a0 Therefore, we could be dependent on the Secretary\u2019s use of her authority to fix problems as they arise.\u00a0 However, the bill does not allow for judicial review of the Secretary\u2019s use of this broad authority if providers think this authority is being used in an arbitrary manner.\u00a0 I am supportive of the bill but remain concerned with the uncertainty of how it will ultimately be implemented.\u201d \u00a0  \n\u00a0  \nGrassley is former chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, with jurisdiction over Medicare and Medicaid.\u00a0 He is a senior member of the committee.  \n\u00a0  \n\n-30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043201/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47737", "Internal Memo Outlines National Security Concerns with EB-5 Immigration Program", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013 Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today pressed the administration for answers about an Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo that raises significant national security questions about the EB-5 visa program, which is an avenue for foreign investors to participate in potential, new commercial enterprises in the United States in exchange for a U.S. visa.\u00a0 The memo was written by the Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) arm of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In a letter to Immigration and Customs Enforcement Acting Director John Sandweg, Grassley wrote, \u201cThe HSI memo makes clear that overall, HSI believes the Regional Center model has significant flaws\u2026\u201d\u00a0 Grassley also said the memo identified several areas of vulnerability within the EB-5 visa program.\u00a0 The memo questioned whether the vulnerabilities could be fixed in order to \u201censure the integrity of the program.\u201d Grassley was especially concerned about a section of the memo that outlines how the EB-5 program \u201cmay be abused by Iranian operatives to infiltrate the United States.\u201d\u00a0 According to the memo, HSI became concerned about the program while investigating operatives who allegedly \u201cfacilitate terrorism and are involved in an illicit procurement network that exports items to Iran...\u201d\u00a0 Here\u2019s a copy of the text of Grassley\u2019s letter to Sandweg.\u00a0 A copy of the memo and letter can be found here. December 12, 2013 VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION John Sandweg  \nActing Director  \nU.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement  \nU.S. Department of Homeland Security  \n500 12th Street, SW  \nWashington, D.C. 20536 Dear Acting Director Sandweg: \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I write to inquire about an internal U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) memo that raises significant questions about U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services\u2019 (USCIS\u2019s) EB-5 Regional Center program.\u00a0 The memo is from Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), an investigative arm of ICE.\u00a0 It appears to have been written in response to a request from Secretary Janet Napolitano. One section of the memo outlines \u201cconcerns that this particular visa program [EB-5] may be abused by Iranian operatives to infiltrate the United States . . . .\u201d1 \u00a0 Two of the operatives allegedly \u201cfacilitate terrorism and are involved in an illegal procurement network that exports items to Iran for use by \u2018secret\u2019 Iranian government agencies.\u201d2 \u00a0 According to the memo, one of the operatives acted as a representative in the U.S. for an Iranian front company allegedly run by an individual associated with Iran\u2019s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.3 This is not the first time that Iranian operatives have been discovered operating in the United States.\u00a0 In this spring of this year, Manssor Arbabsiar, who had both Iranian and U.S. passports, was sentenced for plotting with Iranian military officials to kill the Saudi Arabian ambassador by bombing a Washington, D.C. restaurant.4 \u00a0 Earlier this fall, news outlets reported that the U.S. had intercepted an order from Iran to attack U.S. interests in the event of a strike on Syria.5 \u00a0 In light of these facts, it is alarming to see documentation that appears to indicate Iranian operatives used the EB-5 program to try to obtain visas for their associates. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 According to the HSI memo, ICE identified seven main areas of program vulnerability with the EB-5 visa: 1)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Export of sensitive technology/economic espionage;  \n2)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Use by foreign government agents/espionage;  \n3)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Use by terrorists;  \n4)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Investment fraud by regional center;  \n5)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Investment fraud by investors;  \n6)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Fraud conspiracies by investors and regional center; and  \n7)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Illicit finance/money laundering.6 The memo states: \u201cThe aforementioned vulnerabilities are directly affected by information gaps on the alien beneficiaries of the EB-5 program.\u00a0 Unlike most other permanent resident visa classifications, EB-5 beneficiaries do not need to establish a significant and verifiable background for program eligibility.\u201d7 \u00a0 According to the memo, HSI made several suggestions for both information collection fixes and legislative fixes to close loopholes in the EB-5 program.\u00a0 Of the information collection fixes, the memo states: \u201cHSI proposed making changes to the USCIS forms (I-526, I-829, I-924, and I-924A) that are used by RC\u2019s [regional centers] and alien investors.\u00a0 HSI felt that the forms did not collect enough information to determine the validity of either the RC\u2019s, the alien investors or the source of the investor\u2019s funds.\u201d8 The legislative changes proposed by HSI were: (1) doubling the minimum investment amount, (2) limiting the program to allow only active investors involved in managing and directing a business enterprise, and (3) eliminating the consideration of induced jobs for meeting the requirements of the program.\u00a0 These suggestions were not included in the technical assistance provided by USCIS in June 2012 when the EB-5 program was being reauthorized.\u00a0 The only HSI recommendation which appeared in any form in the technical assistance was a proposal for providing inflationary adjustments to the minimum investment amount, which is very different from doubling it. The HSI memo makes clear that overall, HSI believes the Regional Center model has significant flaws and should be abandoned: \u201cThe principal change proposed by HSI was that the Regional Center Model be allowed to sunset, as HSI maintains there are no safeguards that can be put in place that will ensure the integrity of the RC model.\u201d Given these concerns with the EB-5 Regional Center program and information gaps on recipients of EB-5 visas, it is important that Congress have statistics on what happens after individuals enter the U.S. on an EB-5 visa.\u00a0 Foreign investors who participate in the EB-5 program may receive conditional permanent residence for a two-year period.\u00a0 However, it seems unlikely that they are ever removed from the country even if the conditions of their conditional status are not met because the required jobs weren\u2019t created within the required period. Therefore, please respond to the following: 1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Please produce all legislative and information collection recommendations made by ICE or any of its divisions for the EB-5 program.\u00a0 Please provide in detail any specific changes recommended for USCIS forms I-526, I-829, I-924, and I-924A. 2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 For each of the above recommendations, please identify the date ICE proposed the recommendation and to what entities it was proposed. 3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 What is the current total number of EB-5 conditional residents whose request to remove conditional status was denied? 4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Does ICE know how many EB-5 investors who were denied permanent resident status remain in the country?\u00a0 Does ICE know the location of these foreign investors?\u00a0 If so, please provide a status report, including how many are detained, how many are in removal proceedings, and how many have been removed from the country by ICE. 5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Do you or your agency have any information as to why USCIS did not provide Congress with the legislative recommendations made by HSI, as indicated in the attached memo? 6.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 What is ICE doing to help ensure that USCIS does not provide EB-5 visas to individuals and entities that are involved in international terrorism or proliferation operations, as was the case with Iranian operatives whose goal was to infiltrate the U.S. and export items back to their country? 7.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 What is the current status of the Iranian case mentioned in the memo? 8.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 What type of visas did the two Iranian operatives mentioned in the memo enter the U.S. on? 9.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Is the principal of the regional center referenced in the memo in the United States?\u00a0 If so, what type of visa did the principal enter the U.S. on? 10.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 For each individual associated with the principal of the regional center through TECS subrecord hits, please indicate whether or not the individual has entered the U.S. in the past or is currently in the U.S., as well as what type of visa each individual entered the U.S. on. 11.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 What is the current immigration status of each of the individuals referenced in questions 8, 9, and 10? Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.\u00a0 Please respond to these questions by January 1, 2014.\u00a0 Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact XXXX of my staff at (202) 224-5225.\u00a0 I look forward to your prompt response. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Sincerely, \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Charles E. Grassley  \n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ranking Member  \n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Committee on the Judiciary  \n 1\u00a0 Undated memo, \u201cEB-5 Program Questions from DHS Secretary,\u201d Homeland Security Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement [Attachment 1].  \n2\u00a0 Id. at 2.  \n3\u00a0 Id.  \n4\u00a0 Press release, \u201cManssor Arbabsiar Sentenced in New York City Federal Court to 25 Years in Prison for Conspiring with Iranian Military Officials to Assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States,\u201d Department of Justice, May 30, 2013, available at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/May/13-nsd-621.html.  \n5\u00a0 Julian E. Barnes and Adam Entous, \u201cIran Plots Revenge, U.S. Says,\u201d Wall Street Journal (Sep. 6, 2013), available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323893004579057271019210230.html.  \n6\u00a0 Undated memo, \u201cEB-5 Program Questions from DHS Secretary,\u201d Homeland Security Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, at 4.  \n7\u00a0 Id.  \n8\u00a0 Id., at 5.  \n9\u00a0 Id., at 4.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043428/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47742", "Grassley Joins Iowa Governor, Congressional Delegation in Seeking Iowa Hearing on Proposed Reductions to the Renewable Fuel Standard", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Grassley Joins Iowa Governor, Congressional Delegation in Seeking Iowa Hearing on Proposed Reductions to the Renewable Fuel StandardWASHINGTON \u2013 Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today joined the Iowa governor, lieutenant governor, Iowa secretary of agriculture and the entire state congressional delegation in expressing strong opposition to the Obama Administration\u2019s proposed reduction in the Renewable Fuel Standard and seeking a federal hearing in Iowa to allow federal officials to hear directly from Iowans on the proposed change. \u201cToo often, federal agencies make major policy changes without considering the people and the economies affected,\u201d Grassley said.\u00a0 \u201cThe Environmental Protection Agency regularly falls in that category.\u00a0 Now, supporters of clean, homegrown, green energy and forward-thinking energy policy are united in letting the Obama Administration know that its proposal is short-sighted and irresponsible, and that the Administration should hear from Midwesterners before making such a sweeping policy change.\u201d The bipartisan letter to President Obama, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and U.S. Department of Agriculture Sec. Tom Vilsack was signed by Grassley, Gov. Terry Branstad, Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds, Sen. Tom Harkin, Congressmen Tom Latham, Steve King, Dave Loebsack and Bruce Braley, and Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey.\u00a0 The letter is available here. More on Grassley\u2019s views on the proposed reduction is available here.  \n\u00a0\n-30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221050436/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47734", "Medicare Payment Transparency Provisions Advancing", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013 U.S. Senators Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., today applauded inclusion of language that would make Medicare claims data available to the public as part of legislation addressing Medicare\u2019s physician payment formula.  \n\u00a0  \nBoth the House and Senate versions of legislation addressing the Medicare physician payment formula include the key provisions from Grassley and Wyden\u2019s Medicare Data Access for Transparency and Accountability Act (Medicare DATA Act). This would establish a free, searchable Medicare payment database that would be readily available to the public online at no cost. The database would include all payments made to physicians by Medicare. Patients\u2019 privacy would be fully protected, and providers would have an opportunity to correct payment information before it is posted online. \u201cTransparency draws in the public and invites analysis of policy and spending,\u201d Grassley said. \u201cMore transparency has made a difference in accountability in the tax-exempt sector, and it does the same wherever it\u2019s applied in health care.\u201d \u201cHealthcare, particularly Medicare, is notorious for its lack of transparency,\u201d Wyden said. \u201cAllowing the public to finally see where Medicare dollars are being spent creates a powerful check against waste and a valuable research tool for improving care for seniors.\u201d Under current law, access to the Medicare payment database is limited to a small number of bureaucrats and academics despite a federal judge\u2019s ruling in favor of greater public access. The text of the Medicare DATA Act is available here.\u00a0 Grassley\u2019s statement on the bill introduction is available here. Wyden\u2019s statement on the bill introduction is available here.\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-child-welfare-provisions-advance-committee", "Grassley Child Welfare Provisions Advance Via Committee", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON  Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today received bipartisan committee approval for his child welfare policy improvements including promoting sibling connections in foster care and strengthening child support enforcement.  Child welfare experts tell you and common sense tells you children benefit when they're kept together and have strong relationships, Grassley said. This legislation removes barriers to federal law that prevent families of siblings from knowing when a child is placed in foster care or siblings from losing ties when parental rights are terminated. This will help maintain sibling relationships and in turn help the kids.  The child support provisions help states recover money that family courts have determined is owed to custodial parents. We ought to do more to make sure money owed gets to the parents and children who need and deserve it. Child support enforcement helps make sure families are strong and independent.  The Finance Committee approved the Grassley provisions as part of broad child welfare legislation, the Supporting At-Risk Children Act of 2013.   The sibling provisions are based on the Sibling Connections Act introduced by Grassley and Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia this week. The Sibling Connections Act follows the example of at least five states, including Iowa, that have passed legislation or regulation that recognizes the parents of siblings as relatives for foster care placement.   That means the parents of a child's siblings are notified when the child enters foster care, allowing the adult guardians to try to maintain the sibling relationships.   Also, the bill corrects the current situation in which siblings lose their status as siblings when their parents' rights are terminated. The loss of sibling status undermines the requirement of the landmark Fostering Connections law that siblings be placed together whenever possible.  The child support enforcement measures are drawn from legislation from Grassley and Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey. Provisions from their bill that passed in committee today would:  --Require the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to use federal and, if necessary, state child support enforcement methods to ensure compliance with any U.S. treaty obligations associated with any multilateral child support convention to which the United States is a party.   --Require states, in order to receive federal funding, to implement amendments made by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.   --Expand access to the Federal Parent Locator Service to assist states in locating noncustodial parents, putative fathers, and custodial parties to ensure compliance with their child support obligations.   In addition to the Grassley-authored provisions, the broad children's welfare bill that advanced today included several priorities of strong interest to Grassley, including reauthorizing adoption incentives; provisions to help reunite foster children with loved ones, and significant improvements to protect youth from sex trafficking.   Grassley is a long-time advocate for adoption and improving foster care, especially the challenges facing those who age out of the system. He is the co-founder and co-chair of the bipartisan Senate Caucus on Foster Youth. He has secured several key legislative improvements to promote adoption. More information is available here.  Grassley is former chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee. He is a senior member of the committee.  -30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-health-care-provisions-advance-key-committee-bill", "Grassley Health Care Provisions Advance in Key Committee Bill", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON  Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today received key committee approval of his measures to increase fair treatment of Iowa doctors in Medicare, improve spending for health care oversight, and increase the transparency of Medicare payments to doctors, among other measures.  These provisions increase value and transparency in federal health care programs, Grassley said. It's important to advance bipartisan measures that make Medicare and Medicaid work better for beneficiaries and taxpayers.  Grassley filed amendments that were accepted during the Finance Committee's consideration of a Medicare physician payment bill. Grassley amendments passed by the committee include:  --A provision to provide for the improved use of funds received by the Department Health and Human Services for oversight and investigative activities. The department's Office of the Inspector General protects the integrity of HHS programs and the health and welfare of the people they serve. The inspector general's office is responsible for providing oversight of nearly $1 trillion in HHS spending oversight, or about $0.24 of every federal dollar. Its responsibilities have grown with expanded programs including the Affordable Care Act. Grassley's provision allows the inspector general to receive and retain three percent of all collections pursuant to civil debt collection actions related to false claims or frauds involving the Medicare program.  --A provision to help Iowa providers who are geographically disadvantaged by Medicare compared to those in other areas of the country. Under current law, the Medicare fee schedule is adjusted geographically for three factors to reflect differences in the cost of resources needed to produce physician services: physician work, practice expense, and medical malpractice insurance. The Grassley amendment makes permanent the existing floor 1.0 on the physician work index under the Medicare physician fee schedule, which helps Iowa providers receive fair reimbursement relative to their peers in other parts of the country, so they are encouraged to continue serving Iowans.  --An extension of provisions to help rural hospitals. Grassley and Sen. Chuck Schumer included language to continue the Medicare-dependent hospital program and enhanced low-volume Medicare adjustment for prospective payment system hospitals. These provisions are helpful for rural hospitals in low population areas that are more dependent on Medicare than their urban counterparts and provide valuable health care to their communities.  --Language that would make Medicare claims data available to the public. Both the House and Senate versions of legislation addressing the Medicare physician payment formula include the key provisions from Grassley and Sen. Ron Wyden's Medicare Data Access for Transparency and Accountability Act (Medicare DATA Act). This would establish a free, searchable Medicare payment database that would be readily available to the public online at no cost. Today's action is the first time the legislation has passed out of the committee.  Transparency draws in the public and invites analysis of policy and spending, Grassley said. More transparency has made a difference in accountability in the tax-exempt sector, and it does the same wherever it's applied in health care.  --A fix to a provision in the underlying bill that created a potential disincentive for providers to participate in Medicaid. Doctors are increasingly reluctant to participate in Medicaid, yet their participation is critical to the level of service provided by the program.  --A provision directing a study by the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC) of individuals whose shifting income and other changing status makes it difficult to track their eligibility for Medicaid or transitional medical assistance. Understanding the volatility in income for these individuals will be helpful in informing future policy making, Grassley said.  Grassley also spoke in favor of an amendment from Sen. Debbie Stabenow to establish criteria for Federally Qualified Community Behavioral Health Centers to ensure the centers cover a broad range of mental health services, including 24-hour crisis care, increased integration of physical, mental and substance abuse treatment so they are treated simultaneously rather than separately, and expanded support for families of people living with mental health issues.  