30 Apr 2012

Napolitano Before Senate Judiciary Committee, questions on Secret Service, Immigration

By Grassley Press

Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Grassley of Iowa

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Hearing on "Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security"

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

 

Mr. Chairman, oversight is a critical function and a constitutional responsibility of the legislative branch.  Hearings like this one are an avenue for Congress to raise questions, concerns, and suggestions for improving government functions.  This hearing should also be an avenue for us to evaluate how the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) carries out its mission.  It should also be an opportunity for the department to take responsibility for its actions and policies.

 

Before I begin to discuss the issues that pertain to this committee, I would like to voice frustration at the non-responsive letters I have received from DHS.  In fact, 99 percent of the time, when I write to the Secretary, I don't get a response directly from her.  The responses come from the Office of Legislative Affairs.  But more frustrating is that my questions are rarely, if ever answered.  Unbelievably, the Secretary just responded to questions we posed at the last Judiciary Committee oversight hearing, which took place in October of last year.  I hope the Secretary will respect the oversight role that some of us in Congress take seriously.  The department needs to be held accountable to Congress and to the American people, and it should be forthcoming so we can take steps to ensure the government is acting appropriately in carrying out our laws.

 

U.S. Secret Service INVESTIGATION

 

We continue to learn more each day about the ongoing investigation into agents of the U.S. Secret Service who were removed from Colombia following allegations that they had foreign national prostitutes in their rooms.  While I commend Director Sullivan for immediately removing these agents from Colombia and for initiating an investigation into this matter, more work remains.  For example, the Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security needs to be involved to make this investigation impartial and credible.  The Secret Service has a long and distinguished history.  This entire incident is a black eye for an agency full of hard working and dedicated agents and officers.  This matter needs to be resolved soon given the serious national security issues associated with this alleged conduct.

 

At the beginning of his administration, President Obama released a memorandum entitled "Transparency and Open Government" and stated, "My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government."  We have seen time and again that this administration has contradicted that goal set by President Obama.  However, it's my hope that the White House will provide details to Congress about the internal review that took place last weekend with regard to the Secret Service and White House Office of Advance.

 

According to the White House spokesman, that investigation was conducted by the White House Counsel's Office, despite the fact that on Friday the White House apparently didn't see the need to look into this further.  This raises a lot of questions about how deep an inquiry was conducted, especially given it was completed in just two days.  I want to know if the investigation involved pulling any hotel records in Colombia or whether we are to simply take the White House at their word.  This is not a fishing expedition; it is a logical extension of the Secret Service investigation.  Given the serious national security concerns that any vulnerability in the President's protection could come from having unauthorized guests, we need to get to the bottom of this and the White House should cooperate immediately.  I look forward to hearing from the Secretary about her views on this matter and what steps she has taken to help the Director and Inspector General get to the bottom of this matter.

 

IMMIGRATION

 

Today's hearing is an opportunity to assess this administration's immigration policies, and to raise questions about whether these policies are consistent with the laws on the books.  I have serious concerns not only about policies put forth by the Department, but also the manner in which such policies have been rolled out.

 

The President announced a new campaign slogan called "We Can't Wait" to justify why his administration continues to circumvent Congress and the democratic process.  The administration continues to put out memos and directives that have not gone through the rule- making process.  I got my first glimpse into this campaign when I uncovered the memo titled, "Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform."  For years, the administration has been intent to act unilaterally, and in doing so, they have disregarded the rule of law.

 

Let's consider the President's immigration policies in the last two years alone.

 

In a departmental memo last March, ICE Director John Morton outlined new enforcement priorities and encouraged the use of "prosecutorial discretion" for illegal aliens who did not meet these priorities.  The memo prescribed guidelines for limiting the detention of certain illegal aliens.  Then, in a memo sent out in June of 2011, Director Morton discouraged ICE agents from enforcing immigration laws against certain segments of the illegal alien population, including aliens who essentially qualify for the DREAM Act.

 

Last August, Secretary Napolitano announced a case-by-case review of all aliens currently in or who will be entering deportation proceedings in order to determine who will be granted administrative amnesty.  The Secretary claimed that this process would allow the government to direct resources at higher priority cases.  This so-called "pilot" program has been carried out in Baltimore and Denver, and will expand to seven additional immigration courts.

 

This year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service unveiled a new policy allowing certain aliens to bypass the statutory 3 and 10 year bars on inadmissibility.  Generally speaking, the 3 and 10-year bars were created to deter illegal immigration and marriage fraud.  Yet, the administration wants to ignore the law that Congress passed in this regard, and provide waivers for an untold number of people who would normally be subject to the bars.

 

In January, the President issued an Executive Order to increase tourism to the United States, which would allow visa applicants to undergo less scrutiny by consular officers.  Prior to September 11, 2001, consular officers were allowed to waive an interview for a visa applicant seeking entry into the United States.  Sadly, only two of the nineteen hijackers had been personally interviewed by the U.S. government to get their visa.  As a result of 9/11, Congress established that all visa applicants be required to go through the interview process, with limited exceptions.  The tourism initiative announced by the President would allow officers to waive in-person interviews for individuals reapplying for temporary admission to the United States. The law was written to specifically limit any exceptions to the in-person interview.  Once again, the administration is blatantly ignoring the safeguards that Congress put in place to prevent another terrorist attack.

 

In addition to implementing several initiatives that disregard the rule of law, the administration has taken an inconsistent position on state and local governments that enact their own immigration laws and ordinances.  The administration has filed suit against Arizona, South Carolina, Utah, and Alabama.  Moreover, in retaliation for Alabama's state law, the department halted the implementation of Secure Communities.

 

I find it frustrating that the Administration has challenged several states for passing laws that aim to protect their citizens while essentially turning a blind eye to jurisdictions that actively promote safe harbor policies.  If the administration truly believes immigration law is only to be enforced by the federal government, as it has argued before several courts, it should adhere to that position and consider taking action against jurisdictions that actively thwart effective federal enforcement of the laws.

