Statements On Introduced Bills And Joint Resolutions
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mrs. HAGAN):
S. 972. A bill to amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to provide funding for successful claimants following a determination on the merits of Pigford claims related to racial discrimination by the Department of Agriculture, to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to first start off by thanking the Senate and in particular the Senate Agriculture Committee for addressing a new cause of action in Federal court for those African-American farmers who may have been discriminated against and who were denied entry in the Pigford v. Glickman Consent Decree. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 including a provision entitled Determination on Merits of Pigford Claims.
For those who do not know, the Consent Decree was a settlement that resulted from a class action lawsuit initiated by a class of African-American farmers who had for decades been discriminated against by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the administration of its FSA loan program. The discriminatory treatment was well-documented by both the USDA's own Inspector General and an internal task force appointed by then USDA Secretary Glickman.
We had some unanticipated consequences in the Consent Decree's implementation. There was denial of approximately 77,000 African-American farmers into the Decree even though these farmers filed petitions by the late-claim deadline. More than half of these late-claim petitioners didn't even know about the Consent Decree. The Court said the lack of notice was not a sufficient reason to allow them into the Consent Decree. Thus, these individuals were denied entry and their discrimination complaints went unresolved. This was not a fair outcome for farmers or those attempting to farm at that time.
The farm bill did the right thing by allowing late filers to have their claims heard and judged on the merits. These farmers deserve justice and at least the opportunity to have their claims heard.
Unfortunately, it has been very difficult to determine how many of the 77,000 actually have valid claims. Lots of different folks have lots of different calculations. Either way, it's likely to be expensive. Because of the budget constraints, the Farm Bill only could put $100 million towards the endeavor.
I think we can and must do better than that. That is why today I am introducing bipartisan legislation with Senator Hagan of North Carolina. This bill will make 3 changes to the farm bill. First it will allow the claimants to access the $100 million already appropriated in the farm bill, but once that is expended gain access to the Department of Treasury permanent appropriated judgment fund. Second, it will allow reasonable attorney fees, administrative costs, and expenses to be paid from the judgment fund in accordance with the 1999 consent decree. Finally, it includes a section making fraud related to claims a criminal offense with punishment of a fine or up to 5 years in prison or both.
The claimants, who were able to timely file, were allowed access to the judgment fund and so it makes sense that we treat these new claimants the exact same way. The Department of Justice was treating the $100 million included in the farm bill as a cap, but Congress simply viewed it as a down payment to rectify the damage done.
The farm bill we passed last year does one thing right. It focuses a considerable amount of resources on new and beginning farmers and ranchers. Well, many of the Pigford claimants were in that same boat 20 years ago. It is time to rectify that.
The farm bill has simply opened up the door so that claims can be heard. If a person brings a claim and can not meet the burden of proof, then no award will be given. However, we know USDA has admitted that the discrimination occurred, and now we are obligated to do our best in getting those that deserve it, some relief. That is why I am introducing this legislation with Senator Hagan and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. It is time to make these claimants right and move forward into a new era of civil rights at the Department of Agriculture.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
By Mr. GRASSLEY:
S. 976. A bill to provide that certain provisions of subchapter I of chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, relating to Federal information policy shall not apply to the collection of information during any investigation, audit, inspection, evaluation, or other review conducted by any Federal office of Inspector General, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Federal Inspectors General are the frontline of protection for taxpayer dollars, ensuring that Federal agencies spend taxpayer dollars in an effective, efficient, economical manner that is in accordance with all applicable law. The Inspectors General root out fraud, waste, and abuse in Government programs by auditing, evaluating, and investigating how Federal agencies spend taxpayer dollars and how Government programs utilize funds. The Inspectors General occupy a unique position within our government. Created by the Inspector General Act of 1978 and by various subsequent statutes, the Inspectors General at Executive Branch agencies also report directly to the Legislative Branch. They were created to keep tabs on the government bureaucracy to make sure that agencies follow the spirit and intent of the laws while protecting taxpayer dollars.
I have been an outspoken advocate for Inspectors General during my time in the Senate and I was proud to be a cosponsor of the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, which was signed into law by President Bush last year. That legislation ensures that Inspectors General are truly independent of the Federal agencies they oversee. The independence of Inspectors General is a critical requirement to their ability to get the job done. If Inspectors General lack independence from the agency they oversee, the quality of their work is impacted negatively and their reputation as independent watchdogs is tarnished.
Over the years, I have seen a number of Inspectors General come and go. It is a tough job to be an Inspector General. You can not go along to get along. You must buck the system, dig deep into the books of the agency, find where the secrets are hidden, and then report the truth to Congress, the President, and the American people. Unfortunately, Inspectors General must do all this with the agencies that often fight their every move. These entrenched bureaucracies have an interest in not seeing Inspectors General succeed--they do not want egg on their face. That is why we in Congress must make sure they have all the tools they need to get the job done and ensure that there is accountability for the billions in taxpayer dollars that are spent annually on the operation of the Executive Branch.