On the underlying bill approved by the committee on voice vote today, Grassley said he supported repeal of the sustainable growth rate and the replacement bill but urged caution and careful analysis of the replacement bill's effects, especially on certain kinds of providers.   If it ends up that the formula in this bill hurts mostly rural providers or mostly providers who treat complex patients or mostly providers who are specialists or mostly providers who are already high quality performers, we can come back and fix it legislatively, even though we all know the winners under the formula will fight against any change, Grassley said. The bill does provide the Secretary authority to fix the problem herself if Congress doesn't act. Therefore, we could be dependent on the Secretary's use of her authority to fix problems as they arise. However, the bill does not allow for judicial review of the Secretary's use of this broad authority if providers think this authority is being used in an arbitrary manner. I am supportive of the bill but remain concerned with the uncertainty of how it will ultimately be implemented.   Grassley is former chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, with jurisdiction over Medicare and Medicaid. He is a senior member of the committee.   \n-30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-joins-iowa-governor-congressional-delegation-seeking-iowa-hearing", "Grassley Joins Iowa Governor, Congressional Delegation in Seeking Iowa Hearing on Proposed Reductions to the Renewable Fuel Standard", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Grassley Joins Iowa Governor, Congressional Delegation in Seeking Iowa Hearing on Proposed Reductions to the Renewable Fuel Standard\n\nWASHINGTON  Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today joined the Iowa governor, lieutenant governor, Iowa secretary of agriculture and the entire state congressional delegation in expressing strong opposition to the Obama Administration's proposed reduction in the Renewable Fuel Standard and seeking a federal hearing in Iowa to allow federal officials to hear directly from Iowans on the proposed change. Too often, federal agencies make major policy changes without considering the people and the economies affected, Grassley said. The Environmental Protection Agency regularly falls in that category. Now, supporters of clean, homegrown, green energy and forward-thinking energy policy are united in letting the Obama Administration know that its proposal is short-sighted and irresponsible, and that the Administration should hear from Midwesterners before making such a sweeping policy change. The bipartisan letter to President Obama, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and U.S. Department of Agriculture Sec. Tom Vilsack was signed by Grassley, Gov. Terry Branstad, Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds, Sen. Tom Harkin, Congressmen Tom Latham, Steve King, Dave Loebsack and Bruce Braley, and Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey. The letter is available here. More on Grassley's views on the proposed reduction is available here. \n-30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/internal-memo-outlines-national-security-concerns-eb-5-immigration-program", "Internal Memo Outlines National Security Concerns with EB-5 Immigration Program", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON  Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today pressed the administration for answers about an Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo that raises significant national security questions about the EB-5 visa program, which is an avenue for foreign investors to participate in potential, new commercial enterprises in the United States in exchange for a U.S. visa. The memo was written by the Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) arm of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.\nIn a letter to Immigration and Customs Enforcement Acting Director John Sandweg, Grassley wrote, The HSI memo makes clear that overall, HSI believes the Regional Center model has significant flaws Grassley also said the memo identified several areas of vulnerability within the EB-5 visa program. The memo questioned whether the vulnerabilities could be fixed in order to ensure the integrity of the program.\nGrassley was especially concerned about a section of the memo that outlines how the EB-5 program may be abused by Iranian operatives to infiltrate the United States. According to the memo, HSI became concerned about the program while investigating operatives who allegedly facilitate terrorism and are involved in an illicit procurement network that exports items to Iran...\nHere's a copy of the text of Grassley's letter to Sandweg. A copy of the memo and letter can be found here.\nDecember 12, 2013\nVIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION\nJohn Sandweg  \nActing Director  \nU.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement  \nU.S. Department of Homeland Security  \n500 12th Street, SW  \nWashington, D.C. 20536\nDear Acting Director Sandweg:\n I write to inquire about an internal U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) memo that raises significant questions about U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS's) EB-5 Regional Center program. The memo is from Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), an investigative arm of ICE. It appears to have been written in response to a request from Secretary Janet Napolitano.\nOne section of the memo outlines concerns that this particular visa program [EB-5] may be abused by Iranian operatives to infiltrate the United States . . . .1  Two of the operatives allegedly facilitate terrorism and are involved in an illegal procurement network that exports items to Iran for use by secret' Iranian government agencies.2  According to the memo, one of the operatives acted as a representative in the U.S. for an Iranian front company allegedly run by an individual associated with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.3\nThis is not the first time that Iranian operatives have been discovered operating in the United States. In this spring of this year, Manssor Arbabsiar, who had both Iranian and U.S. passports, was sentenced for plotting with Iranian military officials to kill the Saudi Arabian ambassador by bombing a Washington, D.C. restaurant.4  Earlier this fall, news outlets reported that the U.S. had intercepted an order from Iran to attack U.S. interests in the event of a strike on Syria.5  In light of these facts, it is alarming to see documentation that appears to indicate Iranian operatives used the EB-5 program to try to obtain visas for their associates.\n According to the HSI memo, ICE identified seven main areas of program vulnerability with the EB-5 visa:\n1) Export of sensitive technology/economic espionage;  \n2) Use by foreign government agents/espionage;  \n3) Use by terrorists;  \n4) Investment fraud by regional center;  \n5) Investment fraud by investors;  \n6) Fraud conspiracies by investors and regional center; and  \n7) Illicit finance/money laundering.6\nThe memo states: The aforementioned vulnerabilities are directly affected by information gaps on the alien beneficiaries of the EB-5 program. Unlike most other permanent resident visa classifications, EB-5 beneficiaries do not need to establish a significant and verifiable background for program eligibility.7 \nAccording to the memo, HSI made several suggestions for both information collection fixes and legislative fixes to close loopholes in the EB-5 program. Of the information collection fixes, the memo states: HSI proposed making changes to the USCIS forms (I-526, I-829, I-924, and I-924A) that are used by RC's [regional centers] and alien investors. HSI felt that the forms did not collect enough information to determine the validity of either the RC's, the alien investors or the source of the investor's funds.8\nThe legislative changes proposed by HSI were: (1) doubling the minimum investment amount, (2) limiting the program to allow only active investors involved in managing and directing a business enterprise, and (3) eliminating the consideration of induced jobs for meeting the requirements of the program. These suggestions were not included in the technical assistance provided by USCIS in June 2012 when the EB-5 program was being reauthorized. The only HSI recommendation which appeared in any form in the technical assistance was a proposal for providing inflationary adjustments to the minimum investment amount, which is very different from doubling it.\nThe HSI memo makes clear that overall, HSI believes the Regional Center model has significant flaws and should be abandoned: The principal change proposed by HSI was that the Regional Center Model be allowed to sunset, as HSI maintains there are no safeguards that can be put in place that will ensure the integrity of the RC model.\nGiven these concerns with the EB-5 Regional Center program and information gaps on recipients of EB-5 visas, it is important that Congress have statistics on what happens after individuals enter the U.S. on an EB-5 visa. Foreign investors who participate in the EB-5 program may receive conditional permanent residence for a two-year period. However, it seems unlikely that they are ever removed from the country even if the conditions of their conditional status are not met because the required jobs weren't created within the required period.\nTherefore, please respond to the following:\n1. Please produce all legislative and information collection recommendations made by ICE or any of its divisions for the EB-5 program. Please provide in detail any specific changes recommended for USCIS forms I-526, I-829, I-924, and I-924A.\n2. For each of the above recommendations, please identify the date ICE proposed the recommendation and to what entities it was proposed.\n3. What is the current total number of EB-5 conditional residents whose request to remove conditional status was denied?\n4. Does ICE know how many EB-5 investors who were denied permanent resident status remain in the country? Does ICE know the location of these foreign investors? If so, please provide a status report, including how many are detained, how many are in removal proceedings, and how many have been removed from the country by ICE.\n5. Do you or your agency have any information as to why USCIS did not provide Congress with the legislative recommendations made by HSI, as indicated in the attached memo?\n6. What is ICE doing to help ensure that USCIS does not provide EB-5 visas to individuals and entities that are involved in international terrorism or proliferation operations, as was the case with Iranian operatives whose goal was to infiltrate the U.S. and export items back to their country?\n7. What is the current status of the Iranian case mentioned in the memo?\n8. What type of visas did the two Iranian operatives mentioned in the memo enter the U.S. on?\n9. Is the principal of the regional center referenced in the memo in the United States? If so, what type of visa did the principal enter the U.S. on?\n10. For each individual associated with the principal of the regional center through TECS subrecord hits, please indicate whether or not the individual has entered the U.S. in the past or is currently in the U.S., as well as what type of visa each individual entered the U.S. on.\n11. What is the current immigration status of each of the individuals referenced in questions 8, 9, and 10?\nThank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. Please respond to these questions by January 1, 2014. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact XXXX of my staff at (202) 224-5225. I look forward to your prompt response.\n     Sincerely,\n     Charles E. Grassley  \n     Ranking Member  \n     Committee on the Judiciary\n\n1 Undated memo, EB-5 Program Questions from DHS Secretary, Homeland Security Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement [Attachment 1].  \n2 Id. at 2.  \n3 Id.  \n4 Press release, Manssor Arbabsiar Sentenced in New York City Federal Court to 25 Years in Prison for Conspiring with Iranian Military Officials to Assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States, Department of Justice, May 30, 2013, available at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/May/13-nsd-621.html.  \n5 Julian E. Barnes and Adam Entous, Iran Plots Revenge, U.S. Says, Wall Street Journal (Sep. 6, 2013), available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732389300457905727101921023....  \n6 Undated memo, EB-5 Program Questions from DHS Secretary, Homeland Security Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, at 4.  \n7 Id.  \n8 Id., at 5.  \n9 Id., at 4.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/medicare-payment-transparency-provisions-advancing", "Medicare Payment Transparency Provisions Advancing", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON  U.S. Senators Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., today applauded inclusion of language that would make Medicare claims data available to the public as part of legislation addressing Medicare's physician payment formula.  Both the House and Senate versions of legislation addressing the Medicare physician payment formula include the key provisions from Grassley and Wyden's Medicare Data Access for Transparency and Accountability Act (Medicare DATA Act). This would establish a free, searchable Medicare payment database that would be readily available to the public online at no cost. The database would include all payments made to physicians by Medicare. Patients' privacy would be fully protected, and providers would have an opportunity to correct payment information before it is posted online. Transparency draws in the public and invites analysis of policy and spending, Grassley said. More transparency has made a difference in accountability in the tax-exempt sector, and it does the same wherever it's applied in health care. Healthcare, particularly Medicare, is notorious for its lack of transparency, Wyden said. Allowing the public to finally see where Medicare dollars are being spent creates a powerful check against waste and a valuable research tool for improving care for seniors. Under current law, access to the Medicare payment database is limited to a small number of bureaucrats and academics despite a federal judge's ruling in favor of greater public access. The text of the Medicare DATA Act is available here. Grassley's statement on the bill introduction is available here. Wyden's statement on the bill introduction is available  here.\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043206/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47729", "Child Support Measures from Grassley, Menendez in Broad Bill Advancing in Committee", "2013-12-11", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Child Support Measures from Grassley, Menendez in Broad Bill Advancing in CommitteeWASHINGTON \u2013 Measures from Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Robert Menendez of New Jersey to strengthen child support enforcement are included in broad child welfare legislation scheduled for consideration in the Finance Committee this week. \u201cThe provisions help states recover money that family courts have determined is owed to custodial parents,\u201d Grassley said.\u00a0 \u201cWe ought to do more to make sure money owed gets to the parents and children who need and deserve it. Child support enforcement helps make sure families are strong and independent.\u201d The Supporting At-Risk Children Act of 2013 is scheduled for committee consideration on Thursday.\u00a0 The measure includes the following provisions from the Menendez-Grassley bill, the Strengthen and Vitalize Enforcement of Child Support (SAVE Child Support) Act, S. 508, introduced in March: --Requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to use federal and, if necessary, state child support enforcement methods to ensure compliance with any U.S. treaty obligations associated with any multilateral child support convention to which the United States is a party.\u00a0 --Requires states, in order to receive federal funding, to implement amendments made by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.\u00a0 --Expands access to the Federal Parent Locator Service to assist states in locating noncustodial parents, putative fathers, and custodial parties to ensure compliance with their child support obligations.\u00a0 A description of the chairman\u2019s version, or mark, of the Supporting At-Risk Children Act of 2013 is available here.\n-30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043212/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47726", "Grassley on Review of NASA/H211 Hangar Leasing, Fuel Purchases", "2013-12-11", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following comment on a review from the NASA inspector general examining allegations of improper leasing of a hangar and aircraft fuel purchases between NASA\u2019s Ames Research Center and H211, a private company that manages aircraft owned or leased by Google executives.\u00a0 Grassley has looked into the arrangement amid allegations of poor management by the government to taxpayers\u2019 detriment. \u201cI\u2019m glad the NASA inspector general was able to clear up some of the questions surrounding NASA and Google.\u00a0 I also have asked the Defense Department inspector general to take a broader look at these fuel contracts.\u00a0 Given that a \u2018misunderstanding\u2019 between NASA and the Defense Department led to taxpayers\u2019 losing out on $3.3 million to $5.3 million in this one contract, a look at these arrangements as a whole is definitely warranted.\u00a0 The inspector general recommends that NASA explore \u2018remedies.\u2019\u00a0 The obvious remedy would be for NASA to seek repayment to the taxpayers for the fuel benefit.\u00a0 If NASA fails to pursue this option and make taxpayers whole, it\u2019s hard to imagine how NASA would justify such a corporate giveaway.\u201d The inspector general review is available here.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043224/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47723", "Grassley Statement at the Oversight Hearing of Government Surveillance Authorities", "2013-12-11", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Grassley Statement at the Oversight Hearing of Government Surveillance AuthoritiesPrepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa  \nRanking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee  \nHearing on \u201cContinued Oversight of U.S. Government Surveillance Authorities\u201d  \nWednesday, December 11, 2013  \nMr. Chairman, thank you for holding today\u2019s hearing on the continued oversight of the government\u2019s surveillance authorities.\u00a0 This topic has been the subject of ongoing media attention and constituent interest. We last held a hearing on this important topic in early October.\u00a0 Since then, reports have continued to surface in the media about possible overreach on the part of the government.\u00a0 Some of these reports may be more accurate than others.\u00a0 But I continue to believe that many of them call into serious question whether the law and other safeguards currently in place strike the right balance between protecting our civil liberties and our national security. This is especially so concerning the public revelation that under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the government is collecting Americans\u2019 phone metadata in bulk. Why are many Americans so concerned?\u00a0 Well, it isn\u2019t hard to find an example of what can happen to Americans\u2019 personal information when the government overreaches, mismanages, and fails the American people. It\u2019s been over two months since the Administration tried to bring the Obamacare website on-line.\u00a0 And the American people are suffering under Obamacare.\u00a0 Many are finding they can\u2019t keep the insurance plans they liked.\u00a0 Their premiums are rising.\u00a0 And uncertainty is growing about which parts of the law the President will decide to uphold. But in just these few months, we have already seen reports of incidents where Obamacare hasn\u2019t adequately protected Americans\u2019 personal data.\u00a0 In one reported instance in Minnesota, an insurance broker was accidentally provided the personal information of 2,400 people. Moreover, there are many unanswered questions about the Obamacare website\u2019s ability to protect privacy going forward. Now, I expect that the standards of the dedicated professionals in our intelligence community do not compare to those of the contractors who failed to set up the Obamacare website properly. But it\u2019s easy to see why many Americans are skeptical that the government can adequately maintain their privacy when it collects vast amounts of information. The President\u2019s disengagement on these important matters doesn\u2019t help.\u00a0 He claims he was unaware of the problems with the Obamacare website before it launched.\u00a0 Now reports say he was unaware of the reported surveillance of many world leaders. As I did back in October, I call on the President to lead.\u00a0 Many of these programs are critical to our national security.\u00a0 The President needs to contribute to the national debate by publicly explaining and defending them. It\u2019s good that there are numerous reform proposals that this committee will have the opportunity to consider going forward.\u00a0 I am convinced there is a role for greater transparency, oversight, and accountability in the FISA process.\u00a0 The public trust in our intelligence community must be rebuilt.\u00a0 And of course we must ensure that intelligence authorities are exercised in a manner consistent with our laws and the Constitution. These proposals should be subject to the same rigorous and critical examination to which we are subjecting the surveillance programs themselves. These proposals should address the specific concerns that have been brought to light, not re-litigate old and irrelevant legislative battles. \u00a0 These proposals shouldn\u2019t provide a terrorist abroad with rights similar to those of a U.S. citizen here at home. These proposals shouldn\u2019t make it more burdensome for authorities to investigate a terrorist than it is to investigate a common criminal. And these proposals shouldn\u2019t return us to a pre-September 11th posture.\u00a0 Then, we didn\u2019t adequately weigh the dedication, intelligence and lethality of our foreign enemies, who are undoubtedly watching this debate closely. The balance between protecting individual liberties and our national security is a delicate one.\u00a0 And reasonable people can disagree about precisely where that balance is best struck. Our witnesses on both panels today represent a wide range of views.\u00a0 I\u2019m sure I don\u2019t either agree or disagree with any of them completely.\u00a0 But I welcome hearing each of their perspectives as we consider these various reforms. Thank you.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/child-support-measures-grassley-menendez-broad-bill-advancing-committee", "Child Support Measures from Grassley, Menendez in Broad Bill Advancing in Committee", "2013-12-11", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Child Support Measures from Grassley, Menendez in Broad Bill Advancing in Committee\n\nWASHINGTON  Measures from Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Robert Menendez of New Jersey to strengthen child support enforcement are included in broad child welfare legislation scheduled for consideration in the Finance Committee this week. The provisions help states recover money that family courts have determined is owed to custodial parents, Grassley said. We ought to do more to make sure money owed gets to the parents and children who need and deserve it. Child support enforcement helps make sure families are strong and independent. The Supporting At-Risk Children Act of 2013 is scheduled for committee consideration on Thursday. The measure includes the following provisions from the Menendez-Grassley bill, the Strengthen and Vitalize Enforcement of Child Support (SAVE Child Support) Act, S. 508, introduced in March: --Requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to use federal and, if necessary, state child support enforcement methods to ensure compliance with any U.S. treaty obligations associated with any multilateral child support convention to which the United States is a party. --Requires states, in order to receive federal funding, to implement amendments made by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. --Expands access to the Federal Parent Locator Service to assist states in locating noncustodial parents, putative fathers, and custodial parties to ensure compliance with their child support obligations. A description of the chairman's version, or mark, of the Supporting At-Risk Children Act of 2013 is available here.