 

Then there are policies that leave taxpayers footing the bill for benefits to people who are here unlawfully.

 

In February, ICE Director Morton announced that illegal immigrants residing in the country would have a lobbyist at headquarters to "serve as a point of contact for individuals, including those in immigration proceedings, NGOs, and other community and advocacy groups, who have concerns, questions, recommendations or important issues they would like to raise."  The rationale behind this new position is not very clear, and I'd be interested in learning more from the Secretary about what this person does on a day-to-day basis.

 

Also in February, ICE announced changes to its detention standards, providing more accommodations and benefits to illegal aliens.  For example, aliens will now receive physical education classes and internet access.  And, taxpayers will help pay for costs associated with abortions and transgender hormone therapies.  Also, taxpayers will be footing the bill for luxuries and services that are not afforded to other criminals.

 

I'd also like to hear from the Secretary about the state of the border.  Americans have long been demanding that the federal government control its borders.  Yet, the President announced last week that 900 of the 1,200 National Guard Troops at the border will be sent home.  Taxpayers are left questioning the priorities of this President when illegal aliens get an advocate in Washington, and when resources from the border are diverted to plush detention facilities.

 

I also remain concerned about the "Get to Yes" philosophy that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service has espoused.  In January, an Inspector General's report found that line officials at USCIS are pressured to approve applications by supervisors.  The report says that a quarter of the immigration service officers interviewed felt pressure to approve questionable applications, and 90 percent of respondents felt they didn't have sufficient time to complete interviews of those who seek benefits, concluding that the speed at which these applications must be processed leaves ample room for error and leaves the U.S. open to national security dangers.  I plan to ask the Secretary about this pressure, including information that has come to my attention about a particular case highlighted by the mainstream media.  I want to know if adjudication decisions are being reversed after sympathetic news reports.

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA)

 

I also have concerns about how the department is treating citizens who oppose the administration's policies.  U.S. citizens who oppose the administration's policies should not be viewed or treated as "enemies."  And they shouldn't become the subject of government monitoring because they oppose the administration's policies.

 

I am troubled by news reports that the department is monitoring citizens who speak out against the Obama administration's policies and, in particular, its immigration policies.  According to reports, a review of a 2011 reference guide for Homeland Security analysts reveals that DHS is tracking opponents.  It appears that the DHS may be directing its analysts to identify and monitor media reports that reflect adversely on the DHS, and to track reports on the administration's policy changes in immigration, and the term "illegal immigration" in particular.  This monitoring goes beyond reviewing news stories.  It apparently includes monitoring social media, such as Twitter and Facebook.

 

I have to question why the department is gathering this information on U.S. citizens.  And I have to ask how far the information gathering goes and what the department is doing with this information?

 

These reports renew my concerns about how the DHS treats requesters of information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

 

Perhaps the most dramatic and troubling departure from President Obama's vow to usher in "a new era of open government" was revealed in Homeland Security e-mails obtained by the Associated Press (AP) in July of 2010.  According to the AP, in July 2009, in connection with requests under the FOIA, the department introduced a directive requiring a wide range of information to be vetted by political appointees.  Career employees were ordered to provide Secretary Napolitano's political staff with information about the people who asked for records and about the organizations where they worked.  According to the AP, anything related to an Obama policy priority was pegged for this review.  Also included was anything that touched on a controversial or sensitive subject that could attract media attention.  Anything requested by lawmakers, journalists, activist groups or watchdog organizations had to go to the political appointees.

 

Under the FOIA, people can request copies of records without specifying why they want them and are not obligated to provide personal information about themselves other than their name and an address where the records should be sent.  Yet political appointees at the DHS researched the motives or affiliations of the requesters.

 

On March 30, 2011, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released its 153-page report on its investigation of the department's political vetting of FOIA requests.  The committee reviewed thousands of pages of internal DHS e-mails and memoranda and conducted six transcribed witness interviews.  It learned through the course of an eight-month investigation that political staff under Secretary Napolitano had exerted pressure on FOIA compliance officers, and undermined the federal government's accountability to the American people.

 

The department's political screening of FOIA requests is disturbing and I continue to have concerns about it, even though the department maintains that it has stopped.

 

MANagement at DHs

 

A serious, but often overlooked matter that we all should be concerned with is management of the federal government agencies we oversee.  Management problems at the top of an agency can trickle down to problems in the field.  As the buck should stop with the Secretary, I think it is worth noting that last month, for the sixth year in a row, DHS was awarded an abysmal score by the Partnership for Public Service's Best Place to Work.  DHS ranked 31 out of 33 federal organizations.  This included a four point drop from last year.  DHS placed in the bottom three spots in almost every category evaluated, and placed dead last in "effective leadership."  These are poor scores that indicate serious problems with management at DHS.  Effective leadership starts at the top and I want to hear from Secretary Napolitano what she is doing to fix this leadership deficiency at DHS.

 

DHS Role in Addressing Cybersecurity

 

Congress is currently debating legislation to enhance our national capability to protect and defend against cyber-attacks.  There are a number of different proposals pending before the House and Senate that contain varying policy approaches.  There are a number of areas of agreement across party lines on certain provisions, including information sharing, research and development, criminal law reforms, and updating the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA).  However, the biggest point of contention remains whether to increase the size of the federal government by adding new regulatory powers for oversight of cybersecurity to the mission of the DHS.  I strongly oppose any expansion of DHS's power.  The documented failures of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) should be a clear warning that the department is simply not up to the task it was created to do.

