Grassley, McConnell Bill Would Help Foster Children Affected by Opioids, Methamphetamine, Other Substance Abuse
WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky today introduced legislation to re-authorize a program to help children who are in foster care or at risk of such placement because of parental abuse of methamphetamine or another substance. The new bill ensures that opioid abuse is also a key focus of the grants given to child welfare agencies to promote services to children and families under the measure.
The Grassley-McConnell bill, the Protecting Families Affected by Substance Abuse Act, would reauthorize for five years the Regional Partnership Grants that were created in 2006 under Grassley’s Finance Committee chairmanship and included as part of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Act. Congress reauthorized the grants in 2011. While the original intent of the 2006 grants was to address methamphetamine abuse, the scope expanded to other substances as new problems emerged. Opioid addiction is a key focus of the new bill, as we have seen the havoc prescription painkillers and heroin continue to have on families and communities around the nation.
The grants support regional partnerships for services including early intervention and preventive services; child and family counseling; mental health services; parenting skills training; and replication of successful models for providing family-based, comprehensive long-term substance abuse treatment services.
“Many of the kids in foster care are there because of substance abuse at home,” Senator Grassley said. “Families are torn apart because of substance abuse, and parents can benefit from services to get them off of drug abuse and back to caring for their children. Children benefit from being reunited with their family members and learning how to break the cycle of addiction that can strike multiple generations of the same family. This program is meant to prevent the substance abuse and dissolution of families that have a very great cost to society and state and federal treasuries over time.”
“I applaud all that Kentucky’s child welfare and substance abuse officials are doing to help the children of families struggling with addiction,” Senator McConnell said. “We must do all we can to ensure children grow up in safe, stable, and loving families, which can often mean helping parents break the cycle of addiction that allows for the safe reunification of families, rather than forcing children into a costly foster care system. That is just what this grant program aims to achieve. Kentucky has made use of these grants in a number of ways, and it is important this progress continues as we work together to address the ramifications of addiction, largely stemming from abuse of prescription painkillers and heroin, on families in the Commonwealth. I look forward to working with Senator Grassley to advance this critical legislation.”
In 2015, close to 8,000 children were living in Kentucky’s foster care system, and nearly 90 percent of children who enter its system do so as a result of parental neglect, which often stems from substance abuse issues.
Eligible grantees under the senators’ bill include nonprofit and for-profit child welfare service providers, community health service and community mental health providers, local law enforcement agencies, judges and court personnel, juvenile justice officials, school officials, state child welfare or substance abuse agencies, and tribal welfare agencies. Information on current grantees can be found here.
According to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, in a national study, caseworkers investigating allegations of abuse or neglect noted that of primary caregivers from whom children were removed, 37 percent were actively abusing drugs and 29 percent were actively abusing alcohol. The percentage of children who remain in care due to issues related to substance abuse is believed to be even larger because, among other reasons, accessing and successfully completing treatment services is often time-consuming, and children may not be able to safely return to their homes until treatment is successfully completed.
Grassley is founder and co-chair of the Caucus on Foster Youth, chairman of the Caucus on International Narcotics Control and chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
-30-
HealthCare.gov launch; watchdog report documents serious problems
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General today issued a report on HHS and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ mismanagement of the launch of HealthCare.gov. Sen. Chuck Grassley made the following comment on the report.
“There’s been wide agreement that the launch was disastrous. Now we have a report from the top agency’s independent watchdog documenting the many things that went wrong. A rush to launch was more important than having a working website. Advice from consultants at taxpayer expense went ignored. Bad news was papered over. The real loser was the taxpayer and the user of a website that didn’t work as promised. The website is part of the bigger problem behind Obamacare. A massive undertaking was rushed through on a partisan basis. The law was badly written and poorly implemented.”
-30-
Judiciary Committee Republicans to McConnell: No Hearings on Supreme Court Nomination
WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans today sent a letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell indicating that they will exercise their constitutional authority to withhold consent of a Supreme Court nomination and will not hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee until the next President is sworn in.
The letter, signed by all Judiciary Committee Republicans, says, “Accordingly, given the particular circumstances under which this vacancy arises, we wish to inform you of our intention to exercise our constitutional authority to withhold consent on any nominee to the Supreme Court submitted by this President to fill Justice Scalia’s vacancy. Because our decision is based on constitutional principle and born of a necessity to protect the will of the American people, this Committee will not hold hearings on any Supreme Court nominee until after our next President is sworn in on January 20, 2017.”
Committee members wrote that they wanted, “To ensure the American people are not deprived of the opportunity to engage in a full and robust debate over the type of jurist they wish to decide some of the most critical issues of our time.” Concerns have been raised about the President already indicating that he has no intention of nominating somebody in the mold of Justice Scalia. Regardless, it is principle over the person that matters most.
