Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following comment on recent interest from President Obama and his education secretary in the cost of higher education.

"It's good to see the Administration is at last recognizing the problem of high college tuition, at least verbally.  If the Administration wanted to take action, it could have taken seriously the mandate to study colleges' use of tax-preferred arrangements to house their assets.  The Treasury Department's study on donor-advised funds and supporting organizations, released this week, highlighted that colleges heavily use these vehicles, yet the study stopped there.  The Administration could and should find ways to get educational institutions to help the people they're supposed to help instead of hoarding assets at taxpayer expense.  In addition to the benefit of income tax exemption, private, tax-exempt colleges and universities are able to raise capital through tax-exempt bonds and tax-deductible contributions.  It's important to understand whether these tax benefits are fueling the tuition increases by subsidizing high salaries for college leaders and rock-climbing walls and other non-educational amenities to try to attract students.  The Administration should follow through on the proposal to require new disclosures for tax-exempt colleges and universities, similar to the schedule required for tax-exempt hospitals.  Additional transparency related to revenues and expenses would give us all a better handle on how tuition is set.  Colleges that have well-funded endowments, including money housed offshore to avoid taxes, should tap more of those resources before raising tuition."

Statement of Ranking Member Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Senate Committee on the Judiciary,

Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights

Hearing on "The Express Scripts/Medco Merger: Cost Savings for Consumers or More Profits for the Middlemen?"

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.  Whether people know it or not, this proposed merger will affect them.  Prescription drugs are a daily part of many folk's lives.  How those drugs are paid for and determining who gets paid what is a complex process.  At the heart of all of this are the Pharmacy Benefit Managers, or PBMs.

The combination of Express Scripts and Medco would create a company that processes almost one-third of all PBM-administered prescriptions.  Basically, one in four individuals who receive prescription drugs through a health plan will be impacted.  So, this is an important matter.  I expect the Federal Trade Commission will examine this merger rigorously, as they should.

Today this Committee has the opportunity to hear some practical concerns with the merger in a public forum.  I'm sure there will be much discussion on the legal issues that will be part of the Federal Trade Commission's review.  However, we get the chance to listen to those who support and oppose the proposed merger. I expect the discussion will be fruitful and informative.

I've heard from a large number of Iowa pharmacists who raise concerns.  I'm interested to hear about the effect this merger will have on them and consumers.  There are also transparency and competition issues that deserve discussion and today's a great opportunity to do so.

***Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady's prepared testimony is attached.

Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Hearing of the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts

"Access to the Court: Televising the Supreme Court"

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Madam Chairman, I want to thank you for calling a hearing on increasing the public's access to the Supreme Court.  Over ten years ago, Sen. Schumer and I introduced the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, a bill which would grant federal judges the authority to allow cameras in the courtroom.  Since that time, this bill has been brought before the committee many times.  And each time it has been scrutinized, improved upon, and reported out under broad bi-partisan support.

Today's hearing focuses on a companion issue: whether or not the Supreme Court should permit cameras in its courtroom.  Just yesterday, Sen. Durbin and I introduced "The Cameras in the Courtroom Act of 2011," a bill which would require the Supreme Court to broadcast and televise its proceedings.  Like the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, this bill has also been brought before the committee on several occasions.  It, too, was reported out favorably with bi-partisan support and was championed by my friend, Senator Arlen Specter, who I am pleased to see here today.

My interest in expanding the people's access to the Supreme Court increased eleven years ago when the Supreme Court decided to hear arguments on the Florida recount during the 2000 Presidential Election.  Senator Schumer and I urged the Supreme Court to open the arguments to live broadcast.  In response, the Supreme Court took the then unprecedented step of releasing an audio recording of their arguments shortly after they occurred.  It was a sign of progress that gave the entire country the opportunity to experience what so few get to: the Supreme Court at work.

Just last year, the Supreme Court began releasing audio recording of its proceedings at the end of each week.  This is another step in the right direction and I applaud the court for increasing its transparency and access.  But it is not enough.  I believe that the nature of our government and the fundamental principles upon which it was built require more.

As Abraham Lincoln said, ours is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  Our Constitution divides power.  It creates a system of checks and balances.  But most importantly, it makes the government accountable to the people.  The best way we can ensure that the federal government is accountable to the people is to create transparency, openness, and access.