 

In October 2006, President Bush signed the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, which provides DHS the authority to regulate the security of high-risk chemical facilities.  To implement this authority, in 2007 DHS issued the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Interim Final Rule (CFATS Final Rule).  These regulations required a number of regulated industries, including chemical manufacturers and distributors, to prepare site security plans (SSPs) to determine whether a facility would fall under DHS's regulatory authority.  These SSPs were expensive and DHS estimated that compliance with the regulations could cost up to $5000 per site, just to complete the SSP.  SSPs were then to be returned to DHS where a determination would be made as to what additional security would be ordered for a specific site.

 

Almost immediately after the regulations were issued, problems arose.  For example, DHS's determination as to who qualified for a SSP under the regulations included any site with over 1,000 gallons of propane.  Effectively, this would have required virtually every family farm or rural homestead with an individual use propane tank to complete a SSP as a chemical facility.  While DHS ultimately corrected this anomaly, it merely highlighted problems to come.

 

More recently, it has been reported that despite this regulation, DHS has spent nearly $500 million in the last four years with nothing to show for it.  In fact, DHS has yet to approve a single site security plan for the 4,200 entities that submitted one.  Further, the CFATS computer program at DHS made significant errors in calculating risk at chemical plants in both 2009 and 2010, but the errors were not reported up the management chain and did not come to light until just last summer.  Further, congressional investigators have started to review DHS's actions under CFATS to determine where nearly $480 million was spent given DHS has yet to approve a single SSP.  Rand Beers, the Undersecretary in charge of the program, nevertheless claims that progress has been made despite the problems.

 

However, a crucial internal document written by DHS officials working for Undersecretary Beers tells a much different story.  In a memorandum dated November 10, 2011, the Director and Deputy Director of the Infrastructure Security Compliance Division of the Office of Infrastructure Protection informed Beers of the total failure of their division in implementing CFATS.  This document is perhaps the most critical internal review a government agency has ever written about itself.

 

For example, the document details how after four years DHS has yet to approve a single site security plan and is not even ready to conduct a compliance inspection.  The memorandum states that the reasons for the failure include inadequate training, overreliance on external experts, poor hiring decisions including hiring those who do not have the necessary skills to perform the job, poor staff morale, management and leadership without experience in the field or knowledge of the subject-matter, lack of regulatory compliance experts, lack of transparency, ineffective communications, union problems, and a "catastrophic failure to ensure personal and professional accountability."

 

Most notably, the memorandum states, "It has become apparent that our inspector cadre lacks sufficient expertise to effectively evaluate chemical facility compliance with Risk Based Performance Standard (RBPS) 8, cyber security."  Simply put, DHS's own internal review of the last major regulatory undertaking Congress authorized the agency to do has found that the agency cannot meet its mission.  It highlights a bureaucracy so incompetent that it cannot make basic hiring and staffing decisions.  This memorandum should be praised for its candor and those who authored it should be commended.  However, it shows a broken agency with failed leadership that needs to be reined in, lest the federal taxpayers provide another half-billion dollars and get nothing for it.

 

As if this internal review wasn't enough to signal how DHS is unable to take on the cybersecurity mission, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report in July 2008 titled, "Cyber Analysis and Warning: DHS Faces Challenges in Establishing a Comprehensive National Capability."  This report found numerous challenges that DHS faced including: filling key management positions, identifying and acquiring technological tools to strengthen cyber analytical capabilities, expeditiously hiring sufficiently trained cyber analysts, engaging appropriate stakeholders in federal and nonfederal entities to develop trusted relationships, and ensuring distinct and transparent lines of authority and responsibility.  Further, GAO found deficiencies in response by United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT); deficiencies in warning notifications that are targeted and actionable, deficiencies in analysis and ability to investigate incidents, and deficiencies in monitoring a comprehensive baseline understanding of the nation's critical information infrastructure.  Nearly four years after the issuance of this report, all ten of GAO's recommendations to DHS remain open and unimplemented.

 

Taken together, the many failures of CFATS and the outstanding questions GAO highlighted lead me to question whether DHS could handle a new regulatory mission addressing cybersecurity.  At the very least, DHS has a lot of house cleaning to do before Congress should even consider consolidating cybersecurity matters at DHS, let alone to create an entirely new regulatory bureaucracy covering both the public and private sectors.

 

FAST AND FURIOUS

 

Finally, I'd like to say something about my Fast and Furious investigation.

 

One year ago when we had an oversight hearing with the Secretary, I asked whether she realized that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had an agent assigned to Fast and Furious.  That ICE agent was involved enough in Fast and Furious that he was designated as a co-case agent for the operation.  ICE kept a totally separate case file from ATF's, and the case file that was stored in ICE's system runs to 2,000 pages.

 

An ICE agent was there on May 29, 2010, when the main target of Operation Fast and Furious was stopped at the border trying to enter Mexico with 74 rounds of ammunition and an illegal alien.  He was part of the interview where the target was caught lying to federal agents, then allowed to take his cargo into Mexico after simply agreeing to call a phone number the ATF agent wrote on a ten dollar bill.  As far as we know, he didn't call.  He wasn't arrested until seven months later, after the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

 

Customs officers were also present for this May 29, 2010, incident.  It's unclear what kind of pressure they felt from ATF to let this criminal go.  No doubt they had no idea that guns he had trafficked would be found at the murder scene of their colleague, Agent Terry.

 

However, it's clear that Fast and Furious wasn't just a Justice Department problem.  I have been told that law enforcement from many agencies realized something was fishy with ATF's "big case."  I would like the Homeland Security Department's cooperation in getting to the bottom of this.

 

Thanks to the Secretary for appearing before us today.  I look forward to hearing from Secretary Napolitano.

 

-30-
30 Apr 2012

Violence Against Women Act, Opening Remarks

By Grassley Press

Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley

Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee

Opening Remarks, The Violence Against Women Act

Thursday, April 26, 2012

 

Mr. President, I have seen the good that the law has done in providing victims services in Iowa.  We all recognize the harms that flow from domestic violence.  It's both on the victims and on victims' families.