\n-30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-review-nasah211-hangar-leasing-fuel-purchases", "Grassley on Review of NASA/H211 Hangar Leasing, Fuel Purchases", "2013-12-11", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following comment on a review from the NASA inspector general examining allegations of improper leasing of a hangar and aircraft fuel purchases between NASA's Ames Research Center and H211, a private company that manages aircraft owned or leased by Google executives. Grassley has looked into the arrangement amid allegations of poor management by the government to taxpayers' detriment. I'm glad the NASA inspector general was able to clear up some of the questions surrounding NASA and Google. I also have asked the Defense Department inspector general to take a broader look at these fuel contracts. Given that a misunderstanding' between NASA and the Defense Department led to taxpayers' losing out on $3.3 million to $5.3 million in this one contract, a look at these arrangements as a whole is definitely warranted. The inspector general recommends that NASA explore remedies.' The obvious remedy would be for NASA to seek repayment to the taxpayers for the fuel benefit. If NASA fails to pursue this option and make taxpayers whole, it's hard to imagine how NASA would justify such a corporate giveaway. The inspector general review is available here.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-statement-oversight-hearing-government-surveillance-authorities", "Grassley Statement at the Oversight Hearing of Government Surveillance Authorities", "2013-12-11", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Grassley Statement at the Oversight Hearing of Government Surveillance Authorities\n\nPrepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Continued Oversight of U.S. Government Surveillance Authorities Wednesday, December 11, 2013 Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing on the continued oversight of the government's surveillance authorities. This topic has been the subject of ongoing media attention and constituent interest. We last held a hearing on this important topic in early October. Since then, reports have continued to surface in the media about possible overreach on the part of the government. Some of these reports may be more accurate than others. But I continue to believe that many of them call into serious question whether the law and other safeguards currently in place strike the right balance between protecting our civil liberties and our national security. This is especially so concerning the public revelation that under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the government is collecting Americans' phone metadata in bulk. Why are many Americans so concerned? Well, it isn't hard to find an example of what can happen to Americans' personal information when the government overreaches, mismanages, and fails the American people. It's been over two months since the Administration tried to bring the Obamacare website on-line. And the American people are suffering under Obamacare. Many are finding they can't keep the insurance plans they liked. Their premiums are rising. And uncertainty is growing about which parts of the law the President will decide to uphold. But in just these few months, we have already seen reports of incidents where Obamacare hasn't adequately protected Americans' personal data. In one reported instance in Minnesota, an insurance broker was accidentally provided the personal information of 2,400 people. Moreover, there are many unanswered questions about the Obamacare website's ability to protect privacy going forward. Now, I expect that the standards of the dedicated professionals in our intelligence community do not compare to those of the contractors who failed to set up the Obamacare website properly. But it's easy to see why many Americans are skeptical that the government can adequately maintain their privacy when it collects vast amounts of information. The President's disengagement on these important matters doesn't help. He claims he was unaware of the problems with the Obamacare website before it launched. Now reports say he was unaware of the reported surveillance of many world leaders. As I did back in October, I call on the President to lead. Many of these programs are critical to our national security. The President needs to contribute to the national debate by publicly explaining and defending them. It's good that there are numerous reform proposals that this committee will have the opportunity to consider going forward. I am convinced there is a role for greater transparency, oversight, and accountability in the FISA process. The public trust in our intelligence community must be rebuilt. And of course we must ensure that intelligence authorities are exercised in a manner consistent with our laws and the Constitution. These proposals should be subject to the same rigorous and critical examination to which we are subjecting the surveillance programs themselves. These proposals should address the specific concerns that have been brought to light, not re-litigate old and irrelevant legislative battles.  These proposals shouldn't provide a terrorist abroad with rights similar to those of a U.S. citizen here at home. These proposals shouldn't make it more burdensome for authorities to investigate a terrorist than it is to investigate a common criminal. And these proposals shouldn't return us to a pre-September 11th posture. Then, we didn't adequately weigh the dedication, intelligence and lethality of our foreign enemies, who are undoubtedly watching this debate closely. The balance between protecting individual liberties and our national security is a delicate one. And reasonable people can disagree about precisely where that balance is best struck. Our witnesses on both panels today represent a wide range of views. I'm sure I don't either agree or disagree with any of them completely. But I welcome hearing each of their perspectives as we consider these various reforms. Thank you.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221044051/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47712", "Grassley, Kaine Introduce Bill to Improve Sibling Connections in Child Welfare System", "2013-12-10", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Grassley, Kaine Introduce Bill to Improve Sibling Connections in Child Welfare SystemWASHINGTON \u2013 Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia today introduced legislation to improve sibling connections in the child welfare system.\u00a0 \u201cChild welfare experts tell you and common sense tells you children benefit when they\u2019re kept together and have strong relationships,\u201d Grassley said.\u00a0 \u201cOur bill removes barriers to federal law that prevent families of siblings from knowing when a child is placed in foster care or siblings from losing ties when parental rights are terminated.\u00a0 This will help maintain sibling relationships and in turn help the kids.\u201d \u201cEnsuring that children in the child welfare system remain connected to their siblings provides them with continuity and support,\u201d said Kaine.\u00a0 \u201cMy wife Anne is a longtime advocate for foster children and during my term as Governor we successfully strengthened permanent family connections for older children in foster care through the \u2018For Keeps\u2019 initiative and increased funding to recruit more foster and adoptive parents. Today I\u2019m proud to introduce the Sibling Connections Act that will keep brothers and sisters together and result in fewer emotional and behavioral problems down the line.\" Grassley and Kaine said the Grassley-authored Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 made great strides to improve child welfare but several obstacles impede sibling relationships.\u00a0 The Sibling Connections Act introduced today follows the example of at least five states, including Iowa, that have passed legislation or regulation that recognizes the parents of siblings as \u201crelatives\u201d for foster care placement.\u00a0\u00a0 That means the parents of a child\u2019s siblings are notified when the child enters foster care, allowing the adult guardians to try to maintain the sibling relationships.\u00a0 Also, the Grassley-Kaine bill would correct the current situation in which siblings lose their status as siblings when their parents\u2019 rights are terminated.\u00a0 The loss of sibling status undermines the requirement of the Fostering Connections law that siblings be placed together whenever possible. Grassley said he is inspired in this effort by parents including Robert and Sharon White of Ames.\u00a0 The Whites are long-time advocates for adoption and quality foster care, including keeping siblings together. The Whites have adopted several children and have recently decided to become foster parents.\u00a0 They also have worked with Iowa state legislators to pass legislation making it easier for children in foster care to be adopted with their siblings. Grassley is a long-time advocate for adoption and improving foster care, especially the challenges facing those who age out of the system.\u00a0 He is the co-founder and co-chair of the bipartisan Senate Caucus on Foster Youth.\u00a0 He has secured several key legislative improvements to promote adoption.\u00a0 More information is available here. More information on the value of sibling relationships is available here.  \n\n  \n-30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-kaine-introduce-bill-improve-sibling-connections-child-welfare-system", "Grassley, Kaine Introduce Bill to Improve Sibling Connections in Child Welfare System", "2013-12-10", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Grassley, Kaine Introduce Bill to Improve Sibling Connections in Child Welfare System\n\nWASHINGTON  Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia today introduced legislation to improve sibling connections in the child welfare system. Child welfare experts tell you and common sense tells you children benefit when they're kept together and have strong relationships, Grassley said. Our bill removes barriers to federal law that prevent families of siblings from knowing when a child is placed in foster care or siblings from losing ties when parental rights are terminated. This will help maintain sibling relationships and in turn help the kids. Ensuring that children in the child welfare system remain connected to their siblings provides them with continuity and support, said Kaine. My wife Anne is a longtime advocate for foster children and during my term as Governor we successfully strengthened permanent family connections for older children in foster care through the For Keeps' initiative and increased funding to recruit more foster and adoptive parents. Today I'm proud to introduce the Sibling Connections Act that will keep brothers and sisters together and result in fewer emotional and behavioral problems down the line.\" Grassley and Kaine said the Grassley-authored Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 made great strides to improve child welfare but several obstacles impede sibling relationships. The Sibling Connections Act introduced today follows the example of at least five states, including Iowa, that have passed legislation or regulation that recognizes the parents of siblings as relatives for foster care placement. That means the parents of a child's siblings are notified when the child enters foster care, allowing the adult guardians to try to maintain the sibling relationships. Also, the Grassley-Kaine bill would correct the current situation in which siblings lose their status as siblings when their parents' rights are terminated. The loss of sibling status undermines the requirement of the Fostering Connections law that siblings be placed together whenever possible. Grassley said he is inspired in this effort by parents including Robert and Sharon White of Ames. The Whites are long-time advocates for adoption and quality foster care, including keeping siblings together. The Whites have adopted several children and have recently decided to become foster parents. They also have worked with Iowa state legislators to pass legislation making it easier for children in foster care to be adopted with their siblings. Grassley is a long-time advocate for adoption and improving foster care, especially the challenges facing those who age out of the system. He is the co-founder and co-chair of the bipartisan Senate Caucus on Foster Youth. He has secured several key legislative improvements to promote adoption. More information is available here. More information on the value of sibling relationships is available here.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043254/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47689", "Q&A on Military Reform", "2013-12-09", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Grassley News \n  \n\tGrassley: U.S. Military Academy Selects Waukee Student...\n\tRead More >>\n\t\n  \n\tGrassley: U.S. Naval Academy Selects Cedar Rapids Student...\n\tRead More >>", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043924/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47694", "Funding the Nation's Common Defense", "2013-12-09", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "by U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley  \n\n\u00a0\nAmong the objectives named in the preamble of the Constitution, the Founders specified one of the primary responsibilities of governance for the newly formed republic is to provide for the nation\u2019s common defense.\u00a0 For more than two centuries, the United States of America has protected its borders, people, international commerce and national security backed up by a civilian controlled military funded by the taxpaying public. Our system of checks and balances works to keep the military under civilian control.\u00a0 The Constitution specifies the president serves as commander in chief.\u00a0 The people\u2019s branch appropriates and the executive branch spends money to provide for the Armed Services.\u00a0 This dual authority works to ensure the military serves, not subverts, we the people. Since our nation\u2019s founding, policymakers have debated the merits of the size, scope and strategy of the nation\u2019s military. Between the White House and Congress, presidents and lawmakers have used the strength of the U.S. military to maintain peace, protect and defend the blessings of freedom and provide for national security. Generations of Americans owe a debt of gratitude to those who have served in the Armed Forces, putting their lives on the line and often separating from their families to serve, defend and protect. Although the U.S. military serves a critical role in upholding the nation\u2019s common defense, lawmakers should not issue blank checks to the Department of Defense.\u00a0 In fact, my longstanding crusade to protect the taxpaying public has exposed serious financial mismanagement at the Pentagon that undermines military readiness and exposes cultural, systemic flaws that weaken this critical institution of the federal government. Protecting the taxpaying public and providing for the nation\u2019s common defense are not mutually exclusive.\u00a0 Too many people in Washington think that throwing more money at something will solve the world\u2019s problems.\u00a0 Nothing could be further from the truth. As Congress works to dial back the spending spigot that has created a $17 trillion national debt, I am working to hold the line on overspending.\u00a0 As keepers of the public purse, lawmakers need to demand more accountability for each tax dollar, including defense spending. Although no one thinks the across-the-board sequester was the smartest way to hold spending to the level Congress agreed to live under, I reject the notion that there are no parts of the federal budget that can be cut and the only solution is to ditch the spending caps that have forced Uncle Sam to borrow and spend less of taxpayers\u2019 money. For those who ballyhoo that the sky will fall if the Pentagon\u2019s budget is trimmed further, I would direct their attention to the apparent shenanigans of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS).\u00a0 What's worse, the independent watchdog at the Pentagon may have schemed with DFAS and turned a blind eye to problems with the agency\u2019s financial statements to snow policymakers and the public. One of my earliest crusades against government waste started at the Pentagon.\u00a0 At that time, a Pentagon maverick reported serious fiscal mismanagement and an astonishing waste of tax dollars.\u00a0 Remember the $500 hammers and $7,600 coffee pots?\u00a0 It's been a few years since I drove my orange Chevette to the Pentagon from Capitol Hill to track down answers about bloated defense budgets.\u00a0 Thanks to the courage and pursuit of the truth from a civil servant at the Defense Department, we succeeded in exposing fantasy financials that front-loaded the budget with massive, unaffordable programs.\u00a0 At the time, the Pentagon was flushing tax money down the drain with $700 toilet seats.\u00a0 His testimony at a joint congressional hearing helped lead to a freeze on the defense budget build-up at the height of the farm crisis in the mid-80s, sparing taxpayers billions of dollars.\u00a0 Ever since, I've championed all means necessary through oversight and legislation to hold the Pentagon accountable for the money it spends to uphold the nation's common defense. As Abe Lincoln discovered during the Civil War, there\u2019s no shortage of profiteers who troll federal spending for financial gain.\u00a0 Or in the case of the DFAS, allegedly fudging the numbers to mislead policymakers and protect its funding stream.\u00a0 It takes a tireless commitment to prevent the taxpaying public from getting fleeced. Sometimes it feels like paddling upstream, especially as the federal government has a record of using antiquated systems to track spending and prevent fraud. Rooting out waste, fraud and abuse is hard enough even with proper auditing tools.\u00a0 So if integrity at the auditing shop in the Inspector General\u2019s office is up for grabs, policymakers would have better luck finding a needle in an Iowa haystack than getting accurate numbers to make the right spending decisions.\u00a0 If this episode is a reflection of widespread \u201cfinancial delusions\u201d the DFAS conducts throughout the Pentagon, then Congress needs to tighten, not loosen, the purse strings until the Department of Defense can right its fiscal ship.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221044453/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47706", "Post Nuclear Option Grassley Floor Statement on Patricia Millett", "2013-12-09", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa  \nRanking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee  \nOn the nomination of Patricia Millett  \nfor the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit  \nMonday, December 9, 2013 Mr. President,  \nApproximately 6 months ago, on June 4, 2013, the President simultaneously nominated three nominees for the D.C. Circuit.\u00a0 Everyone knew then, just as they know now, that these judges aren\u2019t needed.\u00a0 The D.C. Circuit has the lowest caseload in the country by far, based on the standards the Democrats established just a few years ago when a Republican was in the White House. \u00a0 In fact, the caseload on the D.C. Circuit is so low that on April 10, 2013, approximately two months prior to these nominations, I introduced legislation \u2013 together with every Republican on the Judiciary Committee \u2013 to eliminate one seat on the D.C. Circuit and move two others to different circuits. \u00a0 That would be the sensible way to address this issue. \u00a0 Don\u2019t spend $1 million in taxpayer dollars per year, per judge, on judgeships that aren\u2019t needed.\u00a0 Especially when the judges currently on the court say \u201cif any more judges were added now, there wouldn\u2019t be enough work to go around.\u201d \u00a0 Don\u2019t waste $3 million a year.\u00a0 Instead, simply move the seats to where they\u2019re needed. \u00a0 That would be the sensible and good government approach.\u00a0 But being sensible and good stewards of taxpayer dollars isn\u2019t what the other side had in mind when they hatched this scheme.\u00a0 Far from it. No, the Administration\u2019s motive here was clear from the beginning.\u00a0 They knew they couldn\u2019t pass their liberal agenda through a divided congress.\u00a0 The American people had already rejected that agenda at the ballot box. \u00a0 But the Administration, of course, still runs the federal agencies.\u00a0 And through the agencies, the Administration can ignore the will of the American people and continue to pursue its job-killing agenda. It doesn\u2019t matter that the American people don\u2019t want their government to pass Cap and Trade fee increases, the Administration will simply force it upon them anyway through the Environmental Protection Agency. It doesn\u2019t matter that the employer mandate penalty under Obamacare doesn\u2019t apply in the 34 states that haven\u2019t created insurance exchanges, the Administration forced the employer mandate upon the American people anyway through an IRS regulation. This has been the Administration\u2019s plan.\u00a0 It can\u2019t get its liberal agenda through Congress, but it has saddled the American people with its job-crushing agenda anyway through agency regulation.\u00a0 \u00a0 But there is a catch to this scheme.\u00a0 A big catch. \u00a0 Agency decisions are reviewed by the federal judiciary-our independent, third branch of government. \u00a0 So, for this scheme to work, the White House needed to stack the D.C. Circuit with judges who will rubberstamp its agenda. \u00a0 As a result, the Administration decided to ram their agenda through the agencies, and simultaneously stack the D.C. Circuit with judges they believe will rubberstamp that agenda. That\u2019s why, on the day the President made these three nominations, I said: \u201cIt\u2019s hard to imagine the rationale for nominating three judges at once for this court given the many vacant emergency seats across the country, unless your goal is to pack the court to advance a certain policy agenda.\u201d Now, during the last few months, we\u2019ve debated this issue.\u00a0 And throughout the debate, the other side has tried their best to obscure the objective. \u00a0 They\u2019ve manipulated caseload statistics in an effort to deny the obvious: the judges aren\u2019t needed and won\u2019t have enough work to do. They\u2019ve twisted the words of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. \u00a0 They\u2019ve claimed the Chief Justice of the United States believes these judgeships are needed, when of course that isn\u2019t remotely close to being true. They even stooped so low as to accuse Republicans of gender bias. \u00a0 But no matter how the other side manipulated the data or tried to conceal their agenda, they couldn\u2019t overcome simple and basic facts everyone knew to be true: under the standard established by the Democrats under the Bush Administration, these judgeships aren\u2019t needed and shouldn\u2019t be confirmed. \u00a0 As a result, when the United States Senate considered these nominations, it denied consent.