One growing area of concern I have seen over the years is procedural roadblocks being placed before Inspectors General to limit or prohibit their ability to do their job of protecting taxpayer dollars. One recent example relates to the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program SIGTARP, Neil Barofsky. Inspector General Barofsky notified me on January 22, 2009, that he intended to begin an oversight initiative that would have improved the transparency of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP. Inspector General Barofsky's plan was to collect data from TARP recipients asking them for a response outlining the use of TARP funds, copies of support documents, a description of plans to comply with executive compensation restrictions, and certification by a senior executive officer of the accuracy of the statements they make. This sounded like a legitimate plan from the Inspector General tasked by Congress with ensuring that the $700 billion handed out by the TARP program wasn't lost to fraud or abuse. However, it was shortly after this letter that Mr. Barofsky ran into procedural hurdles erected by the Office of Management and Budget, OMB.
On January 30, 2009, I asked the Inspector General for an update on his initiative when he informed me that OMB had advised the SIGTARP that he could not initiate his effort due to the restrictions in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PRA. As a result, SIGTARP requested ``emergency processing'' by OMB to consider the impact of its letter to TARP recipients. It is my understanding that OMB initially responded favorably finding that SIGTARP would not be limited by the PRA. However, OMB reversed course and withdrew the emergency approval right after it was granted.
OMB then informed SIGTARP that the PRA required he post his proposed letter online for TARP recipients to review for 15 days, wait for comments from the recipients, and then require that the SIGTARP justify to OMB that it has taken into account all the public comments. This was a significant, unnecessary roadblock that was erected at a time when American Taxpayers were asking everyone ``where did the money go.'' This type of procedural hurdle to an audit and investigation by the SIGTARP is unacceptable. Can you imagine what the very corporations that took taxpayer money would write during the comment period? It is my view that corporations that took Government money should be subjected to oversight by Inspectors General and they should not have a say in drafting or amending a letter from the Inspector General that they must respond to. This is exactly what OMB was asking of the SIGTARP.
I am glad to report that later that same week SIGTARP Barofsky was given approval from OMB to send the letter requests to the TARP recipients without delay. However, around the same time that the letters were approved and sent, the Department of Treasury posted a comment request in the Federal Register about the SIGTARP request. Those responses were due to Treasury by April 13, 2009. While SIGTARP Barofsky was ultimately able to send his request, this uncertainty about the application of the PRA to audits, evaluations, inspections, or investigations by Inspectors General remains a significant question. This whole saga was a wakeup call for many Inspectors General. As a result, many Inspectors General have reached out to my office about this issue and the dangers the PRA could pose to their audits and investigations.
That is why I am here today to introduce legislation that will clarify the impact the PRA has on official audits, evaluations, inspections, and investigations conducted by Inspectors General. This legislation is narrowly tailored to ensure that Inspectors General are not subject to bureaucratic hurdles erected by OMB, which could be used to limit the independence and authority of Inspectors General, and most importantly information that we can garner through their work.
Specifically, the PRA currently states that agencies must receive approval for each collection request before it is implemented. Failure to get this approval provides the recipient of the request the protection to not comply with the request without penalty. The current PRA does not apply to criminal investigations, administrative actions, or investigations involving an agency against a specific individual or entities. However, it does apply to ``general'' investigations. The PRA is also silent as to whether it was intended to apply to Inspectors General and defines agency as any ``executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the
Government including the Executive Office of the President, or any independent regulatory agency. The PRA does expressly exclude the Government Accountability Office and the Federal Election Commission, but not the Inspectors General.
The PRA was passed with the noble goal of reducing the impact Federal Government regulatory agencies have on small businesses and other private individuals. However, over the years the investigative and audit roles of the Inspectors General have expanded to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not lost to fraud, waste, or abuse. As a result, the important work of the Inspectors General may run directly into the PRA resulting in a slower process for audits, evaluations, and investigations, as well as potentially tipping off those being investigated by the Inspectors General and providing them time to, for example cover-up potential wrong doing.
The legislation I'm introducing today is designed to protect the PRA as well as the Inspectors General by trying to head off a potential conflict among the two statutes before it has to be decided by the courts. It simply states that the PRA shall not apply to the collection of information ``during the conduct of any investigation, audit, inspection, evaluation, or other review conducted by'' any Federal office of Inspector General. It further defines the definition of Inspector General to include: statutory Inspectors General, Federal entity Inspectors General, and any Special Inspector General. This definition also includes the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, CIGIE, created by the Inspector General Reform Act, and the Recovery, Accountability, and Transparency Board created by the stimulus bill signed into law earlier this year. These two entities have some audit and evaluation roles provided to them and should also not face procedural hurdles under the PRA when they are overseeing the various Inspectors General or Recovery programs.
All in all, this is a simple piece of legislation that I encourage all my colleagues to support. It picks up on the great work of the Inspector General Reform Act to ensure that Inspectors General are independent and free from any undue influence--procedural or substantive--when conducting audits, evaluations, inspections, or audits on behalf of the American people. I hope this legislation will receive expedited consideration and swift passage.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source