 

I have supported reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act each time that it has come up.  VAWA reauthorization on each of these occasions has been bipartisan.  We have passed consensus bills.  We have not played politics with reauthorizing this law.

 

Until now.  This time, it's different.  The majority turned this issue into a partisan bill.

 

In the Judiciary Committee, the Majority gave no notice that it would inject new matters into the Violence Against Women Act.  When the Committee held a hearing on VAWA, these ideas were not discussed.  Their need has not been demonstrated.  We do not know exactly how they will work.  It was clear that Committee Republicans would not be able to agree to this new added material.  The majority refused during negotiations when we asked that they be removed.

 

Republicans will be offering a substitute amendment to the Leahy bill.  Probably 80 to 85 percent of the substitute we're offering is the same.  This includes whole titles of the bill.

 

We could have again reached a near consensus bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.  But the majority intentionally decided not to change the bill.  They didn't want it to pass with an overwhelming bipartisan majority.

 

Now the media has reported that this was the deliberate strategy of the majority.  A recent Politico article quoted a prominent Democrat senator.

 

The article said that he "wants to fast track the bill to the floor, let the GOP block it, then allow Democrats to accuse Republicans of waging a 'war against women.'"

 

This is the cynical, partisan game-playing that Americans are sick of.  This is especially the case here.

 

Republicans aren't even blocking the bill.  We've called for the bill to be brought up. Instead the majority has taken 6 months to reauthorize this program that expired last October. That says something about the majority's priorities.  For instance, last week we wasted time on political votes.  That seems to be the case in the Senate most of the year.

 

The Senate can pass a bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act by an overwhelming margin.  It seems like the other party doesn't want that to happen.  When they say unfavorable things about Republicans and women, they aren't being forthright.

 

A few weeks ago, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out a fundraising email.

 

The email stated in part, "Now, there are news reports that Republicans in Congress will oppose re-authorizing the Violence Against Women Act.  Enough is enough!  The Republican War on Women must be stopped NOW.... Will you chip in $3 by midnight tonight to hold Republicans accountable for their War on Women?"

 

The majority had a decision between raising money for campaigns or trying to get a VAWA reauthorization bill that would help victims.

 

My fellow Senators:  There is no "War on Women," except the political one.  It's a figment of imagination of Democratic strategists who don't want to remember health care reform, unemployment and high gas prices.  All evidence points to the other side being more interested in raising money.  The media has also reported that the bill is coming up now because the Democrats' desire to gin up a Republican so-called war on women were derailed last week.

 

It should be clear at the outset that Republicans are not blocking, have not blocked, and never threatened to block the Senate's consideration of this bill.  The Judiciary Committee only reported the bill to the Senate in January.  It was March before it filed its Committee report in the Senate.  Democrats immediately came to the floor and urged the bill to come up.  It was up to the Majority Leader to decide when the bill should be debated.  He's finally decided that now is the time.

 

As long as there is a fair process for offering amendments, including our alternative bill, and pointing out the flaws in the majority's bill, this should be a relatively short process.

 

Several other important points should be established.

 

First, I hope a consensus version of VAWA will be reauthorized.  If a consensus bill doesn't pass, no rights of women or anyone else will be affected if a bill does not pass.  Contrary to statements made, there would be no cutbacks of services.  VAWA is an authorization bill only.  It does not provide one dime of money.  That result occurs through the appropriations process.  Appropriators can fund VAWA programs regardless of whether VAWA is reauthorized.  This is exactly what they did last year.

 

We think that new issues have arisen since the last VAWA reauthorization. These issues should be addressed in a consensus reauthorization bill.  That can happen.  We should give guidance to the appropriators.  I support the appropriators continuing to fund VAWA while we're trying to put together a consensus bill.  VAWA is being funded despite the expiration of its previous authorization.  No existing rights of anyone are affected if VAWA is not reauthorized.  No existing rights of anyone are affected if we pass a consensus bill rather than the majority's bill.

 

Second, the majority controls how bills move in the Senate.  As I said, the current VAWA reauthorization expired six months ago.  If VAWA reauthorization was so important, the Democrats could have moved to reauthorize this bill months ago.  They didn't move a bill because no one's substantive rights or funding are stake.  This is true even though the prior reauthorization has expired and a new reauthorization bill has not yet passed.

 

Third, nothing like the majority's bill, where it does not reflect consensus, will become law.  It's a political exercise only.  The other body will not pass it.  If we want to pass a consensus VAWA reauthorization bill, we ought to start with the Republican alternative.

 

Fourth, the majority's bill, as reported out of Committee, was fiscally irresponsible. According to the Congressional Budget Office the majority's bill would have added more than $100 million in new direct spending.  That will increase the deficit by that same amount.  The reason is the immigration provisions that we said were non-starters.  These were some of the provisions that the majority refused to take out.  Those provisions are bad immigration policy.  Nonetheless, I am glad that the majority has now found an offset for this spending.

 

The Republican alternative does more to protect the rights of victims of domestic violence and sex crimes than does the majority bill.  There are many ways in which this is so.

 

Under the substitute amendment, more money goes to victims and less to bureaucrats.  It requires that 10 percent of grantees be audited every year.  This is to ensure that taxpayer funds are actually being used to combat domestic violence.

 

This is an important point.  The Justice Department Inspector General conducted a review of 22 VAWA grantees from 1998 to 2010.  Of these 22 audits, 21 were found to have some form of violation of grant requirements.  The violations range from unauthorized and unallowable expenditures, to sloppy recordkeeping and failure to report in a timely manner.

 

In 2010, one grantee was found by the Inspector General to have questionable costs for 93 percent of the nearly $900,000 they received from the Justice Department.  A 2009 audit found that nearly $500,000 of a $680,000 grant was questionable.

 

The fiscal irregularities continue.