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 The other side lost the debate. Under normal circumstances, that would\u2019ve been the end of the matter.\u00a0 But not this time.  \nThis time, there\u2019s a Democrat in the White House and a Republican minority in the Senate.\u00a0 So the caseload statistics that carried the day in 2006 no longer matter to today\u2019s Majority.\u00a0 \u00a0  \nThis time, apparently there are only three members of the Majority who care more for the Senate as an institution than they do for their party, or short term political gain.\u00a0 \u00a0 And of course, the biggest difference is that this time, what\u2019s at stake is a radical agenda and the other side\u2019s effort to remove any meaningful check on that agenda. In short, it\u2019s Obamacare.\u00a0 It\u2019s climate change regulation.\u00a0 It\u2019s Presidential rule by fiat. The other side decided they were no longer willing to play by the rules they established and pioneered. \u00a0 They lost the debate, so they changed the rules of the game in the middle of the fourth quarter. \u00a0  \nThey triggered the so-called \u201cnuclear option\u201d because salvaging Obamacare and insulating Cap and Trade fee increases from meaningful judicial review were just too important. But as I said, the end-game for this scheme has been clear all along. \u00a0 So I wasn\u2019t surprised to read the media accounts confirming the reasons Democrats broke the Senate rules in order to get these nominees confirmed.\u00a0 \u00a0 For instance, on November 23rd, The Hill newspaper ran an article with this headline: \u201cFilibuster change clears path for Obama climate regs crackdown.\u201d \u00a0 The Hill had this to say: \u00a0 \u201cGreen groups might be the biggest winners from Senate Democrats\u2019 decision to gut the minority party\u2019s filibuster rights on nominations.\u00a0 Their top priority \u2013 President Obama\u2019s second-term regulations on climate change \u2013 is likely to have a better shot at surviving challenges once Obama\u2019s nominees are confirmed for the crucial U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.\u201d And the Washington Post wrote this: \u201cDemocrats say the shift in the court will be especially important given that Obama\u2019s legislative proposals have little chance to prevail in the GOP controlled House...\u00a0 The most contentious issue likely to face the appeals court are climate change regulations being pursued by the EPA...\u00a0 The measures represent Obama\u2019s most ambitious effort to combat climate change in his second term \u2013 coal fired power plants are a key source of carbon emissions \u2013 at a time when such proposals have no chance of passage in Congress.\u201d The same Washington Post article acknowledged the importance of removing the judicial check on Obamacare: \u201cThe court is expected to hear a series of other legal challenges as well, including lawsuits related to elements of the Affordable Care Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and new air-quality standards.\u201d And here is how one liberal environmental media outlet described the change: \u201cWhen Senate Democrats blew up the filibuster Thursday, they didn\u2019t just rewrite some rules.\u00a0 They struck a mortal blow to a tradition that has blockaded effective action on climate change.\u201d And of course, according to media reports, it was these same liberal interest groups that pressured the Majority Leader to break the rules.\u00a0 According to The Hill newspaper: \u201c[The] Sierra Club was part of a coalition of liberal groups and unions that pressured Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to limit the use of the filibuster through a majority vote.\u201d So, if there was any doubt about why the other side took such a drastic step, there shouldn\u2019t be any longer. The other side could no longer stand up to the more extreme wing of their party.\u00a0 Under pressure from those interest groups, the other side tossed aside, willy-nilly, some 225 years of Senate history and tradition. \u00a0 And what\u2019s more, by joining the Majority Leader and voting to break the rules, every Senator who did so empowered the President to install judges whose appointments are specifically designed to rubberstamp the President\u2019s regulatory agenda. \u00a0 No one is going to be able to hide from this vote. So, this is a power grab, of course.\u00a0 But it\u2019s much more than that. \u00a0 It\u2019s the erosion of the separation of powers. \u00a0 It\u2019s a White House that is so committed to a policy agenda that the American people don\u2019t want, that it co-opted the Majority in the United States Senate in its scheme to remove a meaningful judicial check on the executive branch of government and its agenda. This is about a White House trying to rig the game so it can impose its Cap and Trade fee increases on the American people \u2013 even though they don\u2019t want it. \u00a0  \n\u00a0 \u00a0  \nAnd this is about a last ditch effort to salvage Obamacare\u00a0 -- and regulations like the IRS rule imposing the employer mandate penalty in 34 states in direct conflict with the statute -- by installing judges the White House believes will rubberstamp it.\u00a0 \u00a0 I urge my colleagues stand up to this White House.\u00a0 Stand up to the radical liberal interest groups. \u00a0 Don\u2019t cast a vote for Cap and Trade fee increases.\u00a0 And don\u2019t cast another vote for Obamacare. Instead, vote against this nomination. I yield the floor.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221044506/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47703", "Extending the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988", "2013-12-09", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement on extending the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988. \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cThe Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988, which expires today, is an important law to make sure that guns are discovered by a metal detector.\u00a0 The safety of airplanes or federal buildings or similar places would be threatened if their metal detectors could not identify guns.\u00a0 The only way to make sure the current prohibition of plastic guns remained in place was for the Senate to pass the 10-year extension cleared last week by the House. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cIt\u2019s unfortunate that politics have been played with this law.\u00a0 If the majority wanted to change the law, there should have been hearings and an attempt to learn the evolving technology.\u00a0 Instead, at the last minute the Senate Majority attempted to force changes by ramming through legislation that was only revealed today.\u00a0 Supporters of an alternative proposal that has not been shown to be effective, technologically feasible, properly drafted, or able to pass the House deliberately bypassed a responsible process.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/extending-undetectable-firearms-act-1988", "Extending the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988", "2013-12-09", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement on extending the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988.   The Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988, which expires today, is an important law to make sure that guns are discovered by a metal detector. The safety of airplanes or federal buildings or similar places would be threatened if their metal detectors could not identify guns. The only way to make sure the current prohibition of plastic guns remained in place was for the Senate to pass the 10-year extension cleared last week by the House.  It's unfortunate that politics have been played with this law. If the majority wanted to change the law, there should have been hearings and an attempt to learn the evolving technology. Instead, at the last minute the Senate Majority attempted to force changes by ramming through legislation that was only revealed today. Supporters of an alternative proposal that has not been shown to be effective, technologically feasible, properly drafted, or able to pass the House deliberately bypassed a responsible process.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/funding-nation%E2%80%99s-common-defense", "Funding the Nations Common Defense", "2013-12-09", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "by U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley\nAmong the objectives named in the preamble of the Constitution, the Founders specified one of the primary responsibilities of governance for the newly formed republic is to provide for the nation's common defense. For more than two centuries, the United States of America has protected its borders, people, international commerce and national security backed up by a civilian controlled military funded by the taxpaying public. Our system of checks and balances works to keep the military under civilian control. The Constitution specifies the president serves as commander in chief. The people's branch appropriates and the executive branch spends money to provide for the Armed Services. This dual authority works to ensure the military serves, not subverts, we the people. Since our nation's founding, policymakers have debated the merits of the size, scope and strategy of the nation's military. Between the White House and Congress, presidents and lawmakers have used the strength of the U.S. military to maintain peace, protect and defend the blessings of freedom and provide for national security. Generations of Americans owe a debt of gratitude to those who have served in the Armed Forces, putting their lives on the line and often separating from their families to serve, defend and protect. Although the U.S. military serves a critical role in upholding the nation's common defense, lawmakers should not issue blank checks to the Department of Defense. In fact, my longstanding crusade to protect the taxpaying public has exposed serious financial mismanagement at the Pentagon that undermines military readiness and exposes cultural, systemic flaws that weaken this critical institution of the federal government. Protecting the taxpaying public and providing for the nation's common defense are not mutually exclusive. Too many people in Washington think that throwing more money at something will solve the world's problems. Nothing could be further from the truth. As Congress works to dial back the spending spigot that has created a $17 trillion national debt, I am working to hold the line on overspending. As keepers of the public purse, lawmakers need to demand more accountability for each tax dollar, including defense spending. Although no one thinks the across-the-board sequester was the smartest way to hold spending to the level Congress agreed to live under, I reject the notion that there are no parts of the federal budget that can be cut and the only solution is to ditch the spending caps that have forced Uncle Sam to borrow and spend less of taxpayers' money. For those who ballyhoo that the sky will fall if the Pentagon's budget is trimmed further, I would direct their attention to the apparent shenanigans of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS). What's worse, the independent watchdog at the Pentagon may have schemed with DFAS and turned a blind eye to problems with the agency's financial statements to snow policymakers and the public. One of my earliest crusades against government waste started at the Pentagon. At that time, a Pentagon maverick reported serious fiscal mismanagement and an astonishing waste of tax dollars. Remember the $500 hammers and $7,600 coffee pots? It's been a few years since I drove my orange Chevette to the Pentagon from Capitol Hill to track down answers about bloated defense budgets. Thanks to the courage and pursuit of the truth from a civil servant at the Defense Department, we succeeded in exposing fantasy financials that front-loaded the budget with massive, unaffordable programs. At the time, the Pentagon was flushing tax money down the drain with $700 toilet seats. His testimony at a joint congressional hearing helped lead to a freeze on the defense budget build-up at the height of the farm crisis in the mid-80s, sparing taxpayers billions of dollars. Ever since, I've championed all means necessary through oversight and legislation to hold the Pentagon accountable for the money it spends to uphold the nation's common defense. As Abe Lincoln discovered during the Civil War, there's no shortage of profiteers who troll federal spending for financial gain. Or in the case of the DFAS, allegedly fudging the numbers to mislead policymakers and protect its funding stream. It takes a tireless commitment to prevent the taxpaying public from getting fleeced. Sometimes it feels like paddling upstream, especially as the federal government has a record of using antiquated systems to track spending and prevent fraud. Rooting out waste, fraud and abuse is hard enough even with proper auditing tools. So if integrity at the auditing shop in the Inspector General's office is up for grabs, policymakers would have better luck finding a needle in an Iowa haystack than getting accurate numbers to make the right spending decisions. If this episode is a reflection of widespread financial delusions the DFAS conducts throughout the Pentagon, then Congress needs to tighten, not loosen, the purse strings until the Department of Defense can right its fiscal ship.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/post-nuclear-option-grassley-floor-statement-patricia-millett", "Post Nuclear Option Grassley Floor Statement on Patricia Millett", "2013-12-09", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee On the nomination of Patricia Millett for the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Monday, December 9, 2013 Mr. President, Approximately 6 months ago, on June 4, 2013, the President simultaneously nominated three nominees for the D.C. Circuit. Everyone knew then, just as they know now, that these judges aren't needed. The D.C. Circuit has the lowest caseload in the country by far, based on the standards the Democrats established just a few years ago when a Republican was in the White House.  In fact, the caseload on the D.C. Circuit is so low that on April 10, 2013, approximately two months prior to these nominations, I introduced legislation  together with every Republican on the Judiciary Committee  to eliminate one seat on the D.C. Circuit and move two others to different circuits.  That would be the sensible way to address this issue.  Don't spend $1 million in taxpayer dollars per year, per judge, on judgeships that aren't needed. Especially when the judges currently on the court say if any more judges were added now, there wouldn't be enough work to go around.  Don't waste $3 million a year. Instead, simply move the seats to where they're needed.  That would be the sensible and good government approach. But being sensible and good stewards of taxpayer dollars isn't what the other side had in mind when they hatched this scheme. Far from it. No, the Administration's motive here was clear from the beginning. They knew they couldn't pass their liberal agenda through a divided congress. The American people had already rejected that agenda at the ballot box.  But the Administration, of course, still runs the federal agencies. And through the agencies, the Administration can ignore the will of the American people and continue to pursue its job-killing agenda. It doesn't matter that the American people don't want their government to pass Cap and Trade fee increases, the Administration will simply force it upon them anyway through the Environmental Protection Agency. It doesn't matter that the employer mandate penalty under Obamacare doesn't apply in the 34 states that haven't created insurance exchanges, the Administration forced the employer mandate upon the American people anyway through an IRS regulation. This has been the Administration's plan. It can't get its liberal agenda through Congress, but it has saddled the American people with its job-crushing agenda anyway through agency regulation.  But there is a catch to this scheme. A big catch.  Agency decisions are reviewed by the federal judiciary-our independent, third branch of government.  So, for this scheme to work, the White House needed to stack the D.C. Circuit with judges who will rubberstamp its agenda.  As a result, the Administration decided to ram their agenda through the agencies, and simultaneously stack the D.C. Circuit with judges they believe will rubberstamp that agenda. That's why, on the day the President made these three nominations, I said: It's hard to imagine the rationale for nominating three judges at once for this court given the many vacant emergency seats across the country, unless your goal is to pack the court to advance a certain policy agenda. Now, during the last few months, we've debated this issue. And throughout the debate, the other side has tried their best to obscure the objective.  They've manipulated caseload statistics in an effort to deny the obvious: the judges aren't needed and won't have enough work to do. They've twisted the words of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.  They've claimed the Chief Justice of the United States believes these judgeships are needed, when of course that isn't remotely close to being true. They even stooped so low as to accuse Republicans of gender bias.  But no matter how the other side manipulated the data or tried to conceal their agenda, they couldn't overcome simple and basic facts everyone knew to be true: under the standard established by the Democrats under the Bush Administration, these judgeships aren't needed and shouldn't be confirmed.  As a result, when the United States Senate considered these nominations, it denied consent.  The other side lost the debate. Under normal circumstances, that would've been the end of the matter. But not this time. This time, there's a Democrat in the White House and a Republican minority in the Senate. So the caseload statistics that carried the day in 2006 no longer matter to today's Majority.  This time, apparently there are only three members of the Majority who care more for the Senate as an institution than they do for their party, or short term political gain.  And of course, the biggest difference is that this time, what's at stake is a radical agenda and the other side's effort to remove any meaningful check on that agenda. In short, it's Obamacare. It's climate change regulation. It's Presidential rule by fiat. The other side decided they were no longer willing to play by the rules they established and pioneered.  They lost the debate, so they changed the rules of the game in the middle of the fourth quarter.  They triggered the so-called nuclear option because salvaging Obamacare and insulating Cap and Trade fee increases from meaningful judicial review were just too important. But as I said, the end-game for this scheme has been clear all along.  So I wasn't surprised to read the media accounts confirming the reasons Democrats broke the Senate rules in order to get these nominees confirmed.  For instance, on November 23rd, The Hill newspaper ran an article with this headline: Filibuster change clears path for Obama climate regs crackdown.  The Hill had this to say:  Green groups might be the biggest winners from Senate Democrats' decision to gut the minority party's filibuster rights on nominations. Their top priority  President Obama's second-term regulations on climate change  is likely to have a better shot at surviving challenges once Obama's nominees are confirmed for the crucial U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. And the Washington Post wrote this: Democrats say the shift in the court will be especially important given that Obama's legislative proposals have little chance to prevail in the GOP controlled House... The most contentious issue likely to face the appeals court are climate change regulations being pursued by the EPA... The measures represent Obama's most ambitious effort to combat climate change in his second term  coal fired power plants are a key source of carbon emissions  at a time when such proposals have no chance of passage in Congress. The same Washington Post article acknowledged the importance of removing the judicial check on Obamacare: The court is expected to hear a series of other legal challenges as well, including lawsuits related to elements of the Affordable Care Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and new air-quality standards. And here is how one liberal environmental media outlet described the change: When Senate Democrats blew up the filibuster Thursday, they didn't just rewrite some rules. They struck a mortal blow to a tradition that has blockaded effective action on climate change. And of course, according to media reports, it was these same liberal interest groups that pressured the Majority Leader to break the rules. According to The Hill newspaper: [The] Sierra Club was part of a coalition of liberal groups and unions that pressured Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to limit the use of the filibuster through a majority vote. So, if there was any doubt about why the other side took such a drastic step, there shouldn't be any longer. The other side could no longer stand up to the more extreme wing of their party. Under pressure from those interest groups, the other side tossed aside, willy-nilly, some 225 years of Senate history and tradition.  And what's more, by joining the Majority Leader and voting to break the rules, every Senator who did so empowered the President to install judges whose appointments are specifically designed to rubberstamp the President's regulatory agenda.  No one is going to be able to hide from this vote. So, this is a power grab, of course. But it's much more than that.  It's the erosion of the separation of powers.  It's a White House that is so committed to a policy agenda that the American people don't want, that it co-opted the Majority in the United States Senate in its scheme to remove a meaningful judicial check on the executive branch of government and its agenda. This is about a White House trying to rig the game so it can impose its Cap and Trade fee increases on the American people  even though they don't want it.    And this is about a last ditch effort to salvage Obamacare -- and regulations like the IRS rule imposing the employer mandate penalty in 34 states in direct conflict with the statute -- by installing judges the White House believes will rubberstamp it.  I urge my colleagues stand up to this White House. Stand up to the radical liberal interest groups.  Don't cast a vote for Cap and Trade fee increases. And don't cast another vote for Obamacare. Instead, vote against this nomination. I yield the floor.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/qa-military-reform", "Q&A on Military Reform", "2013-12-09", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Q: What's held up the Defense Authorization bill?A: Action stalled in November on the $625 billion defense bill because the Democratic leader refused to agree on allowing additional amendments, beyond those he supports, to be considered during floor debate. This time the legislative logjam affects national security and U.S. troops. In addition to military funding that would be authorized, the bill gives lawmakers an opportunity to legislate policy reforms. Throughout this year I have laid bipartisan groundwork to advance measures designed to strengthen morale among our men and women in uniform. A recent Pentagon study surveyed 100,000 active-duty service members. It found 26,000 members experienced offenses ranging from sexual harassment to sexual assault. Fewer than 3,400 reported the incidents. These numbers reflect a failure of leadership among the top brass to address an issue that has raised questions about the culture of the U.S. military since the 1991 Tailhook scandal two decades ago. The survey suggests the chain of command is unwilling or unable to address this sensitive issue when more than one-quarter of respondents experienced sexual misconduct, but less than four percent stepped forward to report it. Policymakers can't afford to allow a culture of sexual misconduct to continue harming our troops and the military's reputation. Doing so would add up to bigger problems that damage recruitment, retention and readiness.   