Sadly, the vast majority of the people do not believe they have adequate access to the Supreme Court.  According to a poll released last year, 62 percent of Americans believe that they hear too little about the workings of the Supreme Court.  Two-thirds of Americans want to know more.  What could be a better source of the workings of the Supreme Court than the Supreme Court itself?

In 1947, the Supreme Court stated, "what transpires in the courtroom is public property."  Well, if its public property, then it belongs to the whole public, not just the 200 people who can fit inside the public gallery.  With today's technology, there is no reason why arguments could not be broadcast in an easy, unobtrusive, and respectful manner that would preserve the dignity of the Supreme Court's work and grant access to the millions of Americans wishing to know more.

My state, Iowa, knows something about this.  For over 30 years, it has permitted the broadcast of its trial and appellate courts.  In fact, I am pleased to welcome Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady here today.  He has come to share with this committee his unique perspective of presiding over a court that broadcasts its proceedings.  He is a strong proponent of transparency and continues to pioneer new ways to give the public greater access to their court system.  I look forward to hearing his testimony and thank him for his time here today.

Before we begin, I ask that three things be included in the record.  First is a letter I wrote to Chief Justice Roberts last month, urging him to permit cameras during the court's upcoming arguments over the constitutionality of President Obama's healthcare law.  This upcoming case is the perfect example for why the Supreme Court should televise its proceedings.   It is a case which will address the role and reach of the federal government.  All of us deserve to see and hear the legal arguments in a case which will have a lasting effect on every single American.

The second and third are newspaper editorial opinions. One is written by the Editorial Board of Iowa's second largest paper, The Gazette.  The other is written by the Editorial Board of the Washington Post.  Both express belief that the Supreme Court must permit its proceedings to be broadcast.  It isn't often that the American Heartland and the Washington Establishment agree on something.   I ask that each of these be made part of the record.

Once again, I want to thank Sen. Klobuchar for organizing this hearing.  I would also like to thank each witness in advance for their testimony.  This is a distinguished panel of witnesses who will provide excellent insights.  I am eager to hear what each of you has to say.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing with Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer Questions for the Record received December 2, 2011 and letter from Attorney General Eric Holder, October 7, 2011

The February 4th Response - The Justice Department can't have it both ways

• Attorney General Holder letter to Senator Grassley, Congressman Issa, October 7, 2011: "Senator Grassley has suggested that I was aware of Operation Fast and Furious from letters he provided to me on or about January 31, 2011 that were addressed to the former Acting Director of ATF.  However, those letters referred only to an ATF umbrella initiative on the Southwest Border that started under the prior Administration -- Project Gunrunner -- and not to Operation Fast and Furious."

• Senator Grassley: "Did your Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) Jason Weinstein review the Department's February 4, 2011 letter to me?"

Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, December 2, 2011: "Yes, DAAG Weinstein reviewed the letter; he also participated in its drafting."

"Based on the documents being produced by the Justice Department, I understand that two emails attaching drafts of the letter were sent to me by DAAG Weinstein on February 2, while I was in Mexico (February 1-3), and that I forwarded one of those emails to my personal email account on that day; I also understand that on February 4, after I had returned from Mexico, I received two emails attaching signed versions of the letter, including the final version, and that on February 5, I forwarded both emails to my personal email account. However, as I testified, I cannot say for sure whether I saw a draft of the letter before it was sent to you."

FACT

The letter which Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein participated in drafting, and which Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer was sent drafts of, stated: "ATF makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico."  Weinstein knew this was clearly false because he knew about gunwalking in Operation Wide Receiver, which he brought to Breuer's attention in April 2010.  Had Breuer read this letter (he is unclear if he read it), he would have known this sentence was false as well.

Like Senator Grassley's January 27 letter, the Justice Department's February 4 letter applied to all of Project Gunrunner, of which both Operation Wide Receiver and Operation Fast and Furious were a part.  The Attorney General can't simultaneously claim that Senator Grassley's January 27 letter was too broad for him to be aware that Grassley was talking about of Fast and Furious but that their response was so narrow as to only apply to Fast and Furious, which is never specifically named in the Justice Department's February 4 letter.