 

An Inspector General audit from just this year found that a VAWA grant recipient in the Virgin Islands engaged in almost $850,000 in questionable spending.  Also a grant to an Indian tribe in Idaho found about $250,000 in improperly spent funds.  This includes $171,000 in salary for an unapproved position.  In Michigan this year, a woman at a VAWA grant recipient used grant funds to purchase goods and services for her personal use.

 

We should make sure that VAWA money goes to the victims.  That hasn't been the case under the current situation.

 

The Republican substitute also prevents grantees from using taxpayer funds to lobby for more taxpayer funds.  That will ensure that more money is available for victim services.  Money that goes to grantees and is squandered helps no women or other victims.

 

In addition, the Republican alternative limits the amount of VAWA funds that can go to administrative fees and salaries to 7.5 percent.  The Leahy bill contains no such limit.  If you want the money to go to victims and not bureaucrats, those overhead expenses should be capped.

 

The Republican substitute amendment requires that 30 percent of STOP grants and grants for arrest policies and protection orders are targeted on sexual assault.  The Leahy-Crapo bill sets aside only 20 percent for sexual assault.

 

The Hutchison-Grassley substitute requires that training materials be approved by an outside accredited organization.  This ensures that those who address domestic violence help victims based on knowledge and not ideology.  That will result in more effective assistance to victims.  The Leahy-Crapo bill contains no such requirement.

 

The Hutchison-Grassley substitute protects due process rights that the majority bill threatens.  For instance, the majority bill said that college campuses must provide for "prompt and equitable investigation and resolution" of charges of violence or stalking.  This would have codified a proposed rule of the Department of Education that would have required imposition of a civil standard or preponderance of the evidence for what is essentially a criminal charge, one that if proved, rightfully should harm reputation.  But if established on a barely more probable than not standard, reputations can be ruined unfairly.

 

The substitute eliminates this provision.  Now, the majority has changed their own bill's language.  I take that as an implicit recognition of the injustice of the original language.

 

The substitute also eliminates a provision that allowed the victim who could not prove such a charge to appeal if she lost, creating a kind of double jeopardy.

 

The majority bill also would give Indian tribal courts the ability to issue protection orders and full civil jurisdiction over non-Indians based on actions allegedly taken in Indian Country. Noting that the Due Process Clause requires that courts exercise jurisdiction over only those persons who have "minimum contacts" with the forum, the Congressional Research Service has raised constitutional questions about this provision.

 

The Administration and its supporters in this body pursue their policy agenda headlong without bothering to consider the Constitution.  The substitute contains provisions that would benefit tribal women and would not run afoul of the Constitution.

 

We have heard a lot of talk about how important the rape kit provisions in the Judiciary Committee bill are.  I strongly support funds to reduce the backlog in testing rape kits.  But that bill provides that only 40 percent of the rape kit money actually be used to reduce the backlog.  The substitute ensures that 70 percent of the funding will go to that purpose.  It requires that 1 percent of Debbie Smith Act funds be used to create a national database to track the rape kit backlog.  It also mandates that 7 percent of the existing Debbie Smith Act funds be used to pay for state and local audits of the backlog.  Debbie Smith, herself, has endorsed these provisions.  The majority bill has no such provisions.  Making sure that money that is claimed to reduce the rape kit backlog actually does so is pro-victim.  True reform in VAWA reauthorization should further that goal.

 

Combating violence against women also means tougher penalties for those who commit these terrible crimes.  The Hutchison-Grassley substitute creates a 10 year mandatory minimum sentence for federal convictions for forcible rape.  The majority bill establishes a 5 year mandatory minimum sentence.  That provision is only there because Republicans offered it and won it in Committee.

 

Child pornography is an actual record of a crime scene of violence against women.  Our alternative establishes a 1 year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of child pornography where the victim depicted is under 12 years of age.

 

I believe that the mandatory minimum for this crime should be higher.  In light of the lenient sentences that many federal judges hand out, there should be a mandatory minimum sentence for all child pornography possession convictions.  But the substitute is a start.

 

This is especially true because the majority bill takes no action against child pornography.  The alternative also imposes a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of aggravated sexual assault.  This crime involves sexual assault through the use of drugs or by otherwise rendering the victim unconscious.  The Leahy bill does nothing about aggravated sexual assault.

 

The status quo appears to be fine for the other side.

 

The Hutchison-Grassley amendment establishes a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of interstate domestic violence that results in the death of the victim.  It increases from 20 to 25 years the statutory maximum sentence for the crime where it results in life threatening bodily injury to, or the permanent disfigurement of, the victim.  It increases from 10 to 15 years the statutory maximum sentence for this crime when serious bodily injury to the victim results.  The Leahy bill contains none of these important protections for domestic violence victims.

 

The substitute grants administrative subpoena power to the U.S. Marshals Service to help them discharge their duty of tracking and apprehending unregistered sex offenders.  The Leahy bill does nothing to help locate and apprehend unregistered sex offenders.

 

And the substitute cracks down on abuse in the award of U visas for illegal aliens and the fraud in the VAWA self-petitioning process.  The majority bill does not include any reform of these benefits, despite actual evidence of fraud in this program.

 

One of the senators who recently came to the floor complained that there had never been controversy in reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.  But in the past, there were not deliberate efforts to create partisan divisions.  We always proceeded in a consensus fashion.

 

Domestic violence is an important issue and a serious problem.  We all recognize that.

 

In the past, we put victims ahead of politics in addressing it.  When the other side says this should not be about politics or partisanship, we agree.

 

It's the majority that has now decided that they want to score political points above assisting victims.  They want to portray a phony war on women because this is an election year.  They're raising campaign money by trying to exploit this issue.  There could have been a consensus bill before us today as in the past.  There is controversy now because that's what the majority seems to want.

 

We look forward to a fair debate on this bill and the chance to offer and vote on our substitute amendment.  That amendment contains much that is in agreement with the Leahy bill.  The substitute also is much closer to what can actually be enacted into law to protect victims of domestic violence.