Q: What are the bipartisan reforms you are championing to combat sexual misconduct within the military?  A: The first is called the Military Whistleblower Protection Act. This amendment would beef up laws intended to protect those who report sexual assault, fraud or other misconduct within the military. Blowing the whistle on wrongdoing should not result in retaliation and victimization of those who come forward to tell the truth. It would extend reporting rules from 60 days to one year and require corrective relief to victims and discipline measures for those who retaliate. It would include support for victims as well as witnesses. This reform would empower service men and women to come forward and report wrongdoing without fear of reprisal. Victims and witnesses should not have to worry that telling the truth would negatively impact their military careers.  The second is called the Military Justice Improvement Act. The military has a blemished track record to prevent and prosecute sexual assaults among its ranks that calls for long overdue reforms. This bill would empower victims to come forward by taking the judicial process for sexual assault cases outside the chain of command. I'm working to help build bipartisan support from lawmakers to get this reform adopted once and for all. It would send an important message to the troops. Sexual predators who prey on their victims within the service branches of the military must stand down. They disgrace the code of honor upheld by the vast majority of men and women in uniform and must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This is a law enforcement issue to help ensure impartial justice.  These reforms would show that the people's branch of the federal government stands up for our brave men and women who put themselves in harm's way to protect the blessings of freedom.   Q: What other amendments are you working to include in the defense bill? A: As a longtime watchdog for the taxpaying public, I'm supporting two reforms that would protect tax dollars from wasteful spending, including a bipartisan amendment that would limit taxpayer-reimbursed compensation for defense contractor executives. Under current law, the compensation reimbursement cap for federal government contractors would automatically increase from $763,029 to $952,308, retroactive to January 2012. When the Pentagon and other federal bureaucracies are being asked to tighten their belts to stay within the budget caps, it just doesn't square that taxpayers will be on the hook for exorbitant salaries for government contractors. I can tell you that not one taxpayer, in my thousands of meetings in each of Iowa' 99 counties in the last 33 years, has said this is a reasonable use of tax dollars. The second reform would improve processes to audit the Pentagon's books. The Department of Defense needs better tools to ensure that money spent is money owed.  I'm also advancing proposals that would make more effective use of the nation's military arsenals, such as the Rock Island Arsenal, to include a requirement that the military consider arsenals when looking at fulfilling equipment needs.  Finally, I'm throwing my support behind two amendments to improve services for veterans. The first is an amendment that would help recruit the best and brightest medical professionals to the Veterans Administration medical system by allowing VA doctors to access an existing program that provides loan forgiveness and scholarships to doctors working in underserved areas. The second is an amendment that would protect the integrity of veterans programs that help those returning from active military service to transition to the private sector. The amendment would clarify the term veteran as one who served in the Armed Forces. It would end a loophole that allows individuals to game the system by claiming veteran status based solely on attendance of a military prep school. It would not affect those who attend a military service academy or who enlist in the military after attending a military prep school. The Support Earned Recognition of Veterans Act would clarify the definition of a veteran to exclude claims made by those who only attended a military prep school from obtaining hiring preferences, veteran-owned small business status or lifetime compensation benefits.  Let's hope the Senate Majority Leader will have a change of mind when the Senate resumes consideration of the defense authorization bill and allow these and other amendments to be debated. These are sensible reforms that would protect the taxpaying public, support the troops and help get the U.S. military get off to a good start in the New Year.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20131216075832/http://www.grassley.senate.gov:80/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47673", "Increase in Federal Contractor Salaries Highlights Need for Legislative Fix", "2013-12-06", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C. \u2013 A bipartisan group of four U.S. Senators today released the following statement expressing their objections with the newly increased allowable level for taxpayer-funded contractor compensation: \u201cWe are deeply troubled by the December 4 announcement by the Office of Management and Budget that the benchmark compensation cap for Federal Government contractors would automatically increase from $763,029 to $952,308, retroactive to January 2012, as required by statute.\u00a0 In the interest of fiscal responsibility and fairness, we remain strongly committed to bringing the allowable level of taxpayer-funded contractor compensation to a figure that makes common sense to the American people.\u00a0 If we do nothing, this figure could rise to $1.6 million by fiscal year 2020.\u00a0 Congress should pass our bipartisan legislative fix (S.1192) as soon as possible to avoid this affront to the taxpayers in the future.\u201d The statement was signed by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Joe Manchin III (D-WV), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Jon Tester (D-MT), who have sponsored the Commonsense Contractor Compensation Act of 2013.\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/increase-federal-contractor-salaries-highlights-need-legislative-fix", "Increase in Federal Contractor Salaries Highlights Need for Legislative Fix", "2013-12-06", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C.  A bipartisan group of four U.S. Senators today released the following statement expressing their objections with the newly increased allowable level for taxpayer-funded contractor compensation: We are deeply troubled by the December 4 announcement by the Office of Management and Budget that the benchmark compensation cap for Federal Government contractors would automatically increase from $763,029 to $952,308, retroactive to January 2012, as required by statute. In the interest of fiscal responsibility and fairness, we remain strongly committed to bringing the allowable level of taxpayer-funded contractor compensation to a figure that makes common sense to the American people. If we do nothing, this figure could rise to $1.6 million by fiscal year 2020. Congress should pass our bipartisan legislative fix (S.1192) as soon as possible to avoid this affront to the taxpayers in the future. The statement was signed by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Joe Manchin III (D-WV), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Jon Tester (D-MT), who have sponsored the Commonsense Contractor Compensation Act of 2013.\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/epa-bypasses-rule-making-procedures-gets-caught", "EPA Bypasses Rule-making Procedures, Gets Caught", "2013-12-03", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Federal rule-making procedures are important for holding the federal government accountable to the public. Federal agencies wield tremendous power. The way they decide to interpret and enforce federal law through rules and regulations has significant ramifications for the affected parties, whether individuals, business owners or state and local governments. These federal rules have the effect of law, but those who develop them are not elected. The only way average citizens can impact the process is through the federal law  called the Administrative Procedure Act  mandating that agencies solicit public comments before instituting a new rule.\nThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently provided a case study of why federal rule-making procedures matter. The EPA bypassed basic rule-making procedures to enforce new restrictions on wastewater treatment. The restrictions are expensive for city and county governments and, consequently, for local taxpayers.  \n\nThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit invalidated the EPA's action on procedural grounds. The appeals court decided the agency changed its policy without public notice and without seeking public comment, as required by law. Now, the EPA says it will implement that decision only in the 8th Circuit. It will not enforce the new rules in the states in the 8th Circuit. The agency will continue to enforce its guidance on wastewater treatment as if it were a formal rule, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, in the rest of the country.  \nThe EPA tried to violate basic rule-making procedures and got caught. Now, the agency is enforcing the violation everywhere except for the court circuit where it lost its case. This isn't the way to conduct agency business. The rules are in place for good reason. They're meant to keep the public involved and informed of major decision-making and hold agencies accountability for their actions. As Americans, we pride ourselves on setting and following the rule of law. An agency that flouts the law undermines public trust in government and erodes our strength as a country.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/report-shows-possible-audit-misconduct-defense-department", "Report Shows Possible Audit Misconduct at Defense Department", "2013-12-03", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "It appears that the Defense Department's flagship accounting agency, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), is suffering its own audit woes, despite receiving clean bills of health on its own financial statements from an outside qualified government auditor.\nAdding insult to injury, the Office of the Inspector General (IG), an office that is supposed to be independent and tasked with conducting oversight of the Defense Department and the agencies within the department, seems to have turned a blind eye to the problems within the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. It looks like the IG buckled under pressure from the DFAS when attempting to conduct oversight of the troubled agency's financial statements. Because of all the bungling and ethical missteps on these audits, the independence and integrity of the Inspector General's audit process may have been compromised.\nIt came to my attention in April 2012, when I began receiving allegations of misconduct regarding the Defense Finance and Accounting Service opinion audits. My office then initiated a review of official records of those audits with the guidance of Certified Public Accounting-qualified government auditors. My findings are outlined in a letter and staff oversight report that I forwarded on Nov. 22 to both Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Defense Department Inspector General Jon Rymer.\nDiscoveries in documents, when coupled with verbal and written interviews of knowledgeable officials, tell the story of what really happened. And it's not a pretty picture. If this snapshot is characteristic of the work being produced by that office, we have a problem.\nAudits are a primary oversight tool for rooting out fraud and waste in the government. To protect taxpayers, these government audits must be as good as they can be. Effective audit reporting is the key to pinpointing long-standing accounting deficiencies that allow waste and theft to go undetected and unchecked. Hard-hitting audits should help senior management apply mandated cuts where they are needed most. But, as long as the Inspector General's audit shop, the main check on DFAS, remains weak and ineffective, the probability of rooting out much fraud and waste during spending cuts under sequestration is very low.\nAs a result of the Inspector General Office's turning its head, instead of helping to identify places to save money, it looks like the Defense Finance and Accounting Service may be free and clear in trying to hide its own problems by pretending its books are in order and then running roughshod over anybody who dares to question its clean audit.\nClick here to see a summary of the findings and recommendations in the staff oversight report. Click here to see the report.\n\nClick here to read a news story written by McClatchy reporters Jim Rosen and Marisa Taylor about my report and the problems within the Defense Finance and Accounting Service: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/22/209356/pentagons-bosses-thwart-accurate.html", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/strengthening-military-whistleblower-protections", "Strengthening Military Whistleblower Protections", "2013-12-03", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "As the Senate debates the Defense Authorization bill, I introduced with several colleagues an amendment to strengthen military whistleblower protection laws to ensure those who report sexual assault and other misconduct are not further victimized by retaliation. There's plenty of evidence that military personnel have an unbelievably difficult time when blowing the whistle on misconduct, fraud or even sexual assault. Too often, these complaints get tossed into the garbage for no good reason. Retaliation seems to be the norm rather than the exception. The simple changes in our amendment can make a big difference for whistleblowers. The bipartisan Military Whistleblower Protection Act would extend whistleblower protections to witnesses as well as victims, and ensures action is taken both to provide corrective relief to victims of retaliation and to discipline those who retaliate. It also extends the current 60-day period to file a report to one year, bringing it more in line with other federal and contractor whistleblowers who have longer reporting periodsoften up to three years to report misconduct. Finally, it requires the service branches to actively support those with confirmed cases of retaliation by submitting their request to clean up their records to the Board for Military Correction of Records, rather than leaving that responsibility solely on victims to accomplish on their own. A Government Accountability Office audit reported that more than 60 percent of service members who reported sexual assaults in 2012 experienced retaliation. Less than 1 percent of whistleblowers who filed reprisal complaints obtained relief, and only 19 percent of those who the Inspector Generals' certified had experienced retaliation ever got their records corrected. Additionally, a Pentagon study released in May 2013 and based on a confidential survey sent to more than 100,000 active-duty service members found as many as 26,000 members of the military experienced offenses ranging from sexual harassment to sexual assault last year. However, fewer than 3,400 individuals reported the incidents. The Department of Defense concluded most victims did not step forward because they worried about retaliation and believed that reporting the alleged offense would negatively impact their military careers. The amendment I cosponsored with Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine of Virginia and Susan Collins of Maine is supported by more than 50 good government, public health and veterans' organizations. The Military Whistleblower Protection Act amendment goes hand in hand with another amendment I'm cosponsoring with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. The Military Justice Improvement Act amendment takes prosecutions out of the hands of commanders and gives them to professional prosecutors who are independent of the chain of command to help ensure impartial justice for the men and women of our armed forces. It's the right thing to do, it will improve military morale and readiness, and it protects those who volunteer to defend our nation and protect our freedoms.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20131217114610/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47640", "Unfinished Business", "2013-12-02", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "During the tugs of war that crop up in Washington during political debates and policymaking, it\u2019s not surprising the act of legislating has often been compared to the art of sausage making.\u00a0 The give-and-take that has long characterized the legislative meat grinder on Capitol Hill has been put on the chopping block. Consider an analogy attributed long ago to George Washington. He compared the bicameral functions of the upper and lower chambers of Congress to a cooling saucer and hot coffee.\u00a0 America\u2019s first president suggested the Senate \u201ccools\u201d legislation passed by the more tumultuous House of Representatives. Skip ahead two centuries and regrettably, heated tempers were not allowed to cool in the deliberative senatorial saucer during a recent rule change in the U.S. Senate.\u00a0 Instead of cooling his heels, the Majority Leader booted the institutional traditions and decorum associated with the upper chamber of Congress.\u00a0 His cavalier power grab leaves a stain on the world\u2019s greatest deliberative governing body, weakening its tradition for civility and consensus. Despite the discouraging setback that meddles with the constitutional principles of the Senate\u2019s advice and consent authority, important legislative and oversight work continues\u00a0 as we near the end of the calendar year.\u00a0 Unfinished business includes the budget blueprint and the farm and food bill. Working under the shadow of a $17 trillion national debt, lawmakers need to come to grips with the fact that Washington cannot tax-and-spend its way to prosperity.\u00a0 As a member of the budget conference tasked with a Dec. 13 deadline, I want the committee to reach an agreement that will set spending parameters for the federal government through the next fiscal year.\u00a0 So far, big spenders keep trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole, hooked on a utopian mindset that Big Government can solve all our problems.\u00a0 Just look where that\u2019s gotten us:\u00a0 unsustainable spending, broken promises and a cynical American public. Washington also keeps kicking the can down the road on the farm and food bill. Rural America, the nation\u2019s food producers and the taxpaying public deserve better, long-term certainty than yet another short-term extension.\u00a0 This important piece of public policy sets into place farm and nutrition safety nets, conservation incentives and rural development programs.\u00a0 A big sticking point hinges on how much savings to extract from the food stamp program.\u00a0 All sides agree enrollment has soared.\u00a0 The expiring farm and food bill spent 80 percent of its budget on nutrition programs, including food stamps.\u00a0 In September, 15 percent of the population, or about 47 million Americans, received food stamp benefits. On the farm side of the spending ledger, I\u2019m championing payment caps that limit how much individual farmers may receive per year.\u00a0 I\u2019m also working to maintain support for closing a loophole that exploits the taxpaying public.\u00a0 Currently, general partnerships and joint ventures may qualify for farm payments using \u201cactive personal management\u201d guidelines that allow hundreds of millions of tax dollars to flow though this loophole.\u00a0 The provisions I authored would allow only one off-farm manager to address the abusive practice of multiple non-farming individuals receiving payments without having a significant role in farm management.\u00a0 It\u2019s time to put teeth into the law to keep our farm safety net defensible in an era that calls for serious belt-tightening across-the-board. If Congress fails to reach an agreement on the farm and food bill, consumers could experience serious sticker shock in January.\u00a0 Prices for milk could double if current commodity programs expire.\u00a0 That\u2019s because the underlying permanent farm law would trigger the U.S. Department of Agriculture to set the floor price for milk at about $39 per 100 pounds.\u00a0 Although I\u2019m not serving on the conference committee hammering out the details on a final bill, I\u2019m riding herd on lawmakers to keep the reforms in place that were in both the House- and Senate-passed bills.\u00a0 It\u2019s time to give farmers the certainty they need to make business decisions for the year ahead.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043259/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47635", "EPA Bypasses Rule-making Procedures, Gets Caught", "2013-12-02", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Federal rule-making procedures are important for holding the federal government accountable to the public.\u00a0 Federal agencies wield tremendous power.\u00a0 The way they decide to interpret and enforce federal law through rules and regulations has significant ramifications for the affected parties, whether individuals, business owners or state and local governments.\u00a0 These federal rules have the effect of law, but those who develop them are not elected.\u00a0 The only way average citizens can impact the process is through the federal law \u2013 called the Administrative Procedure Act \u2013 mandating that agencies solicit public comments before instituting a new rule.\n  \nThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently provided a case study of why federal rule-making procedures matter.\u00a0 The EPA bypassed basic rule-making procedures to enforce new restrictions on wastewater treatment.\u00a0 The restrictions are expensive for city and county governments and, consequently, for local taxpayers.  \n\n\u00a0\nThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit invalidated the EPA\u2019s action on procedural grounds.\u00a0 The appeals court decided the agency changed its policy without public notice and without seeking public comment, as required by law.\u00a0 Now, the EPA says it will implement that decision only in the 8th Circuit.\u00a0 It will not enforce the new rules in the states in the 8th Circuit.\u00a0 The agency will continue to enforce its guidance on wastewater treatment as if it were a formal rule, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, in the rest of the country.  \n\n  \nThe EPA tried to violate basic rule-making procedures and got caught.\u00a0 Now, the agency is enforcing the violation everywhere except for the court circuit where it lost its case.\u00a0 This isn\u2019t the way to conduct agency business.\u00a0 The rules are in place for good reason.\u00a0 They\u2019re meant to keep the public involved and informed of major decision-making and hold agencies accountability for their actions.\u00a0 As Americans, we pride ourselves on setting and following the rule of law.\u00a0 An agency that flouts the law undermines public trust in government and erodes our strength as a country.