As former Judiciary Committee Chairman and current Vice-President Joe Biden said in a speech given on the Senate floor, “It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.” And as he said, it does not matter, “How good a person is nominated by the President.”
A copy of the text of the letter can be found here.
-30-
Young, Grassley introduce bicameral legislation to lessen toll of drug epidemic on children
Washington, D.C.— As child-welfare agencies across the country are overwhelmed with children in need of services due to increased opiate abuse, Congressman Todd Young (R-IN) and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) introduced the Modernizing the Interstate Placement of Children in Foster Care Act to address this nationwide crisis:
“Thousands of children in my state have lost loving parents to opiate addiction, and I fear if we do nothing, we’ll lose thousands in the next generation, too. Modernizing the outdated interstate child placement process is one of a number of proposals that are urgently needed. It will help alleviate the strain on the foster care system. It will more quickly get children placed into loving homes where a set routine and stability will help them cope. Tragedy compounded by extended stints in various foster arrangements has proven detrimental to a child’s future. For children caught up in a system struggling to meet community needs, we should do everything possible to get them immediately placed in the setting that’s best for them, regardless of state boundary lines.” - Congressman Todd Young (R-Indiana)
“Right now, for example, Iowa is not yet a member of the NEICE system. If a child lives in Red Oak, Iowa, and there is a potential family able to care and provide for that child across the state border in Omaha, there might be delays in the paperwork needed for the adoption because the two states can’t exchange data quickly and securely. Throughout the country, caseworkers often avoid exploring out of state placements because of the long delays in processing the paperwork. Our bill gives incentives to states to join the NEICE system and streamline the paperwork to make foster care placements and eventual adoption happen faster. The more we can do to give children safe, stable homes, the better. The increased displacement of kids due to parental substance abuse, including opioid abuse, makes this cause especially important.” – Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
Young and Grassley seek to reduce the amount of time it takes to place children by incentivizing more states to implement the National Electronic Interstate Compact Enterprise, or NEICE system. Six pilot states that utilized NEICE, on average, reduced wait times for children by 30% and anticipate savings of $1.6 million per year in reduced copying, mailing, and administrative costs.
Additional information about the legislation and full bill text are available, here.
-30-
McConnell, Grassley Statement on Meeting with President Next Week
‘We look forward to reiterating to him directly that the American people will be heard and the next Supreme Court justice will be determined once the elections are complete’
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, released the following statement today regarding their upcoming meeting with the President:
“On Tuesday we will meet with the President at the White House. We look forward to reiterating to him directly that the American people will be heard and the next Supreme Court justice will be determined once the elections are complete and the next President has been sworn into office. And we welcome the opportunity to further discuss matters of mutual interest, like the drug epidemic that’s tearing communities apart across our country.”
###
Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
“Biden Malarkey”
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Mr. President, yesterday the minority leader came to the floor to disparage the work of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Senate as a whole.
And of course, as he does from time to time, he launched into a personal attack against me.
That’s ok. I don’t intend to return the favor.
I don’t want to talk about the nuclear option and the tremendous damage it did to the Senate.
Or, the years and years that Democrat senators had to endure under his leadership, without even being able to offer any amendments.
We all know that’s just how some people act when they don’t get their way.
But childish tantrums aren’t appropriate for the Senate.
I think if my friend Senator Biden had been in the Chamber yesterday, he would have said: ‘that’s a bunch of malarkey.’
I didn’t come to the floor to talk about the minority leader. I did, however, want to follow up on my remarks from earlier this week on the Biden Rules.
Now, in fairness, Senator Biden didn’t just make these rules up out of thin air.
His speech went into great historical detail on the history and practice of vacancies in presidential election years. He discussed how the Senate has handled these vacancies, and how presidents have – and should – handle them.
Based on that history, and a dose of good sense, Senator Biden laid out the rules that govern Supreme Court vacancies arising during a presidential election year. And of course, he delivered his remarks when we had divided government, as we have today.
Now, the Biden Rules are pretty clear. My friend from Delaware did a wonderful job laying out the history, and providing many of the sound reasons for the Biden Rules.
And they boil down to two fundamental points.
First, the President should exercise restraint, and “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.” As I said on Monday, President Lincoln is a good role model for this practice.
Or, stated differently: The President should let The People decide.
But if the President chooses not to follow President Lincoln’s model, but instead, as Chairman Biden said, “goes the way of Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination.”
Then, the Senate shouldn’t consider the nomination, and shouldn’t hold hearings. It doesn’t matter “how good a person is nominated by the President.”
Or, stated plainly: It’s the principle, not the person that matters.
Now, as I said on Monday, Vice President Biden is an honorable man and he is loyal. Those of us who know him well, know this to be true.