 

-30-
30 Apr 2012

Farm and Nutrition Bill Mark-Up Begins

By Grassley Press

Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry

"The Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012" Mark-Up

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Thank you Madam Chairwoman.  I appreciate all the work you and Ranking Member Roberts have put into this farm bill so far.  And while we still have a ways to go in the process, we are headed in the right direction.

The farm bill is never an easy process, and it certainly isn't any easier under the current budget conditions.  We are dealing with a broad range of issues that are important to Americans, from conservation to nutrition.  It's important we get a bill done this year.

Many of the members of this committee have come together in supporting what many farmers say is the most important piece of the safety-net, crop insurance.  We have worked for 30 years to make it an effective risk management tool.  And farmers have skin in the game with crop insurance, and that's good policy.

There has been a lot of debate about the programs this committee is going to create to replace direct payments.  I still have reservations about a Title 1 revenue program, and its potential interaction with crop insurance.  But I understand the reality that there is fairly broad support for a revenue program.

I commend the Chair and Ranking Member on providing a high level of defensibility to the Chairwoman's mark.  Accepting my proposal for a $50,000 payment cap on the commodity program is crucial to ensure that we all can go to the Senate floor and defend this bill.

And I am pleased we are finally closing the loopholes in actively engaged.  My amendment, which was accepted into the modified mark, will help ensure farm payments go to farmers, not doctors, lawyers, and celebrities.

There is no justification for allowing nonfarmers to receive farm payments.  And that is particularly true in this current budget climate.  The payment limits reform in the Chairwoman's mark is something this committee should be very proud of.

I'm not going to ask for a vote today on my packer ban amendment, but I still want to say few things about it.

For too long, large meat packers have had an unfair advantage in the market place.  At some point, Congress has to address the fact that independent livestock producers are entitled to a level playing field.

One big step Congress could take to solve the competition problems is banning packer ownership of livestock.  As one packer executive once told me, packers own livestock so that when prices are high, they kill their own livestock, when prices are low, they buy from the farmer.

Banning packer ownership of livestock will help us ensure our livestock producers are able to compete in the marketplace.

Thank you Madam Chairwoman, and I look forward to moving an effective and defensible farm bill out of this committee.

-30-

30 Apr 2012

Postal Service legislation

By Grassley Press
Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Senator Chuck Grassley issued the comment below about his vote for the 21st Century Postal Service Act, S.1789.

"This legislation isn't perfect, but it takes steps to correct Postal Service problems that could result in mail delivery coming to a halt entirely, if not addressed.  Unless we help the Postal Service cut costs, the borrowing authority of the Postal Service will run out in the fall, and it will be unable to make payroll.  By acting now, and with this legislation, it's likely that fewer post offices will have to be closed and there will be more accountability regarding which offices are closed.   I voted for the bill, even if imperfect, to address a looming crisis now and avoid either a disruption in mail service or a taxpayer bailout, both of which would hurt the economy and take money out of the pockets of hard-working Americans."

30 Apr 2012

Minnesota Medicaid managed care, better program earnings reporting needed nationwide

By Grassley Press

Grassley Continues Review of Minnesota Medicaid, Calls for Consistent Reporting

of Program Earnings at Medicaid Managed Care Plans Nationwide

 

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today said the state of Minnesota's payment problems to managed care plans serving Medicaid beneficiaries, combined with inconsistent federal oversight of all state rate-setting in this area, call for consistent reporting standards across the board.

 

"Purchasers, in this case states, using transparent information about how their dollars are being spent, are best suited to make decisions about the value provided from managed care companies," Grassley said.  "We have legitimate disagreements about many issues in Congress, but on this issue, there can be no disagreement.  We must have a better understanding of where $7 trillion will be spent by the Medicaid program over the next 10 years."

 

Grassley's comments came in testimony before a joint hearing of two subcommittees of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.  The hearing covered several aspects of payment concerns in Medicaid, including payments to managed care plans in Minnesota.  State officials in Minnesota accepted $30 million for the state from one of Minnesota's contractor managed care plans and until this week, termed the payment a "donation" that did not require sharing with the federal government, which would be necessary under the state-federal Medicaid program.  This week, state officials agreed to give the federal government its share of the $30 million payment.

 

Information from the four managed care plans serving Medicaid beneficiaries in Minnesota showed that each plan listed excess revenues from Medicaid while showing losses on the state-only plans.  "This suggests the state might have overpaid managed care plans under Medicaid while underpaying the same plans to provide care for individuals covered with state-only dollars," Grassley said.

 

Grassley said the federal government should make sure states are required to know the medical-loss ratio of every managed care company they contract with specific to the Medicaid beneficiaries they serve.

 

That medical-loss ratio should be clearly defined by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and consistently implemented across every state that uses managed care, and the medical-loss ratio should be based on independently audited, verifiable encounter data and expense data that make clear what administrative expenses are related to the provision of Medicaid benefits and what administrative expenses are not, Grassley said.

 

Also today, Grassley wrote to the Minnesota legislative auditor, asking for all correspondence between the auditor and the state government, including state legislators, on the UCare payment.  The state auditor has questioned the candor of state officials who apparently withheld from him - as well as from Grassley - a letter from the federal government questioning the UCare payment.

 

Grassley's testimony before the House hearing is available here.  Grassley's letter to the Minnesota legislative auditor is available here.

 

 

-30-
25 Apr 2012

Grassley votes support small business

By Grassley Press

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley has earned a score of 100 percent in an interim report monitoring key small business votes during this session of the United States Senate.

The report was issued by the National Federation of Independent Business, the largest advocacy organization representing small and independent businesses in the United States.  Click here to see the report.

Grassley said that jobs and the economy are the number one issue nationwide, small businesses create two-thirds of all new jobs, and Congress should act to improve the landscape for job creation.