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043304/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47632", "Report Shows Possible Audit Misconduct at Defense Department", "2013-12-02", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "It appears that the Defense Department\u2019s flagship accounting agency, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), is suffering its own audit woes, despite receiving clean bills of health on its own financial statements from an outside qualified government auditor.\u00a0 Adding insult to injury, the Office of the Inspector General (IG), an office that is supposed to be independent and tasked with conducting oversight of the Defense Department and the agencies within the department, seems to have turned a blind eye to the problems within the Defense Finance and Accounting Service.\u00a0 It looks like the IG buckled under pressure from the DFAS when attempting to conduct oversight of the troubled agency\u2019s financial statements.\u00a0 Because of all the bungling and ethical missteps on these audits, the independence and integrity of the Inspector General\u2019s audit process may have been compromised. It came to my attention in April 2012, when I began receiving allegations of misconduct regarding the Defense Finance and Accounting Service opinion audits.\u00a0 My office then initiated a review of official records of those audits with the guidance of Certified Public Accounting-qualified government auditors.\u00a0 My findings are outlined in a letter and staff oversight report that I forwarded on Nov. 22 to both Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Defense Department Inspector General Jon Rymer. Discoveries in documents, when coupled with verbal and written interviews of knowledgeable officials, tell the story of what really happened.\u00a0 And it\u2019s not a pretty picture.\u00a0 If this snapshot is characteristic of the work being produced by that office, we have a problem. Audits are a primary oversight tool for rooting out fraud and waste in the government.\u00a0 To protect taxpayers, these government audits must be as good as they can be.\u00a0 Effective audit reporting is the key to pinpointing long-standing accounting deficiencies that allow waste and theft to go undetected and unchecked.\u00a0 Hard-hitting audits should help senior management apply mandated cuts where they are needed most.\u00a0 But, as long as the Inspector General\u2019s audit shop, the main check on DFAS, remains weak and ineffective, the probability of rooting out much fraud and waste during spending cuts under sequestration is very low.\u00a0 As a result of the Inspector General Office\u2019s turning its head, instead of helping to identify places to save money, it looks like the Defense Finance and Accounting Service may be free and clear in trying to hide its own problems by pretending its books are in order and then running roughshod over anybody who dares to question its \u201cclean\u201d audit. Click here to see a summary of the findings and recommendations in the staff oversight report.\u00a0 Click here to see the report.\n\u00a0\nClick here to read a news story written by McClatchy reporters Jim Rosen and Marisa Taylor about my report and the problems within the Defense Finance and Accounting Service: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/22/209356/pentagons-bosses-thwart-accurate.html", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221044515/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47629", "Strengthening Military Whistleblower Protections", "2013-12-02", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "As the Senate debates the Defense Authorization bill, I introduced with several colleagues an amendment to strengthen military whistleblower protection laws to ensure those who report sexual assault and other misconduct are not further victimized by retaliation.\u00a0 There\u2019s plenty of evidence that military personnel have an unbelievably difficult time when blowing the whistle on misconduct, fraud or even sexual assault.\u00a0 Too often, these complaints get tossed into the garbage for no good reason.\u00a0 Retaliation seems to be the norm rather than the exception.\u00a0 The simple changes in our amendment can make a big difference for whistleblowers. The bipartisan Military Whistleblower Protection Act would extend whistleblower protections to witnesses as well as victims, and ensures action is taken both to provide corrective relief to victims of retaliation and to discipline those who retaliate. It also extends the current 60-day period to file a report to one year, bringing it more in line with other federal and contractor whistleblowers who have longer reporting periods\u2014often up to three years to report misconduct. Finally, it requires the service branches to actively support those with confirmed cases of retaliation by submitting their request to clean up their records to the Board for Military Correction of Records, rather than leaving that responsibility solely on victims to accomplish on their own. A Government Accountability Office audit reported that more than 60 percent of service members who reported sexual assaults in 2012 experienced retaliation.\u00a0 Less than 1 percent of whistleblowers who filed reprisal complaints obtained relief, and only 19 percent of those who the Inspector Generals\u2019 certified had experienced retaliation ever got their records corrected.\u00a0 Additionally, a Pentagon study released in May 2013 and based on a confidential survey sent to more than 100,000 active-duty service members found as many as 26,000 members of the military experienced offenses ranging from sexual harassment to sexual assault last year. However, fewer than 3,400 individuals reported the incidents. The Department of Defense concluded most victims did not step forward because they worried about retaliation and believed that reporting the alleged offense would negatively impact their military careers. The amendment I cosponsored with Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine of Virginia and Susan Collins of Maine is supported by more than 50 good government, public health and veterans\u2019 organizations. The Military Whistleblower Protection Act amendment goes hand in hand with another amendment I\u2019m cosponsoring with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York.\u00a0 The Military Justice Improvement Act amendment takes prosecutions out of the hands of commanders and gives them to professional prosecutors who are independent of the chain of command to help ensure impartial justice for the men and women of our armed forces.\u00a0 It\u2019s the right thing to do, it will improve military morale and readiness, and it protects those who volunteer to defend our nation and protect our freedoms.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/unfinished-business", "Unfinished Business", "2013-12-02", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "During the tugs of war that crop up in Washington during political debates and policymaking, it's not surprising the act of legislating has often been compared to the art of sausage making. The give-and-take that has long characterized the legislative meat grinder on Capitol Hill has been put on the chopping block. Consider an analogy attributed long ago to George Washington. He compared the bicameral functions of the upper and lower chambers of Congress to a cooling saucer and hot coffee. America's first president suggested the Senate cools legislation passed by the more tumultuous House of Representatives. Skip ahead two centuries and regrettably, heated tempers were not allowed to cool in the deliberative senatorial saucer during a recent rule change in the U.S. Senate. Instead of cooling his heels, the Majority Leader booted the institutional traditions and decorum associated with the upper chamber of Congress. His cavalier power grab leaves a stain on the world's greatest deliberative governing body, weakening its tradition for civility and consensus. Despite the discouraging setback that meddles with the constitutional principles of the Senate's advice and consent authority, important legislative and oversight work continues as we near the end of the calendar year. Unfinished business includes the budget blueprint and the farm and food bill. Working under the shadow of a $17 trillion national debt, lawmakers need to come to grips with the fact that Washington cannot tax-and-spend its way to prosperity. As a member of the budget conference tasked with a Dec. 13 deadline, I want the committee to reach an agreement that will set spending parameters for the federal government through the next fiscal year. So far, big spenders keep trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole, hooked on a utopian mindset that Big Government can solve all our problems. Just look where that's gotten us: unsustainable spending, broken promises and a cynical American public. Washington also keeps kicking the can down the road on the farm and food bill. Rural America, the nation's food producers and the taxpaying public deserve better, long-term certainty than yet another short-term extension. This important piece of public policy sets into place farm and nutrition safety nets, conservation incentives and rural development programs. A big sticking point hinges on how much savings to extract from the food stamp program. All sides agree enrollment has soared. The expiring farm and food bill spent 80 percent of its budget on nutrition programs, including food stamps. In September, 15 percent of the population, or about 47 million Americans, received food stamp benefits. On the farm side of the spending ledger, I'm championing payment caps that limit how much individual farmers may receive per year. I'm also working to maintain support for closing a loophole that exploits the taxpaying public. Currently, general partnerships and joint ventures may qualify for farm payments using active personal management guidelines that allow hundreds of millions of tax dollars to flow though this loophole. The provisions I authored would allow only one off-farm manager to address the abusive practice of multiple non-farming individuals receiving payments without having a significant role in farm management. It's time to put teeth into the law to keep our farm safety net defensible in an era that calls for serious belt-tightening across-the-board. If Congress fails to reach an agreement on the farm and food bill, consumers could experience serious sticker shock in January. Prices for milk could double if current commodity programs expire. That's because the underlying permanent farm law would trigger the U.S. Department of Agriculture to set the floor price for milk at about $39 per 100 pounds. Although I'm not serving on the conference committee hammering out the details on a final bill, I'm riding herd on lawmakers to keep the reforms in place that were in both the House- and Senate-passed bills. It's time to give farmers the certainty they need to make business decisions for the year ahead.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20131208225506/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47602", "Grassley Comments on USDA Breakdown of Actively Engaged Data", "2013-11-26", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Senator Chuck Grassley made the following statement after the U.S. Department of Agriculture made available additional information about farm payments being received by general partnerships and joint ventures through people using the \u201cactive personal management only.\u201d The figures are a more detailed look at information provided in a Government Accountability Office report that Grassley released last month.\u00a0 According to the GAO report, entities set up as General Partnerships received about $159 million while entities set up as Joint Ventures received $12 million in 2012 through extra \u2018active personal management only\u2019 persons.\u00a0 Click here to see the breakdown of the information by state provided by the Department of Agriculture.\u00a0 The amounts going to states through this loophole range from more than $52 million per year to nearly $1,000 per year. \u201cMore than $172 million went out the door in 2012 through this loophole.\u00a0 The data provided by the Department of Agriculture shows that the loophole is exploited by some states more than others.\u00a0 The loophole is closed in both the House and Senate bills, yet it\u2019s still a discussion point.\u00a0 The United States has a $17 trillion debt, unsustainable entitlements, and record land prices, yet we\u2019re hearing some members of Congress still don\u2019t want to tighten the law that would do nothing more than prevent a few of the\u00a0 biggest, wealthiest farmers from exploiting taxpayers.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-comments-usda-breakdown-actively-engaged-data", "Grassley Comments on USDA Breakdown of Actively Engaged Data", "2013-11-26", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Senator Chuck Grassley made the following statement after the U.S. Department of Agriculture made available additional information about farm payments being received by general partnerships and joint ventures through people using the active personal management only.\nThe figures are a more detailed look at information provided in a Government Accountability Office report that Grassley released last month. According to the GAO report, entities set up as General Partnerships received about $159 million while entities set up as Joint Ventures received $12 million in 2012 through extra active personal management only' persons. Click here to see the breakdown of the information by state provided by the Department of Agriculture. The amounts going to states through this loophole range from more than $52 million per year to nearly $1,000 per year.\nMore than $172 million went out the door in 2012 through this loophole. The data provided by the Department of Agriculture shows that the loophole is exploited by some states more than others. The loophole is closed in both the House and Senate bills, yet it's still a discussion point. The United States has a $17 trillion debt, unsustainable entitlements, and record land prices, yet we're hearing some members of Congress still don't want to tighten the law that would do nothing more than prevent a few of the biggest, wealthiest farmers from exploiting taxpayers.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043313/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47574", "EPA decision to continue violating Administrative Procedure Act", "2013-11-22", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has decided to enforce guidance on wastewater treatment as if it were a binding rule without going through the proper rulemaking process for all areas of the country except for the 8th Circuit, where it lost a court case.\u00a0 Earlier, the EPA confirmed it was enforcing the new requirement in correspondence with Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa.\u00a0 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit invalidated the EPA\u2019s action, deciding that EPA changed its policy without notice and comment, as required by law.\u00a0 Now, the EPA says it will implement that decision only in the 8th Circuit.\u00a0 The agency will continue to enforce guidance on wastewater treatment as if it were a formal rule, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, in the rest of the country.\u00a0\u00a0\n  \nSen. Grassley and Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, have been critical of the EPA\u2019s action.\u00a0 They made the following comments on the latest decision from the EPA.\n  \nGrassley comment:\u00a0 \u201cThe EPA tried to violate basic rule-making procedures and got caught.\u00a0 Now, the agency is enforcing the violation everywhere except for the court circuit where it lost its case.\u00a0 This isn\u2019t the way to conduct agency business.\u00a0 The rules are in place for good reason.\u00a0 They\u2019re meant to keep the public involved and informed of major decision-making and hold agencies accountability for their decisions.\u00a0 The EPA should have followed the letter of the law.\u201d\u00a0  \n\n\u00a0\nVitter comment:\u00a0 \u201cThe EPA is trying to sneak in a burdensome, new water treatment regulation despite the Courts ruling against them. They need to unambiguously and fairly apply the invalidation of this illegal water treatment regulation on a national level.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043320/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47568", "Obamacare Enrollment Date Shift Hides Key Information from Voters", "2013-11-22", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following comment on the Obamacare open enrollment date shift for next year. \u201cLast night at 8:29, CMS put out a notice that it is shifting the start of open enrollment next year from October 1, 2014, to November 15, 2014.\u00a0 That means that if premiums go through the roof in the first year of Obamacare, no one will know about it until after the election.\u00a0\u00a0 This is clearly a cynical political move by the Obama Administration to use extra-regulatory, by any means necessary tools to keep this program afloat and hide key information from voters.\u00a0 The Obama Administration ought to answer for this shift.\u00a0 The Administration is welcome to prove me wrong by committing to put out 2015 plan year premium rates by November 1, 2014.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043323/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47565", "Grassley Reports on Possible Audit Misconduct at Defense Department", "2013-11-22", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013 Senator Chuck Grassley today said that the Department of Defense\u2019s flagship accounting agency, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), likely did not earn clean opinions on its own financial statements despite claims to the contrary, putting the Secretary of Defense\u2019s audit readiness initiative in jeopardy.  \n\u00a0  \n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In addition, the Office of the Inspector General (IG) seems to have turned a blind eye to the problems within the Defense Finance and Accounting Service.\u00a0 The IG appears to have buckled under pressure from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service when it attempted to conduct oversight of the troubled agency\u2019s financial statements required by the Chief Financial Officers Act.\u00a0 Because of all the bungling and ethical missteps on these audits, the independence and integrity of the Inspector General\u2019s audit process may have been compromised.  \n\u00a0  \n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Grassley released the findings and recommendations in a staff oversight report.\u00a0 These have been forwarded to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Defense Department Inspector General Jon Rymer in a joint letter today.  \n\u00a0  \n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cAudits are a primary oversight tool for rooting out fraud and waste in the government.\u00a0 To protect taxpayers, these government audits must be as good as they can be,\u201d Grassley said.\u00a0 \u201cEffective audit reporting is the key to pinpointing long-standing accounting deficiencies that allow waste and theft to go undetected and unchecked.\u00a0 Hard-hitting audits should help senior management separate the wheat from the chaff and apply mandated cuts where they are needed most. But, as long as the Inspector General\u2019s audit shop remains weak and ineffective, the probability of rooting out much fraud and waste during sequestration is very low.\u00a0 And, instead of helping identify where savings can be made, it looks like the Defense Finance and Accounting Service may be trying to hide its own problems by pretending their books are in order and then running roughshod over anybody who dares to question their \u2018clean\u2019 audit.\u201d  \n\u00a0  \n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In April 2012, Grassley began receiving allegations of misconduct regarding the Defense Finance and Accounting Service opinion audits.\u00a0 Grassley staff initiated a review of official records of those audits with the guidance of Certified Public Accounting (CPA)-qualified government auditors.\u00a0  \n\u00a0  \n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cDiscoveries in these documents, when coupled with verbal and written interviews of knowledgeable officials, tell the story of what really happened.\u00a0 And it\u2019s not a pretty picture.\u00a0 If this snapshot is characteristic of the work being produced by that office, we have a problem,\u201d Grassley wrote to Hagel and Rymer.\u00a0 \u201cTo make matters worse, the Inspector General -\u00a0 the institution that exists to root out fraud, waste and abuse \u2013 appears to have played the role of silent enabler in the alleged misconduct.\u00a0 It\u2019s a disgrace to the Inspector General community.\u201d  \n\u00a0  \n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Click here to read the letter to Hagel and Rymer.\u00a0 Click here to read the report.  \n\u00a0  \n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Here is a summary of Grassley\u2019s findings in the report.  \n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 A CPA firm awarded \u201cclean\u201d opinion audits on financial statements produced by DFAS since fiscal 2002.\u00a0 The Inspector General took a two-year snapshot and examined the firm\u2019s opinions, but the Inspector General didn\u2019t report on whether they met prescribed audit standards, as required by the contract, policy, and law, due to a series of ethical and legal blunders.  \n\u00a0  \n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The work performed by DFAS was substandard.\u00a0 The outside CPA firm rubber-stamped DFAS\u2019 flawed practices using defective audit methods.  \n\u00a0  \n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The IG was steamrolled by DFAS and possibly other forces and pressured not to call foul on the outside CPA firm.\u00a0 Instead of exposing poor practices by both DFAS and the CPA firm, the IG tried to cover its tracks.  \n\u00a0  \n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The bungled opinion audits of DFAS have the potential for undermining the credibility of the Secretary of Defense\u2019s audit readiness initiative and the independence and integrity of the audit process may have been compromised.  \n\u00a0  \n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 DFAS\u2019 apparent inability to accurately report its own internal \u201chousekeeping\u201d accounts of $1.5 billion casts doubt on its ability to accurately report on the hundreds of billions of dollars the Defense Department spends each year. If the department\u2019s central accounting agency can\u2019t earn a \u201cclean\u201d opinion, then who in the department can?  \n\u00a0  \nHere are Grassley\u2019s recommendations in the report.  \n\u00a0  \n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Department of Defense Chief Financial Officer should \"pull\" the DFAS Working Capital Fund financial Statements for fiscal 2008 and 2009 and remove those audit opinions from official records.  \n\u00a0  \n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Office of the Inspector General needs to undertake an independent audit of DFAS' financial statements for fiscal 2012 and/or 2013 and determine whether those statements and the CPA firm's opinion report meet government audit standards as required by the IG Act.\u00a0 This work needs to include the verification of the fiscal 2012 beginning account balances.\u00a0 The OIG examination should be coordinated with and reviewed by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).