So, I wasn’t surprised on Monday evening when he released a short statement defending his remarks, and of course defending the President’s decision to press forward with a nominee.
Like I predicted on Monday, Vice President Biden is a loyal Number Two.
But the Vice President had the difficult task of explaining, today, why all of the arguments he made so cogently in 1992, aren’t really his view.
It was a tough sell. And Vice President Biden did his best.
But I must say, I think CHAIRMAN Biden would view VICE PRESIDENT Biden’s comments the same way he’d view the Minority Leader’s comments yesterday:
He’d call it like he sees it: He’d call it “a bunch of malarkey.”
Here’s part of what Vice President Biden said on Monday:
“Some critics say that one excerpt of a speech is evidence that I do not support filling a Supreme Court vacancy during an election year. That is not an accurate description of my views on the subject. In the same speech critics are pointing to today, I urged the Senate and the White House to overcome partisan differences and work together to ensure the Court functions as the Founding Fathers intended.”
Well, Mr. President, that doesn’t sound consistent with all of those Biden Rules I shared with my colleagues on Monday.
So we ask: Is it possible to square Chairman Biden’s 1992 election year statement with Vice President Biden’s 2016 election year statement?
Was Chairman Biden’s 1992 statement really just all about greater cooperation between the Senate and the White House?
When Chairman Biden said, in 1992, that if a vacancy suddenly arises, “action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over,” was he simply calling for more cooperation?
When he called for withholding consent, “no matter how good a person is nominated by the President,” was he merely suggesting that the President and Senate work together a little bit more?
When he said we shouldn’t hold hearings under these circumstances, was that all about cooperation between the branches?
Well, since we’re talking about filling Justice Scalia’s seat, it seems appropriate to ask: How would he solve this puzzle?
I suppose he’d start with the text. So, let’s begin there.
In 1992, did Chairman Biden discuss cooperation between the branches?
Yes, in fact he did.
So far, so good, for Vice President Biden.
But that can’t be the end of the matter, because that doesn’t explain the two vastly different interpretations of the same statement.
Let’s look a little more closely at the text.
Here’s what Chairman Biden said about cooperation between the branches:
“Let me start with the nomination process and how the process might be changed in the next administration, whether it is a Democrat or Republican.”
Well, Mr. President, we didn’t have to search very long to unearth textual evidence regarding the meaning of Chairman Biden’s words in 1992.
Yes, he shared some thoughts about how he believed the President and Senate might work together. But that cooperation was to occur “in the next administration.”
In other words AFTER the presidential election of 1992.
AFTER the Senate withheld consent on any nominee “no matter how good a person is nominated by the President.”
So the text is clear.
But if you need more evidence that this is an accurate understanding of what the Biden Rules mean, look no further than a lengthy Washington Post article published one week prior. In that interview, he made his views quite clear.
He said,
"If someone steps down, I would highly recommend the president not name someone, not send a name up."
And what if the President does send someone up?
"If [the President] did send someone up, I would ask the Senate to seriously consider not having a hearing on that nominee."
Specifically, my friend Chairman Biden said, "Can you imagine dropping a nominee, after the three or four or five decisions that are about to made by the Supreme Court, into that fight, into that cauldron in the middle of a presidential year?"
Chairman Biden went on. "I believe there would be no bounds of propriety that would be honored by either side. . . . The environment within which such a hearing would be held would be so supercharged and so prone to be able to be distorted."
At the end of the day, Mr. President, the text of Chairman Biden’s 1992 statement is clear.
In 2016, when he’s serving as a loyal Number Two to this President, Vice President Biden is forced to argue that the Biden Rules secretly mean the exact opposite of what they say.
Ironically, that’s a trick Justice Scalia taught us all to recognize, and reject, on sight.
We know we should look to the clear meaning of his text, as Justice Scalia taught us.
This was not a one-off comment by Senator Biden.
It was a 20,000-word floor speech laying out, forcefully, a difficult and principled decision. It relied on historical precedent, respect for democracy, and respect for the integrity of the nomination process.
There is no doubt what he meant.
Mr. President, there is of course a broader point here.
Words have meaning.
Text matters.
Justice Scalia devoted his adult life to these first principles.
Do the American people want to elect a President who will nominate a Justice in the mold of Scalia, to replace him?
Or do they want to elect President Clinton or Sanders, who will nominate a Justice who will move the court in a drastically more liberal direction?
Do they want a Justice who will look to constitutional text when drilling down on the most difficult constitutional questions?
Or, do they want yet another Justice who, on those really tough cases, bases decisions on “what is in the judge’s heart” as then-Senator Obama famously said.
It comes down to this.
We’ve lost one of our great jurists.
It’s up to the American people to decide whether we preserve his legacy.
This is a debate we should have.
This is a debate the American people should have.
And then we should let the American people decide.
-30-