"The priorities need to be giving employers and small business owners greater certainty with taxes and regulations.  The threat of higher taxes and overly burdensome regulations inhibit economic activity and job creation.  There also ought to be a much more active effort by the administration to expand international trade.  Manufacturers, farmers and the services industry need new markets for products created by U.S. workers, and the rest of the world is moving ahead and building trading relationships without us.  Affordable energy is a major economic issue, too, and much more needs to be done to increase domestic production of traditional and alternative energy sources, both for lower energy costs and job creation," Grassley said.

-30-
25 Apr 2012

Pressing for More Details About White House Internal Investigation into Colombia Prostitution Scandal

By Grassley Press
Tuesday, April 24, 2012

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley is asking the White House Counsel for details regarding the White House's quick weekend internal investigation about any personnel involvement in the Colombia prostitution scandal.

On Friday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told the press corps that he saw no need for an internal review of any White House involvement.  At today's briefing, Carney said that an internal review was performed over the weekend and that no indication of any misconduct by the White House advance staff was found.  He failed to provide any details of the investigation or explain the methodology that was used.

Grassley said that questions should be answered publicly in order for the White House to set the record straight that the internal investigation was complete and thorough.  Grassley pointed out that President Obama had said that his administration will be the most transparent ever, but has not been forthcoming in several oversight matters that the executive branch is engaged in.

Here's a copy of the text of Grassley's letter.  A signed copy can be found here.

April 23, 2012

Via Electronic Transmission

Kathryn H. Ruemmler

Assistant to the President and White House Counsel

Executive Office of the President

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500

 

Dear Ms. Ruemmler:

 

I read the comments today by White House press secretary Jay Carney regarding the ongoing investigation into the recent events surrounding the recall of 11 Secret Service agents from Colombia.  On Friday evening I questioned Director Sullivan of the Secret Service and Acting Inspector General Edwards at the Department of Homeland Security about whether any members of the White House Communications Agency and/or White House Office of Advance ("White House advance staff") had overnight guests while in Colombia.[1] At this time I am awaiting Director Sullivan's full response to all my questions.

Today, it was announced by Mr. Carney that over the weekend the White House Counsel's Office reviewed the matter and concluded that there was "no indication of any misconduct" by White House advance staff.[2] This came after Mr. Carney was questioned on Friday about the potential need for an internal review of the White House advance staff.   Mr. Carney answered the question by assuring the White House press that, "I have no reason, as I said yesterday, to believe that there is a need for that."[3] Further, this afternoon, Mr. Carney refused to provide details of the review conducted by the White House Counsel's Office.[4]

At the beginning of his administration President Obama released a memorandum entitled "Transparency and Open Government" and stated, "My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government."[5] However, declining to provide details of the internal review conducted over the weekend, contradicts that goal set by President Obama.  Therefore, to set the record straight about what actions were taken by the White House Counsel's Office, please provide answers to the following questions:

1)      Provide a detailed overview on what led the White House Counsel's Office to conduct the weekend review?  Was there any thought given to having an independent review?  If not, please explain why not.

 

2)      How many individuals in the White House Counsel's Office were involved in this weekend review?

 

3)      How many total hours were spent on the weekend review?

 

4)      Was the review coordinated in any way with the Department of Defense to the extent that it covered military employees of the White House Communications Agency (WHCA)?

 

5)      Were civilian employees of WHCA also examined?

 

6)      How many White House advance staff were in Colombia prior to the President's arrival?

 

7)      How long before the President's arrival where the White House advance staff present?

 

8)      How many additional White House staff arrived with the President?

 

9)      Did the White House Counsel's Office review hotel records regarding overnight guests for all White House advance staff as well as additional White House Staff who arrived with the President ("other White House staff") in Cartegena, Colombia?  If so, for what time frame were records reviewed?

 

10)  How many White House advance staff had overnight guests?

 

11)  How many other White House staff had overnight guests?

 

12)  If there were overnight guests, did any White House advance staff or other White House staff with overnight guests pay additional room charges as a result?

 

13)  Did the White House Counsel's Office interview all White House advance staff and other White House staff?  If not, why not?

 

14)  Please provide a detailed overview of all the steps the White House Counsel's Office took to investigate this matter.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this request.  I would appreciate your response by April 26, 2012, as it only took a weekend to conduct this review, it should not take long to respond to these questions.  Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact my staff at (202) 224-5225.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Charles E. Grassley

Ranking Member

25 Apr 2012

Minnesota to return federal share of health care plan payment

By Grassley Press

Sen. Chuck Grassley has been investigating the state of Minnesota's receipt of a $30 million payment from a Medicaid contractor, a health care plan called UCare.  State officials repeatedly characterized the payment as a "donation" and according to internal emails, took pains to avoid repaying any of the $30 million to the federal taxpayers.  Since Medicaid is a state-federal program, any refund must be divided between the state and federal governments.  Today, state officials notified the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that the state of Minnesota has agreed to return the federal government's share of the $30 million payment.  A U.S. House hearing on Wednesday will explore the situation, and Grassley is scheduled to testify.  Grassley made the following comment on today's development.

"Key state officials portrayed the UCare payment as a bona fide donation unrelated to Medicaid payments and schemed to keep 100 percent of the money.  These officials failed to disclose to my office all correspondence with CMS, including CMS' concern about the donation characterization in a July 2011 letter.  State officials have suggested that CMS knew about the payment and did nothing.  Now, the state officials are giving back the federal share of the $30 million payment, even though they continue to say the payment was a donation.  If the payment was a donation, why return the money?  This isn't the end of my investigation.  Minnesota needs to answer for its actions on the UCare payment.  And the state clearly has structural problems with its Medicaid payments that need examination.  If a state is gaming the federal government to get more out of Medicaid, the state is gaming taxpayers nationwide and ultimately hurting the people who need Medicaid.  Congress needs to make sure this situation isn't duplicated elsewhere."