\u00a0 Consistent with this recommendation, the Office of the Inspector General has already initiated a \"Post Audit Review\" of DFAS' fiscal 2012 financial statements. And at Grassley's request, the GAO has agreed to independently validate the results of that work to ensure that it meets all applicable standards. This work is ongoing.  \n\u00a0  \n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Inspector General should address and resolve any allegations of misconduct involving DFAS officials and make appropriate recommendations for corrective action.  \n\u00a0  \n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Grassley will refer allegations of misconduct by OIG staff to the Integrity Committee of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency for further review and resolution as provided under the IG Reform Act of 2008.  \n\u00a0  \n-30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043329/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47558", "Q&A on FISA", "2013-11-22", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Q: What is FISA?  \nA: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is more commonly known by its acronym FISA.\u00a0 The law sets the parameters by which America\u2019s intelligence community may conduct physical and electronic surveillance of those suspected of espionage or terrorism.\u00a0 Until the 9/11 terrorist attacks, many Americans likely were largely unaware of surveillance powers authorized by this federal law that was designed to protect U.S. national security and economic interests.\u00a0 More recently, FISA has made headlines due to controversial activities conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA) over the last decade.\u00a0 Since 9/11 the NSA has cast a wide surveillance net that calls into question privacy protections and Fourth Amendment rights related to search and seizure, including a program through which it collects information about the telephone calls of Americans but not the content of the calls themselves.  \n\u00a0  \nQ: What is at stake?  \nA: An abundance of skepticism exists today among Americans about the size and scope of the federal government.\u00a0 The $17 trillion national debt represents unbridled tax and spending policies that allow the government to grow at the expense of the taxpaying public.\u00a0 The bungled rollout of the Affordable Care Act is arguably circus peanuts compared to the intrusive impact that the sweeping health care law\u2019s mandates, penalties and taxes will have on job creation, economic growth and the taxpaying public.\u00a0 Likewise, the revelations leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden this summer have triggered considerable public debate and civil lawsuits that challenge the government\u2019s authority to deploy sweeping surveillance measures at the expense of individual privacy.\u00a0 Our system of self-government counts upon the fundamental functions of checks and balances to make the government work of, by and for the people.\u00a0 The government\u2019s fundamental mission to protect public safety, secure the homeland and uphold national security does not come with a license to ignore constitutional boundaries, legal precedents and rule of law that governs our nation.\u00a0 Americans expect their government to leave no stone unturned to protect national security interests.\u00a0 The citizenry also expects its government to protect the freedoms and civil liberty set in stone by the U.S. Constitution.\u00a0 Americans from across the political spectrum are unsettled about the NSA\u2019s activities.\u00a0 Technology is transforming the way the federal government is able to conduct surveillance and intelligence activities.\u00a0 Similarly, debates about privacy are building in local communities around the country as law enforcement authorities use surveillance cameras to issue citations for traffic violations.\u00a0 Both raise complicated issues involving public safety and personal privacy.\u00a0 Just because 21st century capabilities exist to collect mass surveillance does not mean government gets unchecked authority to ignore the founding principles established centuries ago to protect \u201cwe the people\u201d from government intrusion.  \n\u00a0  \nQ: What are next steps in the unfolding debate on U.S. surveillance policy?  \nA: From my leadership position on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, I\u2019m scrutinizing the scope of the federal government\u2019s surveillance activities through congressional oversight hearings and analyzing bipartisan proposals to address flaws in the system.\u00a0 Legislative reforms may be needed to rein in surveillance overreach, foster transparency and enforce accountability among the U.S. intelligence community, including possible disclosure reforms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).\u00a0 The architecture of our republic\u2019s system of checks and balances authorizes the three branches of the federal government to keep an eye on each other to prevent authoritarianism from intruding on individual rights.\u00a0 Congress is obligated to ensure the U.S. intelligence apparatus does not overstep constitutionally protected rights of individuals while fulfilling its core mission to protect national security.\u00a0 After 9/11, policymakers zeroed in on the failure of the federal government to \u201cconnect the dots\u201d and thwart terrorism on U.S. soil.\u00a0 Moving forward, policymakers can help rebuild the public\u2019s trust in the government\u2019s ability to \u201cconnect the dots\u201d and strike a better balance between intelligence-gathering activities and individual rights.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/epa-decision-continue-violating-administrative-procedure-act", "EPA decision to continue violating Administrative Procedure Act", "2013-11-22", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has decided to enforce guidance on wastewater treatment as if it were a binding rule without going through the proper rulemaking process for all areas of the country except for the 8th Circuit, where it lost a court case. Earlier, the EPA confirmed it was enforcing the new requirement in correspondence with Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit invalidated the EPA's action, deciding that EPA changed its policy without notice and comment, as required by law. Now, the EPA says it will implement that decision only in the 8th Circuit. The agency will continue to enforce guidance on wastewater treatment as if it were a formal rule, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, in the rest of the country.\nSen. Grassley and Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, have been critical of the EPA's action. They made the following comments on the latest decision from the EPA.\nGrassley comment: The EPA tried to violate basic rule-making procedures and got caught. Now, the agency is enforcing the violation everywhere except for the court circuit where it lost its case. This isn't the way to conduct agency business. The rules are in place for good reason. They're meant to keep the public involved and informed of major decision-making and hold agencies accountability for their decisions. The EPA should have followed the letter of the law.  \n\nVitter comment: The EPA is trying to sneak in a burdensome, new water treatment regulation despite the Courts ruling against them. They need to unambiguously and fairly apply the invalidation of this illegal water treatment regulation on a national level.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-reports-possible-audit-misconduct-defense-department", "Grassley Reports on Possible Audit Misconduct at Defense Department", "2013-11-22", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON  Senator Chuck Grassley today said that the Department of Defense's flagship accounting agency, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), likely did not earn clean opinions on its own financial statements despite claims to the contrary, putting the Secretary of Defense's audit readiness initiative in jeopardy.  \n  \n In addition, the Office of the Inspector General (IG) seems to have turned a blind eye to the problems within the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. The IG appears to have buckled under pressure from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service when it attempted to conduct oversight of the troubled agency's financial statements required by the Chief Financial Officers Act. Because of all the bungling and ethical missteps on these audits, the independence and integrity of the Inspector General's audit process may have been compromised.  \n  \n Grassley released the findings and recommendations in a staff oversight report. These have been forwarded to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Defense Department Inspector General Jon Rymer in a joint letter today.  \n  \n Audits are a primary oversight tool for rooting out fraud and waste in the government. To protect taxpayers, these government audits must be as good as they can be, Grassley said. Effective audit reporting is the key to pinpointing long-standing accounting deficiencies that allow waste and theft to go undetected and unchecked. Hard-hitting audits should help senior management separate the wheat from the chaff and apply mandated cuts where they are needed most. But, as long as the Inspector General's audit shop remains weak and ineffective, the probability of rooting out much fraud and waste during sequestration is very low. And, instead of helping identify where savings can be made, it looks like the Defense Finance and Accounting Service may be trying to hide its own problems by pretending their books are in order and then running roughshod over anybody who dares to question their clean' audit.  \n  \n In April 2012, Grassley began receiving allegations of misconduct regarding the Defense Finance and Accounting Service opinion audits. Grassley staff initiated a review of official records of those audits with the guidance of Certified Public Accounting (CPA)-qualified government auditors.  \n  \n Discoveries in these documents, when coupled with verbal and written interviews of knowledgeable officials, tell the story of what really happened. And it's not a pretty picture. If this snapshot is characteristic of the work being produced by that office, we have a problem, Grassley wrote to Hagel and Rymer. To make matters worse, the Inspector General - the institution that exists to root out fraud, waste and abuse  appears to have played the role of silent enabler in the alleged misconduct. It's a disgrace to the Inspector General community.  \n  \n Click here to read the letter to Hagel and Rymer. Click here to read the report.  \n  \n Here is a summary of Grassley's findings in the report.  \n A CPA firm awarded clean opinion audits on financial statements produced by DFAS since fiscal 2002. The Inspector General took a two-year snapshot and examined the firm's opinions, but the Inspector General didn't report on whether they met prescribed audit standards, as required by the contract, policy, and law, due to a series of ethical and legal blunders.  \n  \n The work performed by DFAS was substandard. The outside CPA firm rubber-stamped DFAS' flawed practices using defective audit methods.  \n  \n The IG was steamrolled by DFAS and possibly other forces and pressured not to call foul on the outside CPA firm. Instead of exposing poor practices by both DFAS and the CPA firm, the IG tried to cover its tracks.  \n  \n The bungled opinion audits of DFAS have the potential for undermining the credibility of the Secretary of Defense's audit readiness initiative and the independence and integrity of the audit process may have been compromised.  \n  \n DFAS' apparent inability to accurately report its own internal housekeeping accounts of $1.5 billion casts doubt on its ability to accurately report on the hundreds of billions of dollars the Defense Department spends each year. If the department's central accounting agency can't earn a clean opinion, then who in the department can?  \n  \nHere are Grassley's recommendations in the report.  \n  \n The Department of Defense Chief Financial Officer should \"pull\" the DFAS Working Capital Fund financial Statements for fiscal 2008 and 2009 and remove those audit opinions from official records.  \n  \n The Office of the Inspector General needs to undertake an independent audit of DFAS' financial statements for fiscal 2012 and/or 2013 and determine whether those statements and the CPA firm's opinion report meet government audit standards as required by the IG Act. This work needs to include the verification of the fiscal 2012 beginning account balances. The OIG examination should be coordinated with and reviewed by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Consistent with this recommendation, the Office of the Inspector General has already initiated a \"Post Audit Review\" of DFAS' fiscal 2012 financial statements. And at Grassley's request, the GAO has agreed to independently validate the results of that work to ensure that it meets all applicable standards. This work is ongoing.  \n  \n The Inspector General should address and resolve any allegations of misconduct involving DFAS officials and make appropriate recommendations for corrective action.  \n  \n Grassley will refer allegations of misconduct by OIG staff to the Integrity Committee of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency for further review and resolution as provided under the IG Reform Act of 2008.  \n  \n-30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/obamacare-enrollment-date-shift-hides-key-information-voters", "Obamacare Enrollment Date Shift Hides Key Information from Voters", "2013-11-22", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following comment on the Obamacare open enrollment date shift for next year. Last night at 8:29, CMS put out a notice that it is shifting the start of open enrollment next year from October 1, 2014, to November 15, 2014. That means that if premiums go through the roof in the first year of Obamacare, no one will know about it until after the election. This is clearly a cynical political move by the Obama Administration to use extra-regulatory, by any means necessary tools to keep this program afloat and hide key information from voters. The Obama Administration ought to answer for this shift. The Administration is welcome to prove me wrong by committing to put out 2015 plan year premium rates by November 1, 2014.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/qa-fisa", "Q&A on FISA", "2013-11-22", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Q: What is FISA? A: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is more commonly known by its acronym FISA. The law sets the parameters by which America's intelligence community may conduct physical and electronic surveillance of those suspected of espionage or terrorism. Until the 9/11 terrorist attacks, many Americans likely were largely unaware of surveillance powers authorized by this federal law that was designed to protect U.S. national security and economic interests. More recently, FISA has made headlines due to controversial activities conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA) over the last decade. Since 9/11 the NSA has cast a wide surveillance net that calls into question privacy protections and Fourth Amendment rights related to search and seizure, including a program through which it collects information about the telephone calls of Americans but not the content of the calls themselves.   Q: What is at stake? A: An abundance of skepticism exists today among Americans about the size and scope of the federal government. The $17 trillion national debt represents unbridled tax and spending policies that allow the government to grow at the expense of the taxpaying public. The bungled rollout of the Affordable Care Act is arguably circus peanuts compared to the intrusive impact that the sweeping health care law's mandates, penalties and taxes will have on job creation, economic growth and the taxpaying public. Likewise, the revelations leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden this summer have triggered considerable public debate and civil lawsuits that challenge the government's authority to deploy sweeping surveillance measures at the expense of individual privacy. Our system of self-government counts upon the fundamental functions of checks and balances to make the government work of, by and for the people. The government's fundamental mission to protect public safety, secure the homeland and uphold national security does not come with a license to ignore constitutional boundaries, legal precedents and rule of law that governs our nation. Americans expect their government to leave no stone unturned to protect national security interests. The citizenry also expects its government to protect the freedoms and civil liberty set in stone by the U.S. Constitution. Americans from across the political spectrum are unsettled about the NSA's activities. Technology is transforming the way the federal government is able to conduct surveillance and intelligence activities. Similarly, debates about privacy are building in local communities around the country as law enforcement authorities use surveillance cameras to issue citations for traffic violations. Both raise complicated issues involving public safety and personal privacy. Just because 21st century capabilities exist to collect mass surveillance does not mean government gets unchecked authority to ignore the founding principles established centuries ago to protect we the people from government intrusion.   Q: What are next steps in the unfolding debate on U.S. surveillance policy? A: From my leadership position on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, I'm scrutinizing the scope of the federal government's surveillance activities through congressional oversight hearings and analyzing bipartisan proposals to address flaws in the system. Legislative reforms may be needed to rein in surveillance overreach, foster transparency and enforce accountability among the U.S. intelligence community, including possible disclosure reforms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). The architecture of our republic's system of checks and balances authorizes the three branches of the federal government to keep an eye on each other to prevent authoritarianism from intruding on individual rights. Congress is obligated to ensure the U.S. intelligence apparatus does not overstep constitutionally protected rights of individuals while fulfilling its core mission to protect national security. After 9/11, policymakers zeroed in on the failure of the federal government to connect the dots and thwart terrorism on U.S. soil. Moving forward, policymakers can help rebuild the public's trust in the government's ability to connect the dots and strike a better balance between intelligence-gathering activities and individual rights.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221044521/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47553", "Doing Whatever It Takes - Majority Changes the Senate Rules", "2013-11-21", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley  \nRanking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary  \nOn the Majority\u2019s Change to the Senate Rules  \nThursday, November 21, 2013 Mr. President, I\u2019d like to spend a few minutes discussing the Majority Leader\u2019s employment of the so-called \u201cNuclear Option.\u201d\u00a0 Unfortunately, this isn\u2019t a new threat.\u00a0 Over the last several years, every time the Minority has chosen to exercise its rights under the Senate Rules, the Majority has threatened to change the Senate rules.\u00a0 In fact, this is the third time in just the last year or so that the Majority Leader has said if he didn\u2019t get his way on nominations, he\u2019d change the rules.\u00a0 Ironically, that\u2019s about as many judicial nominees as our side has stopped with the filibuster.\u00a0 Prior to the recent attempt by the President to simultaneously add three judges to the D.C. Circuit that aren\u2019t needed, Republicans had stopped a grand total of two of President Obama\u2019s judicial nominees.\u00a0 Not 10, as the Democrats had done by President Bush\u2019s 5th year in office.\u00a0 Not 34, as one of my colleagues tried to suggest earlier this week.\u00a0 2. And if you include the nominees for the D.C. Circuit, we\u2019ve stopped a grand total of 5.\u00a0  \nAgain, not 10 as the Democrats had done by 2005. Not 34, as one of my colleagues tried to argue earlier this week.\u00a0 5.\u00a0 During that same time we\u2019ve confirmed 209 lower court Article III judges.\u00a0 That\u2019s a record of 209 to 5.  \n\u00a0  \nSo this threat isn\u2019t based on a \u201ccrisis.\u201d\u00a0 There is no crisis.\u00a0 I\u2019d note that today\u2019s Wall Street Journal editorial, entitled \u201cD.C. Circuit Breakers, \u2018The White House wants to pack a court whose judges are underworked,\u2019\u201d lays out the caseload pretty clearly.\u00a0 And I\u2019d ask that this editorial be made part of the record.\u00a0 So, this is about a naked power grab, and nothing more.\u00a0 This is about the other side not getting everything they want, when they want it.\u00a0 Now, the other side claims that they have been pushed to this point because our side objected to the President\u2019s plan to fill the D.C. Circuit with judges it doesn\u2019t need.\u00a0 But the other side tends to forget history, so let\u2019s review how we got here.\u00a0 After the President simultaneously nominated 3 nominees for the D.C. Circuit that aren\u2019t needed \u2013 a blatant political power grab in its own right \u2013\u00a0 what did Republicans do?\u00a0 Well, we did something quite simple.\u00a0 We said we\u2019d hold Democrats to the same standard they established in 2006 when they blocked Peter Keisler. So let\u2019s be clear about why the Democrats are \u201coutraged.\u201d\u00a0 Democrats are \u201coutraged\u201d because Republicans actually had the temerity to hold them to a standard they established.\u00a0 And because we did, because we insisted that we all play by the same rules, they\u2019ve come right back and said, \u2018then we\u2019ll change the rules.\u2019\u00a0\u00a0 The other side has said, in effect, \u2018we don\u2019t want to be held to the standard we established in 2006.\u2019\u00a0 And not only that, but if you don\u2019t give us what we want, we are willing to forever change the Senate. Now, we hear a lot of ultimatums around here.\u00a0 But this ultimatum is not run-of-the-mill.\u00a0 It\u2019s different.\u00a0 It\u2019s different because this threat is designed to hold the United States Senate hostage.\u00a0 It\u2019s different because it\u2019s designed to hold hostage all of the Senate\u2019s history and traditions.\u00a0 It\u2019s different because, to be effective, it relies on the good will of Senators who don\u2019t want to see the Senate as we know it destroyed.\u00a0 Now, I\u2019d note that today\u2019s Majority didn\u2019t always feel the way they do today.\u00a0 Not too many years ago, my colleagues on the other side described their fight to preserve the filibuster with great pride. For instance, in 2006 one of my colleagues on the other side said it this way:  \n\u201cThe nuclear option was the most important issue I have worked on in my public life. Its rejection was my proudest moment as minority leader. I emerged from the episode with a renewed appreciation for the majesty of Senate rules. As majority leader, I intend to run the Senate with respect for the rules and for the minority rights the rules protect.\u201d In 2005, another of my Democrat colleagues had this to say:  \n\u201cToday, Republicans are threatening to take away one of the few remaining checks on the power of the executive branch by their use of what has become known as the nuclear option. This assault on our tradition of checks and balances and on the protection of minority rights in the Senate and in our democracy should be abandoned.  \nEliminating the filibuster by the nuclear option would destroy the Constitution's design of the Senate as an effective check on the executive.