25 Apr 2012

Grassley, Thune Seek Answers on Federal Loan to Luxury Car Maker

By Grassley Press

Monday, April 23, 2012

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley and Sen. John Thune are asking the Energy Department to explain the selection of a luxury automaker - now described as "troubled" -- for a $529 million federal loan for advanced technology vehicles manufacturing.  The federal government made part of the loan to the Fisker Automotive Corporation, then froze the remaining portion, raising questions about whether the company was vetted properly in the first place.

"The government is responsible for minimizing risk to taxpayers," Grassley said.  "It's important to know what went into the Energy Department's decision to fund the production of expensive luxury vehicles.   The riskiness of loans to companies that may or may not be able to pay them back deserves scrutiny.  The taxpayers can't and shouldn't have to subsidize these decisions."

"There seems to be a troubling pattern developing at the Department of Energy when it comes to providing taxpayer-backed government loans to private companies," Thune said. "Taxpayers have a right to know why their hard-earned money was used in part to back the production of luxury automobiles overseas, especially in a manner that might not have undergone proper review. I hope Secretary Chu will provide Congress with answers about why this loan was granted and to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not at risk."

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 required the creation of a direct loan program from the federal government to car companies through the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive program.   Fisker's two planned vehicles would sell for more than $100,000 and about $50,000.  The high retail prices seem to indicate the vehicles would be out of reach for most Americans, thereby seeming like a questionable choice of investment for a federal program.  Also, the senators questioned whether the company's vehicle production in Finland diminishes the goal of developing advanced vehicle technology to create jobs in the United States.

The text of the Grassley-Thune letter to Energy Secretary Stephen Chu is available here.

-30-
23 Apr 2012

Grassley Questions Secret Service And Inspector General About Investigating Other Advance Teams Involvement

By Grassley Press

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is questioning the United States Secret Service about possible involvement of staff from the White House Communications Agency, and the White House Office of Advance in the Colombian prostitution scandal given the close working relationship among members of advance teams.

 

Grassley's letter to Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan and Acting Inspector General Charles Edwards asks if the Secret Service, in the course of its investigation, is also looking into the possibility that staff from the White House Communications Agency and White House Office of Advance may also be involved in the scandal that has plagued the agency over the last week.  Grassley's questions come following a Senate Judiciary Committee staff briefing provided by the Secret Service.  The Senate Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over the Secret Service.

 

A copy of the text of the letter to the Secret Service Director and the acting Inspector General is below.  A signed copy of the letter can be found here.

 

April 20, 2012

 

Via Electronic Transmission

 

The Honorable Mark J. Sullivan                                Mr. Charles K. Edwards

Director                       Acting Inspector General

U.S. Secret Service                        U.S. Department of Homeland Security

950 H Street, NW                             245 Murray Drive, SW Bldg. 410

Washington, D.C. 20223                          Washington, D.C. 20528

 

Dear Director Sullivan and Acting Inspector General Edwards:

 

I write today regarding the ongoing investigation by the U.S. Secret Service Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (OIG) regarding the recent events surrounding the recall from Colombia of 11 agents and officers after allegations of misconduct arose.  I appreciate the quick action taken by the Secret Service to immediately address these serious allegations by removing the agents and officers from the field, starting an investigation with OPR and the OIG, and by taking swift action to remove individuals involved from federal service.  While these actions indicate the Secret Service is taking these allegations seriously, more work remains to investigate and uncover what occurred, hold those responsible accountable, and to put in place new policies and procedures to prevent future misconduct.

 

I appreciate the briefing provided to my staff on the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Committee) today by representatives of both the Secret Service and OIG.  The briefing included a number of useful details about the investigation thus far and about ongoing plans.  In addition to matters discussed at the briefing, I have a number of additional questions that need to be addressed in writing.  Accordingly, I ask that you provide responses to the following questions.

 

(1)   In addition to the rooms held by Secret Service agents and officers at Hotel Caribe, were there agents or officers staying at other hotels in Cartagena, Colombia?  If so, were records from those other hotels pulled?  If not, will those records be pulled?

 

(2)   It has been reported that in addition to the 11 agents and officers of the Secret Service there were members of the Department of Defense (DOD) involved as well.  It has also been reported that those individuals are currently being reviewed by DOD.  It is my understanding that ordinarily the Secret Service advance team works closely with the White House Communications Agency (WHCA) which is made up of military and civilians.  Further, it is also my understanding that the Secret Service advance teams work closely with the White House Office of Advance and that sometimes the Secret Service may help reserve rooms for representatives from these offices.

 

a.       Did the Secret Service reserve rooms at the Hotel Caribe or other hotels in Cartagena, Colombia for representatives of the WHCA or the White House Advance Team?  If so, have records for overnight guests for those entities been pulled as part of the investigation conducted by OPR or OIG?  If not, why not?

 

b.      In the event neither OPR nor OIG are pulling the records of WHCA or White House Advance Team staffers, who would be reviewing these hotel records to ensure that sensitive information was not compromised by overnight guests from these entities?

 

c.       Were there any rooms shared by Secret Service, WHCA, and the White House Office of Advance for operational or support matters?  If so, were logs for those rooms checked to see if overnight guests were registered?

 

(3)   Please provide an official copy of all written policies and procedures that agents and officers are provided and expected to adhere to while on foreign travel.  This request should include all relevant regulations, rules, procedures, and applicable policy statements that inform agents and officers of restrictions and limitations on their conduct while on official business.

 

Thank you for your prompt attention to this request.  The Committee has jurisdiction over the Secret Service and given the fluid nature of the ongoing investigation I would appreciate your response as soon as possible to address these important questions.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Charles E. Grassley

Ranking Member

Pages

Subscribe & Listen to Reader Podcasts

On Stands Now

 

Tagged Content

Two Ways to Subscribe

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

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

Subscribe!

* indicates required

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

Get 12 issues mailed monthly for $48 per year.

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

Click this link to Subscribe now.