\u201d And then there was this, from the late Senator Byrd in 2005: \u201cAnd I detest this mention of a nuclear option, the constitutional option.\u00a0 There is nothing constitutional about it, nothing.\u201d But of course, that was back when today\u2019s Majority was in the Minority, and there was a Republican in the White House.\u00a0 Today, the shoe is on the other foot.\u00a0 Today, the other side is willing to forever change the Senate because Republicans have the audacity to hold them to their own standard. But why?\u00a0 Why would the other side be willing to do this?\u00a0 There clearly isn\u2019t a crisis on the D.C. Circuit.\u00a0 The judges themselves say if we confirmed any more judges, there wouldn\u2019t be enough work to go around.\u00a0 And it\u2019s not as if all of these nominees are mainstream, consensus picks, despite what the other side would have you believe.\u00a0 Take Professor Pillard, for instance. She has written this about motherhood: \u201creproductive rights, including rights to contraception and abortion, play a central role in freeing women from historically routine conscription into maternity.\u201d Is that mainstream? She has also argued this about motherhood: \u201cAntiabortion laws and other restraints on reproductive freedom not only enforce women\u2019s incubation of unwanted pregnancies, but also prescribe a \u2018vision of the woman\u2019s role\u2019 as mother and caretaker of children in a way that is at odds with equal protection.\u201d Is that mainstream? And what about her views on religious freedom?\u00a0 She argued that the Supreme Court case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church, which challenged the so-called \u201cministerial exception\u201d to employment discrimination, represented a \u201csubstantial threat to the American rule of law.\u201d The Supreme Court rejected her view 9-0.\u00a0 9-0. And the Court held that \u201cit is impermissible for the government to contradict a church\u2019s determination of who can act as its ministers.\u201d Do my colleagues really believe mainstream America thinks churches shouldn\u2019t be allowed to choose their own ministers? I could go on, but you get the picture.\u00a0 The point is this: any vote to change the Senate rules is a vote to remove one of the last meaningful checks on the President, and that vote would put these views on this important court. So I ask again, why would the other side do this? It is nothing short of a complete and total power grab. It is the type of thing we\u2019ve seen again and again out of this administration and their Senate allies. And you can sum it up this way: Do whatever it takes. -You can\u2019t get Obamacare passed with Republican support?  \n- Do whatever it takes: Pass it at 7 a.m. on Christmas Eve with just Democrat votes.\u00a0 -You can\u2019t get all of your side to support Obamacare?\u00a0  \n- Do whatever it takes: Resort to the \u201ccornhusker kickback.\u201d\u00a0 -You lose your 60th Senate vote on Obamacare due to a special election?\u00a0  \n- Do whatever it takes: Ram it through anyway using reconciliation.\u00a0 -The American people don\u2019t want to be taxed for not buying healthcare?  \n- Do whatever it takes: Tell the American people it isn\u2019t a tax, and then argue in court that it IS. -The American people want to keep their healthcare?  \n- Do whatever it takes: Promise them \u201cif you like your healthcare you can keep it,\u201d then issue regulations making it impossible.\u00a0 -Your big labor allies want out from under Obamacare?  \n- Do whatever it takes: Consider issuing them a waiver from the reinsurance tax. -You can\u2019t find consensus nominees for the National Labor Relations Board?  \n- Do whatever it takes: Recess-appoint them when the Senate isn\u2019t even in recess. -You can\u2019t convince Congress to adopt your gun control agenda?  \n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 - Do whatever it takes: Issue some Executive Orders. -You can\u2019t convince moderate Democrats to support Cap and Trade fee increases?  \n- Do whatever it takes: Do the same thing through EPA regulation. -Frustrated that conservative groups\u2019 political speech is protected under the First Amendment?\u00a0  \n- Do whatever it takes: Use the IRS to harass and intimidate those same conservative groups. -Frustrated when the court stands up for religious freedom and issues a check on the Obamacare contraception mandate?  \n- Do whatever it takes: Stack the D.C. Circuit in your favor. -Frustrated when the court curbs your power on recess-appointments?  \n- Do whatever it takes: Stack the D.C. Circuit in your favor. -Worried EPA\u2019s regulations on Cap and Trade fee increases might get challenged in court?  \n- Do whatever it takes: Stack the D.C. Circuit in your favor. -Frustrated because Senate Republicans have the nerve to hold you to the same standard you established during the last Administration?  \n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 - Do. Whatever. It. Takes. -Change the rules of the United States Senate. Mr. President, that\u2019s what we have witnessed today.\u00a0 This is an absolute power grab.\u00a0 The Majority in the Senate and their allies in the Administration are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve their partisan agenda.\u00a0 They know there will be additional challenges to Obamacare. They know if they can stack the deck on the D.C. Circuit, they can remove one of the last remaining checks on presidential power. But make no mistake.\u00a0 My friends on the other side will have to answer this question: Why did you choose this moment to break the rules to change the rules? Why now? Why, when we are witnessing the collapse of this massive effort to centrally plan 1/6th of this wonderful Nation\u2019s economy? Why, when millions of Americans are losing their healthcare? Why did you choose this moment to hand the keys to the kingdom over to the President?\u00a0 Because the fact of the matter is this: any vote to break the rules to change the rules is a vote to ensure Obamacare remains intact. So, Mr. President, I\u2019ll conclude by saying this.  \nChanging the rules of the Senate in this way was a mistake.\u00a0 But if the last several years have taught us anything, it\u2019s that the Majority won\u2019t stop making these demands. And we can\u2019t give in to these constant threats.\u00a0 Sooner or later, you have to stand up and say \u2018enough is enough.\u2019 But, if there is one thing that will always be true, it\u2019s this:\u00a0 Majorities are fickle.\u00a0 Majorities are fleeting.\u00a0 Here today.\u00a0 Gone tomorrow.\u00a0 That\u2019s a lesson that sadly, most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle haven\u2019t learned, for the simple reason that they\u2019ve never served a single day in the Minority. So the Majority has chosen to take us down this path, the silver lining is that there will come a day when the roles are reversed. When that happens, our side will likely nominate and confirm lower court and Supreme Court nominees with 51 votes, regardless of whether the Democrats actually buy into this fanciful notion that they can demolish the filibuster on lower court nominees and still preserve it for Supreme Court nominees. I yield the floor.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/doing-whatever-it-takes-majority-changes-senate-rules", "Doing Whatever It Takes - Majority Changes the Senate Rules", "2013-11-21", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary On the Majority's Change to the Senate Rules Thursday, November 21, 2013 Mr. President, I'd like to spend a few minutes discussing the Majority Leader's employment of the so-called Nuclear Option. Unfortunately, this isn't a new threat. Over the last several years, every time the Minority has chosen to exercise its rights under the Senate Rules, the Majority has threatened to change the Senate rules. In fact, this is the third time in just the last year or so that the Majority Leader has said if he didn't get his way on nominations, he'd change the rules. Ironically, that's about as many judicial nominees as our side has stopped with the filibuster. Prior to the recent attempt by the President to simultaneously add three judges to the D.C. Circuit that aren't needed, Republicans had stopped a grand total of two of President Obama's judicial nominees. Not 10, as the Democrats had done by President Bush's 5th year in office. Not 34, as one of my colleagues tried to suggest earlier this week. 2. And if you include the nominees for the D.C. Circuit, we've stopped a grand total of 5. Again, not 10 as the Democrats had done by 2005. Not 34, as one of my colleagues tried to argue earlier this week. 5. During that same time we've confirmed 209 lower court Article III judges. That's a record of 209 to 5.  So this threat isn't based on a crisis. There is no crisis. I'd note that today's Wall Street Journal editorial, entitled D.C. Circuit Breakers, The White House wants to pack a court whose judges are underworked,' lays out the caseload pretty clearly. And I'd ask that this editorial be made part of the record. So, this is about a naked power grab, and nothing more. This is about the other side not getting everything they want, when they want it. Now, the other side claims that they have been pushed to this point because our side objected to the President's plan to fill the D.C. Circuit with judges it doesn't need. But the other side tends to forget history, so let's review how we got here. After the President simultaneously nominated 3 nominees for the D.C. Circuit that aren't needed  a blatant political power grab in its own right  what did Republicans do? Well, we did something quite simple. We said we'd hold Democrats to the same standard they established in 2006 when they blocked Peter Keisler. So let's be clear about why the Democrats are outraged. Democrats are outraged because Republicans actually had the temerity to hold them to a standard they established. And because we did, because we insisted that we all play by the same rules, they've come right back and said, then we'll change the rules.' The other side has said, in effect, we don't want to be held to the standard we established in 2006.' And not only that, but if you don't give us what we want, we are willing to forever change the Senate. Now, we hear a lot of ultimatums around here. But this ultimatum is not run-of-the-mill. It's different. It's different because this threat is designed to hold the United States Senate hostage. It's different because it's designed to hold hostage all of the Senate's history and traditions. It's different because, to be effective, it relies on the good will of Senators who don't want to see the Senate as we know it destroyed. Now, I'd note that today's Majority didn't always feel the way they do today. Not too many years ago, my colleagues on the other side described their fight to preserve the filibuster with great pride. For instance, in 2006 one of my colleagues on the other side said it this way: The nuclear option was the most important issue I have worked on in my public life. Its rejection was my proudest moment as minority leader. I emerged from the episode with a renewed appreciation for the majesty of Senate rules. As majority leader, I intend to run the Senate with respect for the rules and for the minority rights the rules protect. In 2005, another of my Democrat colleagues had this to say: Today, Republicans are threatening to take away one of the few remaining checks on the power of the executive branch by their use of what has become known as the nuclear option. This assault on our tradition of checks and balances and on the protection of minority rights in the Senate and in our democracy should be abandoned. Eliminating the filibuster by the nuclear option would destroy the Constitution's design of the Senate as an effective check on the executive. And then there was this, from the late Senator Byrd in 2005: And I detest this mention of a nuclear option, the constitutional option. There is nothing constitutional about it, nothing. But of course, that was back when today's Majority was in the Minority, and there was a Republican in the White House. Today, the shoe is on the other foot. Today, the other side is willing to forever change the Senate because Republicans have the audacity to hold them to their own standard. But why? Why would the other side be willing to do this? There clearly isn't a crisis on the D.C. Circuit. The judges themselves say if we confirmed any more judges, there wouldn't be enough work to go around. And it's not as if all of these nominees are mainstream, consensus picks, despite what the other side would have you believe. Take Professor Pillard, for instance. She has written this about motherhood: reproductive rights, including rights to contraception and abortion, play a central role in freeing women from historically routine conscription into maternity. Is that mainstream? She has also argued this about motherhood: Antiabortion laws and other restraints on reproductive freedom not only enforce women's incubation of unwanted pregnancies, but also prescribe a vision of the woman's role' as mother and caretaker of children in a way that is at odds with equal protection. Is that mainstream? And what about her views on religious freedom? She argued that the Supreme Court case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church, which challenged the so-called ministerial exception to employment discrimination, represented a substantial threat to the American rule of law. The Supreme Court rejected her view 9-0. 9-0. And the Court held that it is impermissible for the government to contradict a church's determination of who can act as its ministers. Do my colleagues really believe mainstream America thinks churches shouldn't be allowed to choose their own ministers? I could go on, but you get the picture. The point is this: any vote to change the Senate rules is a vote to remove one of the last meaningful checks on the President, and that vote would put these views on this important court. So I ask again, why would the other side do this? It is nothing short of a complete and total power grab. It is the type of thing we've seen again and again out of this administration and their Senate allies. And you can sum it up this way: Do whatever it takes. -You can't get Obamacare passed with Republican support? - Do whatever it takes: Pass it at 7 a.m. on Christmas Eve with just Democrat votes. -You can't get all of your side to support Obamacare? - Do whatever it takes: Resort to the cornhusker kickback. -You lose your 60th Senate vote on Obamacare due to a special election? - Do whatever it takes: Ram it through anyway using reconciliation. -The American people don't want to be taxed for not buying healthcare? - Do whatever it takes: Tell the American people it isn't a tax, and then argue in court that it IS. -The American people want to keep their healthcare? - Do whatever it takes: Promise them if you like your healthcare you can keep it, then issue regulations making it impossible. -Your big labor allies want out from under Obamacare? - Do whatever it takes: Consider issuing them a waiver from the reinsurance tax. -You can't find consensus nominees for the National Labor Relations Board? - Do whatever it takes: Recess-appoint them when the Senate isn't even in recess. -You can't convince Congress to adopt your gun control agenda?  - Do whatever it takes: Issue some Executive Orders. -You can't convince moderate Democrats to support Cap and Trade fee increases? - Do whatever it takes: Do the same thing through EPA regulation. -Frustrated that conservative groups' political speech is protected under the First Amendment? - Do whatever it takes: Use the IRS to harass and intimidate those same conservative groups. -Frustrated when the court stands up for religious freedom and issues a check on the Obamacare contraception mandate? - Do whatever it takes: Stack the D.C. Circuit in your favor. -Frustrated when the court curbs your power on recess-appointments? - Do whatever it takes: Stack the D.C. Circuit in your favor. -Worried EPA's regulations on Cap and Trade fee increases might get challenged in court? - Do whatever it takes: Stack the D.C. Circuit in your favor. -Frustrated because Senate Republicans have the nerve to hold you to the same standard you established during the last Administration?  - Do. Whatever. It. Takes. -Change the rules of the United States Senate. Mr. President, that's what we have witnessed today. This is an absolute power grab. The Majority in the Senate and their allies in the Administration are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve their partisan agenda. They know there will be additional challenges to Obamacare. They know if they can stack the deck on the D.C. Circuit, they can remove one of the last remaining checks on presidential power. But make no mistake. My friends on the other side will have to answer this question: Why did you choose this moment to break the rules to change the rules? Why now? Why, when we are witnessing the collapse of this massive effort to centrally plan 1/6th of this wonderful Nation's economy? Why, when millions of Americans are losing their healthcare? Why did you choose this moment to hand the keys to the kingdom over to the President? Because the fact of the matter is this: any vote to break the rules to change the rules is a vote to ensure Obamacare remains intact. So, Mr. President, I'll conclude by saying this. Changing the rules of the Senate in this way was a mistake. But if the last several years have taught us anything, it's that the Majority won't stop making these demands. And we can't give in to these constant threats. Sooner or later, you have to stand up and say enough is enough.' But, if there is one thing that will always be true, it's this: Majorities are fickle. Majorities are fleeting. Here today. Gone tomorrow. That's a lesson that sadly, most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle haven't learned, for the simple reason that they've never served a single day in the Minority. So the Majority has chosen to take us down this path, the silver lining is that there will come a day when the roles are reversed. When that happens, our side will likely nominate and confirm lower court and Supreme Court nominees with 51 votes, regardless of whether the Democrats actually buy into this fanciful notion that they can demolish the filibuster on lower court nominees and still preserve it for Supreme Court nominees. I yield the floor.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221044058/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47524", "Grassley Helps Honor Iowans in Ceremony for Native American Code Talkers", "2013-11-20", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013 Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today helped to honor members of the\u00a0Meskwaki Nation at a congressional gold medal ceremony honoring the Native American code talkers who served the United States in military conflicts including World Wars I and II.\n\u00a0\n\u201cThe ceremony was long overdue but the recognition was heartfelt,\u201d Grassley said.\u00a0 \u201cAll of us are grateful for the contribution of the Meskwaki members and others who used their language in service to our country.\u00a0 The code talkers saved lives.\u00a0 They used something unique to them to help preserve the United States from sworn enemies.\u201d \n\u00a0\nThe ceremony in the U.S. Capitol featured representatives of the Meskwaki visiting from Iowa, mostly Tama County.\u00a0 The Meskwaki Nation was among 33 tribes honored for their code talker service.\u00a0 The code talkers used their native languages to communicate key military intelligence during wartime, befuddling U.S. enemies who couldn\u2019t interpret the language.\u00a0 Their service is credited with saving lives. \n\u00a0\nGrassley co-sponsored legislation, enacted into law in 2008, that authorized Congress to present gold medals to the Native Americans who served as code talkers during foreign conflicts in which the United States was involved during the 20th century.\u00a0 \n\u00a0\nThe following individuals were either in attendance or invited to attend today\u2019s ceremony.\u00a0 \n\u00a0\nMrs. Theresa Lynne Mahoney, Descendant of Honoree Benson, Sac and Fox/Meskwaki;\u00a0\nMr. Robert John Roberts, Descendant of Honoree Roberts, Sac and Fox/Meskwaki;\u00a0\nMs. Ramona Norma Sanache, Descendant of Honoree F. Sanache, Sac and Fox/Meskwaki;\u00a0\nMr. Alvin Lee Sanache, Descendant of Honoree W. Sanache, Sac and Fox/Meskwaki;\nMs. Melissa Rose Youngbear; Descendant of Honoree M. Wabaunasee, Sac and Fox/Meskwaki;\nMs. Marguerite Youngbear Bass, Descendant of Honoree Youngbear, Sac and Fox/Meskwaki;\nMr. Larry Craig Lasley Sr., Representative, Sac and Fox/Meskwaki;\u00a0\nMr. Robin Lee Roberts, Representative, Sac and Fox/Meskwaki;\nMr. Ramakrishna Dhanwada, Representative, Sac and Fox/Meskwaki;\nMs. Beatrice Youngbear, Tribal Council Member, Sac and Fox/Meskwaki;\nMs. Shirlene Fawn Seymour, Descendant of Honoree Twin, Winnebago;\nMr. Daniel Ray Wabaunasee, Descendant of Honoree Judie Wabaunasee, Sac and Fox/Meskwaki.\n\u00a0\nPhotos from today\u2019s ceremony are available here. \u00a0Images of the Meskwaki\u2019s congressional gold medal are available here.\n\u00a0\n-30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "truncated": false, "filtered_table_rows_count": 706, "expanded_columns": [], "expandable_columns": [], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "units": {}, "query": {"sql": "select url, title, date, year, month, party, chamber, state, member_name, bioguide_id, domain, scraper, source, date_source, text, has_text, collected_at, updated_at from releases where \"party\" = :p0 and \"state\" = :p1 and \"year\" = :p2 order by date desc limit 101", "params": {"p0": "Republican", "p1": "IA", "p2": "2013"}}, "facet_results": {"party": {"name": "party", "type": "column", "hideable": false, "toggle_url": "/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=IA&year=2013", "results": [{"value": "Republican", "label": "Republican", "count": 706, "toggle_url": "http://dpwillis-congress-press-search.hf.space/press/releases.json?state=IA&year=2013", "selected": true}], "truncated": false}, "chamber": {"name": "chamber", "type": "column", "hideable": false, "toggle_url": "/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=IA&year=2013", "results": [{"value": "House", "label": "House", "count": 706, "toggle_url": "http://dpwillis-congress-press-search.hf.space/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=IA&year=2013&chamber=House", "selected": false}], "truncated": false}, "state": {"name": "state", "type": "column", "hideable": false, "toggle_url": "/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=IA&year=2013", "results": [{"value": "IA", "label": "IA", "count": 706, "toggle_url": "http://dpwillis-congress-press-search.hf.space/press/releases.json?party=Republican&year=2013", "selected": true}], "truncated": false}, "year": {"name": "year", "type": "column", "hideable": false, "toggle_url": "/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=IA&year=2013", "results": [{"value": "2013", "label": "2013", "count": 706, "toggle_url": "http://dpwillis-congress-press-search.hf.space/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=IA", "selected": true}], "truncated": false}}, "suggested_facets": [], "next": "2013-11-20,https~3A~2F~2Fweb~2Earchive~2Eorg~2Fweb~2F20140221044058~2Fhttp~3A~2F~2Fwww~2Egrassley~2Esenate~2Egov~2Fnews~2FArticle~2Ecfm~3Fcustomel_dataPageID_1502~3D47524", "next_url": "http://dpwillis-congress-press-search.hf.space/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=IA&year=2013&_next=2013-11-20%2Chttps~3A~2F~2Fweb~2Earchive~2Eorg~2Fweb~2F20140221044058~2Fhttp~3A~2F~2Fwww~2Egrassley~2Esenate~2Egov~2Fnews~2FArticle~2Ecfm~3Fcustomel_dataPageID_1502~3D47524&_sort_desc=date", "private": false, "allow_execute_sql": true, "query_ms": 192.9215006530285, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}